Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So far, I haven't seen anybody ask for "extra" evidence. They are asking for evidence that they can then evaluate. Everybody else seems to know what "reality," universe," and "nature" are. You, with the PhD and high IQ, seem to be the only one that doesn't know what these terms mean.
So, just what evidence are you presenting that these things are God? That would need to be evidence that could not also be evidence for reality, universe, or nature. If you say it "could" be, the judge would instruct the jury to ignore your testimony. What have you go?
I have exactly the same evidence you have to call it Nature or universe, or reality, or whatever because we do not have the slightest clue what it actually IS, only that it exists and is the reason WE exist. Your EVIDENCE for the names is the same as mine - NONE! You and the others here are relying on the DEFINITIONS used by consensus and are just too arrogant to admit it. There is no evidence that establishes that it is your amorphous "Nature" or the universe or whatever. That is entirely ad populum convention and consensus, period. I had the same belief prior to my encounter. It is wrong. The human religious beliefs are just as wrong (and FOS) as your atheist beliefs (or unbelief presumptions), IMO.
I have exactly the same evidence you have to call it Nature or universe, or reality, or whatever because we do not have the slightest clue what it actually IS, only that it exists and is the reason WE exist. Your EVIDENCE for the names is the same as mine - NONE! You and the others here are relying on the DEFINITIONS used by consensus and are just too arrogant to admit it. There is no evidence that establishes that it is your amorphous "Nature" or the universe or whatever. That is entirely ad populum convention and consensus, period. I had the same belief prior to my encounter. It is wrong. The human religious beliefs are just as wrong (and FOS) as your atheist beliefs (or unbelief presumptions), IMO.
I said nothing about my beliefs. I pointed out that you have offered no evidence to support your claim. That continues. Most people know what reality, nature, and the universe are. Only you seem to be confused about that. That you seem unable to understand that while claiming superior intelligence would be quite amusing if it was a one off, but you've failed to figure how simple definitions work for over a decade.
I said nothing about my beliefs. I pointed out that you have offered no evidence to support your claim. That continues. Most people know what reality, nature, and the universe are. Only you seem to be confused about that. That you seem unable to understand that while claiming superior intelligence would be quite amusing if it was a one off, but you've failed to figure how simple definitions work for over a decade.
You should change your screen name because you are flying under a false flag if you believe the bold. I have the SAME evidence you do for your preferred labels that call it something different than God by consensus and convention, period. Definitions are devoid of empirical value because they just arbitrarily define the unknown for convenience. That the whole world accepts the arbitrary definitions is irrelevant ad populum.
So far, I haven't seen anybody ask for "extra" evidence. They are asking for evidence that they can then evaluate. Everybody else seems to know what "reality," universe," and "nature" are. You, with the PhD and high IQ, seem to be the only one that doesn't know what these terms mean.
So, just what evidence are you presenting that these things are God? That would need to be evidence that could not also be evidence for reality, universe, or nature. If you say it "could" be, the judge would instruct the jury to ignore your testimony. What have you go?
I have asked for extra evidence, because Mystic is making an extra claim. Both atheists and Mystic admit something exists, but Mystic's extra claim is that existence is also a god. Therefore he needs to provide extra evidence for that extra claim. So far, his arguments have been both silly and they also apply to existence as not a god.
I have exactly the same evidence you have to call it Nature or universe, or reality, or whatever because we do not have the slightest clue what it actually IS, only that it exists and is the reason WE exist. Your EVIDENCE for the names is the same as mine - NONE! You and the others here are relying on the DEFINITIONS used by consensus and are just too arrogant to admit it. There is no evidence that establishes that it is your amorphous "Nature" or the universe or whatever. That is entirely ad populum convention and consensus, period. I had the same belief prior to my encounter. It is wrong. The human religious beliefs are just as wrong (and FOS) as your atheist beliefs (or unbelief presumptions), IMO.
You are also claiming existence is conscious (or trying to sneak this idea in without evidence). If it is not conscious, why call it a god? That would make the term 'god' meaningless.
This is the incomprehensible arguing position of Theists, faddits and cultists. Incomprehensible because they know very well the database of validated science, reliable engineering and everyday experience of how things work.
They know this, but in arguing theism and god -claims, they argue as though it doesn't exist and there is no default - basis (the materialist default) that underpins skeptic questioning of unvalidated claims.
I can only put this down to Blind or blinkered Faith, which for example is why, although they know, deep down that prayer doesn't work, they will not recognize this. In the same way when they try to excuse God's bad deeds they are applying human morals in judgement of God's deeds into good and bad, but to be fair, not many of the experts and savants seem to have realised that one.
You're giving them too much credit.
I grew up with a guy who was in very conservative, fire-breathing freewill and primitive Baptist churches from the time we were toddlers. We grew up in the same community, went to the same churches for awhile, and have a similar blue collar background.
He is the very same person at 37 that he was at 7. His theology today is exactly the same as how we grew up. While he did go to college and actually works in the mental health field now, he still feels that mental illness stems from demonic influences. He really has no empathy for others aside from preaching to them about salvation.
The guy isn't an idiot. He's had opportunities to learn better, but at some level, has decided to continue to marinate in the same beliefs he's had forever. He's never stepped outside of his comfort zone, and never really looked at things from the perspectives of people who don't have the same views as he does.
I grew up with a guy who was in very conservative, fire-breathing freewill and primitive Baptist churches from the time we were toddlers. We grew up in the same community, went to the same churches for awhile, and have a similar blue collar background.
He is the very same person at 37 that he was at 7. His theology today is exactly the same as how we grew up. While he did go to college and actually works in the mental health field now, he still feels that mental illness stems from demonic influences. He really has no empathy for others aside from preaching to them about salvation.
The guy isn't an idiot. He's had opportunities to learn better, but at some level, has decided to continue to marinate in the same beliefs he's had forever. He's never stepped outside of his comfort zone, and never really looked at things from the perspectives of people who don't have the same views as he does.
The bolded is, from my perspective, the key to so many problems of religionists.
The bolded is, from my perspective, the key to so many problems of religionists.
Once you are fully immersed in the "comfort zone" of believing in God, for many it's not only a comfortable place to stay but a scary proposition to even question, so mentally you just don't go there...
No. Juries do not. I've been on several juries. Quite a large variety of stuff can be presented as evidence. The lawyers can present anything that falls within the rules of evidence. It's up to the jury to decide what weight to give the evidence and what to accept and what to reject. On a medical malpractice case, we decided to ignore the evidence from both expert witnesses.
Evidence is used to support a claim. It is never presented as evidence of "something." For example, a claim was made that a doctor failed to adequately care for a patient. First we were told what the standard of care required him to do. Then the defense lawyer showed us the medical record where the doctor had written (poorly) that the standard procedure had been performed. Nobody ever claimed that the evidence might have actually meant something else.
So, you can claim that a rainbow is evidence that there is a leprechaun with a pot of gold at the end. If I'm on the jury, I won't believe it unless you bring in the pot of gold or the leprechaun and put the leprechaun under oath and ask him to testify about the rainbow. The existence of the rainbow (evidence) does not prove the claim that there is a leprechaun.
As many times as this claim about the real world being God are simply claims being made without any evidence. If a lawyer stood up and said "How the Hell do you know it isn't evidence of God?" the judge would tell the lawyer that he is out of order and to take a seat before he is declared in contempt of court for such an outrageous claim, provided with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Why anybody thinks that evidence for God is going to be found is something that is completely baffling to me. Faith is believing something for which there is no evidence. (Or, as Mark Twain is claimed to have said, "Faith is believing something you know ain't so.")
I love the example of a judge and jury, because it provides some hope that with more than one person there is the good chance the combination of all jurors and judge will draw proper conclusion based on the evidence presented. There is usually no one claiming that evidence is other than what it is. A gun is a gun. Fingerprints are fingerprints and a dead body is a dead body. No one claiming other than what that evidence can or does demonstrate. No reasonable person anyway...
It would be so fun to watch some of the people making claims in this forum presenting their case to such a jury and judge.
"Your honor. The gun is not actually a gun. The fingerprints are not fingerprints. The dead body is actually not dead. You are me and I am you! I rest my case since all of this is self-evident! If you and the jury don't agree or understand then something is wrong with all of you."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
