FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-06-2003, 10:04 PM   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 2,209
Default LOL!!!

Christian: A, B and C are evidences for God's existence.

Atheist: D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, W, X, Y and Z are evidences for God's nonexistence.

Christian: Just because God doesn't act the way you want him to act doesn't mean he doesn't exist.


Silent Dave is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 10:05 PM   #32
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 20
Default

Define D-Z and we'll go on from there.

-Perhaps
PerhapsItsTruth is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 10:07 PM   #33
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 2,209
Default

Well then you haven't seen what I have, have you? I rest my case on that one.


Dave
Silent Dave is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 10:17 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 845
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by PerhapsItsTruth
Okay, evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Well then, let’s use some logic and reason here. Say my friend's mother has a terrible heart problem (true story), so bad, in fact, that one, she can't walk anywhere without immediately being out of breath, two, the doctors just tell her to get over it, she's going to die, nothing they can do. Well, my friend goes to church, is told to pray, and immediately after they pray, the heart problem disappears. They go in the next morning, no sign at all of any heart problem at all. So, by logic and reason, by any I know of, that is evidence. If you say it isn't, why?
Whether people think it's evidence or not, that's really impressive. So impressive, in fact, that I take it seriously.

So you won't mind, then, if I ask this woman and her doctors what happened? "Testimony of two or three witnesses" and all that. I'm being totally serious. I can send you any kind of character reference you want to show I'm not some kook. Just e-mail me or PM me. I'm sincere, not sarcastic at all. If what you say is true, it's worth verifying and publicizing. If the doctors back up your story, we're talking front-page news, and imagine how many people would be drawn to God because of it!

Just let me know if I can help.
Muad'Dib is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 10:18 PM   #35
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 20
Default

Okay, don't define them then, no worries. Just loss to gibberish. Anyway, time for some sleep, 12am here. Talk later.
PerhapsItsTruth is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 10:47 PM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,242
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by PerhapsItsTruth
Anyway, time for some sleep, 12am here. Talk later.
Okay.

When you get back, how about actually providing the evidence Muad'Dib requested.
Jeremy Pallant is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 11:38 PM   #37
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 70
Default

PerhapsItsTruth,

I will concede that if (big "if") the way you describes your mother's disease and healing is correct, it is a very powerful testimony. I will agree that while it is not solid evidence, as a personal experience it is understandable that such an event strengthens already existing faith.

The rest of us, however, have not seen anything else than your say-so. It is second-hand, hearsay and anecdotal evidence.

I am a bit more worried about the other things you say, however. You seem to effectively deny the possibility of reliable knowledge. By reducing everything to "faith" you seem to argue that any belief or idea is as valid as any other.

However, radical skepticism is really very incompatible with Christianity. That is why, when I hear that line of argument from believers, I think it's merely a convenient ad hoc position. Believers see they have no solid supporting evidence, and there are lots of solid evidence against their position, so total relativism and denial of knowledge becomes a convenient shelter for irrational superstition.


- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy
Jan Haugland is offline  
Old 03-07-2003, 01:31 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
Default

See, now it's threads like this that I find entertaining. Someone thinks he has a revelation and for the life of him can't even perceive his own idiocy even when everyone is going to the ends of the earth to make the faulty arguments as obvious as can be. That's entertainment, and it's even better when that person takes on a superior, holier-than-thou attitude. Post on, Perhaps..., post on.
Lobstrosity is offline  
Old 03-07-2003, 02:09 AM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 5,932
Default

PerhapsItsTruth
Quote:
Well, my friend goes to church, is told to pray, and immediately after they pray, the heart problem disappears. They go in the next morning, no sign at all of any heart problem at all. So, by logic and reason, by any I know of, that is evidence.
You call this evidence?

You really believe that the only possible explanation for your friend's mother's recovery was the praying? Is it completely beyond your intellect to conceive of any of the myriad possible rational explanations for this woman's apparent recovery?

And you find it "rather humorous, and sad, as I watch all the ignorant give their reasons".

Quote:
If you say it isn't, why?
For it to qualify as evidence it needs to be repeatable. I suggest you and your pal go back to the church do some more praying and come up with a cure for heart disease, cancer or AIDS. Then we can start talking about evidence.

Chris
The AntiChris is offline  
Old 03-07-2003, 02:58 AM   #40
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: 'Merica dammit
Posts: 40
Default

originally posted by PerhapsIt'sTruth
Quote:
Now only one thing left. Prove that it's a negative, then I'll say, "Okay, you don't have to prove the negative."
You're kidding, right? You really don't understand how proving there is no god is proving a negative?

Proving god exists=a positive claim, you posit a god exists. Positive in this sense means a thing exists, can you see how "positive" can mean this?

Disproving a god exists= negating the claim above. Anyone can see there can be no evidence for a negative, nor can there be evidence of a nonexistent thing, which is why you or any theist cannot provide evidence of any kind. Negative in this case means a thing does not exist.

Do you understand the Burden of Proof concept?

Now it's time for you to say "Okay, you don't have to prove the negative."negating (which I don't, regardless of your opinion)

These are some of the most basic concepts in the entire logic spectrum. Your satirical, derisive sense of humor seems so witty compared to the blandness of this question. Odd that is.
AmericanHeretic is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:10 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.