hezekiah jones

Yeah I wonder if Benny heals the body or the "soul."

Anyway, xian, answer the question and we'll debate civil procedure and the rules of evidence elsewhere.

Tabula_rasa

Oh shit, I spoke too soon. So, we've gone from prayer/medicine, to souls, and then the existence of god and now onto law?????

Truce off.... stay on topic, xian.

Tabula_rasa

Wyz_sub10

This is an aside, xian. But for someone who takes frequent exception to the words of others, you sure like to be flippant in your own right.

To the point...

Evidence, in and of itself, does not exist. "Evidence" only exists when it relates to something identified.

There is a pen on my desk. Is it evidence? Well, not unless I am linking it to something - some question or observation.

That is the point being made by Mad Kally.

You point to the sky and say that the sun is evidence of god. I say it is evidence of nuclear fusion at work.

You cannot say "well, it's still evidence", because in so far as it relates to your point, no it isn't. I do not even consider god when looking at the sun. You can try to introduce it as evidence if you try to make that link, but I can dismiss it as irrelevant.

In the trial example, there is a specific question on the table and a tie between the object/testimony and theory. Not *anything* under the sun is presented as evidence, or considered as evidence.

And in law, the courts and police often conclude that certain things are not evidence at all in connection with a theory, and are not even worthy of consideration as such.

orac

You're sure about this?

Didn't the Bible have something about Jesus healing the sick? Or was that just a metaphor?

Yep, the Bible says Jesus cured diseases that we know are caused by bacteria and viruses. Did he pop down to the corner drug store and buy a bottle of antibiotics?

Real christians pray for cures to diseases and healing for injuries.

It's odd that you admit they'ld be better off talking to a doctor.

keyser_soze

Riiiiiight. Maybe a visit from the local witch doctor would be beneficial for this rash I've got? No, I think I will use preparation H. God could heal my ass if he wanted too, but he hasn't so far. Maybe we could all go talk to the 3 year old kid that died of a bowel impaction and took a week to die, whilst an entire congregation prayed for his recovery and refulsed to let the mother take him to a doctor. Oh wait, no we can't really do that, since he's DEAD.

xian

of course i can. The sun is not only evidence of nuclear fusion. It is evidence of a host of other things. Evidence of gravity....evidence of the makeup of other stars....etc.

I point to the universe itself as evidence for God. And you tell me "i cant do that?"

uhhh. sorry, i just did.

i will not call you irrational for looking at that evidence and saying it does not point to God, evidence is always subject to interpretation. The universe exists. The universe is evidence for something. That is our common point of evidence.

you examine it, i examine it. I conclude it points to God. you conclude otherwise.

keyser_soze

And it's not directed at you orac, I think we all know who that bullet was for.

keyser_soze

True, I can see the light from the nuclear reaction
I can gather from the planets rotation around it that is is a source of gravity.....I fail to see the big sign that says "sign of god's creation". Where exactly are you seeing it?

JCS

Ok, but what is this conclusion based on. You keep refering to evidence but you fail to mention what evidence you looked at that lead to your conclusion. I followed easily when you went here, but when you moved to here, you lossed me. You arbitrarily added a component that I haven't been able to follow you to. How/why did you add this extra feature?

You're claiming that I am reaching a different conclusion based on the same evidence, so I ask, what is this evidence that allows us to be so opposite in our assessments?

IMO it seems as if you're adding a component without evidence, but then proclaiming the sum of all the components equal your conclusion thus your evidence. Is that a fair approximation?

Wyz_sub10

Evidence for a great many things, indeed. But I use that example to illustrate that something must be tied to evidence for it to be such. If I am "tying" the sun to nuclear fusion, it is irrelevant that you want to admit it as evidence for god.

The reverse is true, of course, if you want to submit the sun as evidence for god. But that evidence must be submitted first - you must demonstrate a connection.

Evidence in court is *only* such because it has some connection to the issue at hand. You must first validate that connection.

Of course you can submit it as such. That doesn't automatically make it evidence.

But we have to establish that it is evidence, first. Merriam-Webster defines evidence as: "something that furnishes proof".

It seems to me that you are suggesting that anything is considered evidence.

Example - My cat sitting on the bookcase behind me is evidence that I prefer peaches to apples.

Would you say that this is evidence, just really poor and bizarre evidence? I would say that there is no connection, it certainly does not "furnish proof", and is in fact no evidence at all to the issue of whether I prefer peaches to apples.

It cannot be a matter of it being evidence for something. First you must ascertain the issue or event. Then you must associate the evidence.

In your case, begin with the existence of god as the issue you wish to address. Then attempt to demonstrate that the sun is evidence.

Or begin with the existence of the sun. But you would have a difficult time, then, submitting god as evidence.

This is where I see it breaking down, IMO.