Hey!
Really?? You must not get out much. I think this is pretty standard. It’s really only a stretch if you believe the human mind can comprehend everything, even without experiencing it directly.
Common knowledge of what group of people? It doesn’t defy the common knowledge of many people I know. They’re only fantasy laws if they are not true. I mean, I could just as easily and justifiably call your law that there is no God a fantasy law.
that‘s a false dilemma
So is Nature
That is the story of my life!
I was expressing a personal hope
A scientist doesn’t rely on anecdotal evidence
We call them Protestants
This would assume that you have have all the knowledge. That you are infintely knowledgible or even all of humanity combined since man appeared on earth is infinitely knowledgible. This simply is not the case.
Here’s the problem with this: there are people out there whose knowledge does contain empirical proof of the natural mechanics of flight. So we can say that man can not fly by salt naturally. Now, supernaturally man could fly by salt. I realize that the existence of the supernatural is something that an atheist will deny. Can you present a proof that the supernatural does not exist? There is enough evidence of the supernatural that it would meet the preponderance of the evidence standard in any court of law.
Hahaha, well, we do like the phrase, “with God all things are possible.”
You should. We’re legitAnd to every other statement: Lmfao, i love catholics…
)
Of course, I’ve read Douglas Adams after all
Yes, we’re deliciousAnd to every other statement: Lmfao, i love catholics…
) butt off
This is not the way the game is played. Rather than atheists, you should refer to sceptics. The sceptics do not deny that the supernatural exists, but to be convinced of its existence they demand evidence that meets their standard of proof, i.e. cold, hard, physical evidence. But as it happens, physical evidence implies a physical phenomenon, thereby transforming the supernatural into the previously unknown natural.
That does not speak well of the court’s evidentiary standards.
Ahh yes. It was definitely good to stick to the initials in this case. Let’s try and keep it rated G on these threads :getholy: .Lmfao–> Laughing My **beep (Catholic censored word
. Do atheists think all Catholics–even guys like Aquinas–are ignorant of their arguments (granted, many are)?
Well, think of it like this. Preponderance of the evidence just means more than 50% (maybe this is a scary standard for our civil courts, but it’s what we’ve got!). So basically, all you need is most likely. Now, all we need to show is one instance of supernaturalness (is that a word?). Anyway, we can look at the 66 miraculous healings at Lourdes that have been scientifically verified. We can look at the events at Fatima. We can look at the tilma of Guadalupe. Let’s take Lourdes. You can’t deny that more than 50% of the evidence points to supernatural activity here. The healings here have been scientifically tested before and after by objective doctors. Therefore, a court would find by a preponderance of the evidence that the supernatural exists.
Tulkas said:
:
I feel the exact same way sometimes, except from the other side of the fense
.
I’m sure our ways have changed at some point in our lives, at least mine have.
Hmmm, I have never heard of someone who has searched with a truly open heart (putting that pride down is TOUGH) their whole life and come up empty, I mean to the deathbed. This is the great dilemma though for an atheist (or anyone for that matter). It goes against all principle to believe something you “know” is not true, for you the possibility God exists. We have to somehow be able to put down that “know” and admit we don’t know. That’s what I did, although I was definitely not in the position of an Atheist so I’m probably not a big help to you. I was a born Catholic, but there were aspects of the Faith I believed were just flat out wrong. I knew better. Well, it took a lot, but I came to find out I didn’t know better.