Could God eliminate all pain and suffering? why didn't he?

[MindOverMatter]

did you actually post a refutation of my statement?

It is as clear as day that i did!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think I can see where you’re going here - ultimately it will boil down to you asserting that if my life is rational, then that rationality must have come from an ultimate rational being, because it couldn’t have come from irrational particles and processes? Am I right? We’ve been there before Tony, and I get tired of pointing out that your conclusions are based on bare assertions and have no evidential justification.

But I might be wrong about your direction, in which case: “Yes” and, “Oooh, tricky one. It appears rational to me, as ultimately a product of my environment.”

id be interested in a defense of your personal definition of the word evidence, because in the dictionary it doesnt mention empirical. if that is true than why do you believe in animal emotions, though there be no evidence as you say, and what about a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe? little hard to have evidence for that under your definition isnt it? contradictory at best. the standard of evidence for us is one thing, for you it is another, how is that not a hypocritical position to hold?

 

[wanstronian]

The absence of a Creator is not the absence of “something”. Belief in the absence of a Creator does not explain anything: it replaces an explanation of the universe with a void. Unless it is supported by an alternative explanation it is worthless.

No. This is wrong. Firstly, a ‘creator’ is not an ‘explanation,’ it’s just an answer. Secondly, the absence of evidence for an alternative to a creator does not automatically give the ‘creator’ answer special dispensation to be true by default. For one who has recently criticised my logic, you should not be making such fallacious statements.

There are diverse aspects of reality like persons, consciousness, creativity, free will, morality, the laws of nature, development and purposeful activity which are unified by the concept of a Creator. This is not a conjecture but fact. Without the concept of a Creator those aspects of reality are not unified.

Well, you’ve moved from the **fact **of a creator to the concept of a creator. I admit, the concept unifies those aspects. So could any number of other made up ‘explanations.’ A concept that happens to work is not evidence. If it were, it would be a fact that the sun orbits the earth. But it’s something of a breakthrough that you seem to be admitting that the existence of God is conjecture.

The evidence is the orderliness of nature and creative, rational, purposeful activity for which no other explanation has been given.

Again, the absence of an explanation does not mean an arbitrary answer is correct.

An infinite regress is less satisfactory than an Ultimate Reality which explains the universe in terms of its highest aspects than its lowest, i.e. persons rather than particles.

An infinite regress is unsatisfactory, not least because the human mind cannot really comprehend ‘infinity.’ And God, if that’s what you mean by an Ultimate Reality, is also unsatisfactory because it doesn’t explain a damn thing. It’s just, “God did it, now stop asking questions.”

What is your alternative explanation? Do you regard the universe and its contents as self-explanatory?

If you regard the absence of an explanation to mean that something is self-explanatory, then there is something wrong with you. I don’t need an alternative explanation, for the reasons stated above. Did God do everything you don’t understand?

If logic presupposes rationality and there is no alternative explanation of rationality it is follows that rationality presupposes a Rational Being.

Utterly not true. Again you are saying that any explanation is better than admitting you don’t know. Are you in second grade?

If that is the case what is your belief structure?

How it that relevant? You made an assertion, I pointed out that it’s an assertion that only makes sense if you happen to already believe it’s true. Do you not see the circularity of your statements?

Your source of rationality?

I don’t know. Do you take this as evidence that God exists?

Your precise words: “He didn’t because he doesn’t exist, x just happens,” is by far the most efficient** answer**." How can “x just happens” be an efficient answer? How does it advance our knowledge?

As I have stated, and you have clearly ignored, my intention was to state that there was no ‘intent’ behind x. If you will not read my posts, how do you expect to sound intelligent in your responses?

How does it explain rationality and purpose?

It doesn’t, why should it?

What new information does it give us? What opportunity does it offer for research?

It gives us an x for which we can seek the cause. Not the purpose, but the cause.

How can it be verified or falsified?

Hopefully now you understand.

How precisely is the universe more efficient without a Creator? Does being irrational and purposeless make it more efficient?

No, they’re just side effects of a non-manufactured universe.

Why did you juxtapose two statements in one sentence if they are unrelated? You obviously believe both statements are true. What precisely is the relation between them? How do you proceed from one to the other?

You are being deliberately obtuse here. Juxtaposition does not imply a causal link, and I have clarified on more than one occasion. If you are just going to cherry-pick my responses then I repeat the charge I have laid against you every time you have done it - you are dishonest.

 

[MindOverMatter]

No. This is wrong. Firstly, a ‘creator’ is not an ‘explanation,’ it’s just an answer. Secondly, the absence of evidence for an alternative to a creator does not automatically give the ‘creator’ answer special dispensation to be true by default.

It seem to me that given the impossibility of an intelligible physical cause that doesn’t violate logic, there is certainly reason to transcend physical explanations. If we want to explain the laws of physics, we must transcend the laws of physics, and this is a true and honest venture whether we agree that it will lead to the God of the bible or not. Unwarranted uses of brute fact is not going to reflect an intelligent or reflective mind.

 

[tonyrey]

                           Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5659318#post5659318)                 
             *Would you agree that your reply implies you believe your life is valuable .. and that other lives are valuable? If so, do you believe your judgment is arbitrary or rational?*

I think I can see where you’re going here - ultimately it will boil down to you asserting that if my life is rational, then that rationality must have come from an ultimate rational being, because it couldn’t have come from irrational particles and processes? Am I right? We’ve been there before Tony, and I get tired of pointing out that your conclusions are based on bare assertions and have no evidential justification.

Can we confine ourselves to the issue at stake without speculating about motives or consequences? I think we should follow the argument wherever it leads us… At the moment I am more concerned with the value of life than rationality.

But I might be wrong about your direction, in which case: “Yes” and, “Oooh, tricky one. It appears rational to me, as ultimately a product of my environment.”

Do you mean that the value of life is just a matter of opinion? Or is there a reason why life is valuable?

 

[wanstronian]

and then meet dozens of other specifics? yeah that happened, person place, name heritage, future events, manner of death, manner of burial, and on and on. there are way too many to fight.

Well in that case, one of two scenarios is true: either these prophecies are accurate, verified, substantiated and fulfilled, and everyone in the world who doesn’t believe in the Christian God is mad; or what you hold to be incontrovertible evidence, isn’t.

i dont need to prove it wasnt a conspiracy, if that is your assertion the burden of evidence is on you

Again, a theist challenging an atheist to prove a negative because he is unable to prove the positive.

, but i find it hard to believe that the apostles would make up stories and then suffer decades of deprivation, terror, and imprisonment, just for a good laugh. if your saying a third party did it, what evidence do you have for such a thing?

I’m not saying they did, I’m saying there’s no evidence that they didn’t. As you’re not using capitalisation, I assume you are not referring to Jesus’ alleged twelve disciples, but merely the missionaries of the church? It’s not easy to decide which rebuttal to use unless I know whether you’re talking about The Apostles, or just the apostles.

no, you just dodged, and now that math is involved your going to dodge again.

That would be unusual, I’m pretty good at maths. I know your arguments don’t add up! (sorry - had to.)
yeah, you just refused too look at the evidenceYou failed to provide any - we could argue this back and forth for ever, I guess we need to decide what constitutes evidence. Here’s an adjective - ‘empirical.’ Now, what have you got?

, you want to be an atheist,

Desire doesn’t enter into it.

the math challenges that notion in an almost irrefutable manner. i bet you will find any excuse not to review the mathematical evidence, or the prophecies from which they are drawn.

Okay, I’ve had a look at the maths, by which you presumably mean the chronology. It seems to add up, which makes it quite convincing if you accept a couple of premises: 1. That you want it to be true; 2. That you accept that the NT could not possibly have been written to intentionally fulfill these prophecies. It’s not evidence.

ive read dissertations that attempt to soften or deny the PSR, funny almost all of them are written in view of atheism, though i think the attacks show atheisms desire instead of rational nature. however, the scientific method relies on it, so im not impressed by those who would deny it.

Continuing to deny a sensible definition of ‘Sufficient’ does not make it any less correct.

if things happen for no reason, then where are all these miraculous events? oh wait, there is no suchh thing as miracles, but not everything needs a cause?

You’ve lost me now, I’m afraid.

. im being facetious, but the positions are contradictory.

Nope.

ill stick with the scientific method on this one.

If only you would!

regardless of a few attempts to claim its not so, there is simply no empirical evidence against it. and stop implying some knowledge of the PSR, you didnt even know what it was the other day.

sigh back to that one are we? You’re such a child. *You *may just accept a dogmatic answer, but I prefer to expand my mind, so I’ve been reading up. The PSR in its hardest forms - one of which is the one you extoll - has been dismissed by virtually everybody except hardline theists who want to use it for the same reason you do.

this is where a little research on the contingency argument would help out. you just admitted G-d inadvertantly, who is the necessary being.

Of course I didn’t you fool, I stated that for beings to exist, beings must exist. That’s like saying for butter to exist, butter must exist.

though its interesting that we exist is sufficient explanation, another violation of the PSR, and if it isnt please provide me the specific reason.

Gladly - because your interpretation of ‘sufficient’ is wrong for the purpose of this discussion.

and as i pointed out on that thread you dont know what evidence means, your personal definition of all evidence is empirical isnt the actual definition

It’s the only definition by which we can prove something beyond reasonable doubt. So it’s the right definition for a conversation where someone is categorically stating as fact, the existence of something.

or how you actually operate oh believer of animal emotions and unevidenced scientific explanations for the creation of the universe.

I’ve never claimed to know for definite either of those things. Now you’re resorting to misdirection and misrepresentation in a last-ditch attempt to show I’m wrong.

you asked.

But I’m none the wiser for your ‘clarification!’

because i know where that path leads been there.

Well you don’t strike me as much of a role model for common sense. But who knows, you may be right.

as too evidence we have shown you

Oh yes, I was forgetting all that ‘evidence’

, your personal definition dont mean jack, becuase you dont follow it either.

You think it’s just my personal definition? Then you are delusional about the real world as well as the spiritual one!

again, you say assertion, but you refuse to reseacrch the argument, thats the wannabe aspect, you arent willing to do the work. i think you dont want to face the music, dodge, and dodge again.

I’ll do you a favour - point me towards your favourite link for the argument from contingency, and I’ll read it with an open mind and let you know my honest thoughts.

ffthey generally agree, its not a he said she said situation at all.

Hmm, they are all first person accounts, written and verified independently? Statements verified by a document analyser? That’s what is necessary to prove anything today.

yes several are signed, all were witnessed by the Church and by Judaism for the OT

Who of course, had no interest in them being taken as absolute truth!

unfortunately, no, but as they died for their beliefs one can make the dying declaration argument. especially as these testimonies all substantially agree

With one major difference: the persons to whom these individuals make their dying declarations, are also not around to testify. That makes it hearsay.

no the statement would be, “i saw car salesman kill the victim” and it would be a bunch of statements.

I’ve already dismissed this argument.

indeed the universe even fits your personal defintion of evidence it is after all empirical.

I’m sorry? You’re surely not saying this proves anything?

 

[wanstronian]

And it is the most illogical atheistic claim!

Why so?

 

[wanstronian]

If there was a cause of the universe, how do you call it?

One theory is the singularity leading to the Big Bang. It’s just a theory, I don’t know if it’s true. I suspect you are aware of this, so with respect, maybe you should get to the point if you have one?

 

[wanstronian]

It is as clear as day that i did!

Okay, reading it again, I infer that your refutation stems from the rather shallow argument that reality cannot account for itself. Clearly that proves nothing.

Your other point is that one can infer consciousness in someone else without empirical evidence that they are conscious, your implication being that we can infer the existence of God without empirical evidence. The difference, quite obviously, is that we can, should we so choose, empirically document the results of consciousness in others and clearly observe a direct causal link. This is where the inference argument for God falls over.

 

[wanstronian]

id be interested in a defense of your personal definition of the word evidence, because in the dictionary it doesnt mention empirical. if that is true than why do you believe in animal emotions, though there be no evidence as you say, and what about a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe? little hard to have evidence for that under your definition isnt it? contradictory at best. the standard of evidence for us is one thing, for you it is another, how is that not a hypocritical position to hold?

You’re right, the dictionary doesn’t mention empirical. Your assumption that the definition most appropriate to discussions of absolute proof is ‘my personal’ definition is rather petulant. It’s a similar level of integrity to that required in law courts - although the process by which that integrity is arrived at is different.

Personally I believe in animal emotion for a couple of reasons: Firstly because I believe in evolution, and from that perspective it seems reasonable to believe that animals have at least some of the non-tangible traits that humans do; Secondly, by observation one can infer from the actions, attitude and expression of an animal, that they appear to show the specific emotion one might expect for a given situation.
Neither of these constitute fact, nevertheless they are reasonable assumptions given the level of experiment one can undertake. No such observable experiments can be performed on the God hypothesis.

I don’t have a scientific explanation for the beginning of the Universe. There are theories, the main one being the Big Bang from singularity. Nobody knows whether these theories are correct. But observation shows that the universe is expanding over time, so it’s logical to be able to reverse that expansion and arrive at a point in time when the universe was infinitely small. The question becomes, “Where did that singularity come from?” - a question clearly not satisfactorily answered by, “God did it.”

My standards are consistent, it is your ‘evidence’ that is lacking.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Is there any page in the bible that doesn’t, in some way, offer something that could be seen as a panacea for doubt? Coincidences are more common than most people think!

Opened the book a few times at random just now…

Joshua taking a city and talk about not being like Rahab a prostitute

“You will drink your sister’s cup, a cup large and deep;
It will bring scorn and derision, for it holds so much…
You will dash it to pieces and tear your breasts.”

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.”

“The western boundary is the coastline of the Great Sea”.

“Moab has been at rest from her youth, like wine left on its dregs.”

One of those is slightly encouraging. The others, hmmmm. The Bible ain’t exactly a self-help book, buddy.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Okay, reading it again, I infer that your refutation stems from the rather shallow argument that reality cannot account for itself. Clearly that proves nothing.

Assertion number one with no counterpoint.

The difference, quite obviously, is that we can, should we so choose, empirically document the results of consciousness in others and clearly observe a direct causal link.

Wrong. We can’t prove the existence of an objective consciousness using the empirical method. You know that you are conscious, and then you make the assumption that there are other conscious beings in reality like you, and this assumption is based on the observation that other objects move towards purposeful ends like you do. We assume that there are other people, based on logical inference, and then we use the empirical method to measure the link between the conscious mind and the brain. Please get your facts straight before arrogantly dismissing peoples arguments.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well in that case, one of two scenarios is true: either these prophecies are accurate, verified, substantiated and fulfilled, and everyone in the world who doesn’t believe in the Christian God is mad; or what you hold to be incontrovertible evidence, isn’t.

if they know the odds and dont believe they are ignoring the evidence. and yeah, ignoring proof of G-d just to keep some cherished idea is pretty much mad as a hatter.

Again, a theist challenging an atheist to prove a negative because he is unable to prove the positive.

what? your the one asserting it could be a conspriracy. thats your burden of proof.

I’m not saying they did, I’m saying there’s no evidence that they didn’t. As you’re not using capitalisation, I assume you are not referring to Jesus’ alleged twelve disciples, but merely the missionaries of the church? It’s not easy to decide which rebuttal to use unless I know whether you’re talking about The Apostles, or just the apostles.

so you have a list of rebuttals? like ive been saying for awhile now? and yes i should have capitalized, but that neither here nor there, the qualifier was the people giving testimony no?

That would be unusual, I’m pretty good at maths. I know your arguments don’t add up! (sorry - had to.)
yeah, you just refused too look at the evidence

You failed to provide any - we could argue this back and forth for ever, I guess we need to decide what constitutes evidence. Here’s an adjective - ‘empirical.’ Now, what have you got?

how about the actual definition of evidence and not the one you dont even apply to yourself? the word empirical isnt in the dictionary definition of evidence after all.

Desire doesn’t enter into it.

then why dont you just hit the evidence dead on rather than every dodge in the book? oh wait you have a personal definition, yeah right…DODGE!

Okay, I’ve had a look at the maths, by which you presumably mean the chronology. It seems to add up, which makes it quite convincing if you accept a couple of premises: 1. That you want it to be true; 2. That you accept that the NT could not possibly have been written to intentionally fulfill these prophecies. It’s not evidence.

where did you get the idea it has something to do with the chronology? here is the math.

didgodlie.com/odds.html
messianic-prophecy.net/Messianic-Prophecy.htm
star.mrklingon.org/ (also has a downloadable odds calculator)
excellentevidence.com/pdf/Odds%20of%20Jesus%20Fulfilling%2048%20Prophecies.pdf (this one is just for illustration.)
preceptaustin.org/messianic_prophecies.htm

there are many, many more, so as you furiously search for refutations, there is only one, conspiracy theories, ask yourself if you really want to be an atheist bad enough to ignore the math.

Continuing to deny a sensible definition of ‘Sufficient’ does not make it any less correct.

you like to define things in ways that support your position, how about we stick withe actual definitions huh? as to the PSR, you cant define your way out of it. just another dodge.

You’ve lost me now, I’m afraid.

if the PSR is incorrect, then where is evidence, you know things happening for no reason, or insufficient reason? where is this expressed in the universe?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nope. If only you would!

DODGE!

sigh back to that one are we? You’re such a child. *You *may just accept a dogmatic answer, but I prefer to expand my mind, so I’ve been reading up. The PSR in its hardest forms - one of which is the one you extoll - has been dismissed by virtually everybody except hardline theists who want to use it for the same reason you do.

i read dissertations on the subject, so cite your sources. i did ask for sources didnt i?

Of course I didn’t you fool, I stated that for beings to exist, beings must exist. That’s like saying for butter to exist, butter must exist.

…yeah…

Gladly - because your interpretation of ‘sufficient’ is wrong for the purpose of this discussion.

DODGE! why is it wrong for the purposes of this discussion? how about we stick to real definitions and not your personal ones. if 2+2=4 then 2+1 is insufficient, or if a galss is to be filled, you must have sufficient water to fill it. so your personal ideas of suffeciency dont come into play.

It’s the only definition by which we can prove something beyond reasonable doubt. So it’s the right definition for a conversation where someone is categorically stating as fact, the existence of something.

funny, but thats not close to true, people are convicted of murder without a body, apparently empirical evidence isnt the standard. whats that about animal emotions again?

I’ve never claimed to know for definite either of those things. Now you’re resorting to misdirection and misrepresentation in a last-ditch attempt to show I’m wrong.

the official dictionary definition proved you wrong. im pointing out that you dont apply that standard of evidence to yourself. or even to the empirical evidence we have the universe.

But I’m none the wiser for your ‘clarification!’

then what more do you need to know?

Well you don’t strike me as much of a role model for common sense. But who knows, you may be right.

maybe, maybe not. its up to G-d.

Oh yes, I was forgetting all that ‘evidence’ You think it’s just my personal definition? Then you are delusional about the real world as well as the spiritual one!

read the dictionary definition yet? seems im right, which makes you what?..thats right…wrong

I’ll do you a favour - point me towards your favourite link for the argument from contingency, and I’ll read it with an open mind and let you know my honest thoughts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_contingency#The_argument_from_contingency

lets start with an easy one. the basic refutations are known.

Hmm, they are all first person accounts, written and verified independently? Statements verified by a document analyser? That’s what is necessary to prove anything today.

hardly, that just sets another impossible standard, do you have this information on the magna carta? maybe they just made that up, how about the american constitution? or the moonlanding, are you sure that wasnt shot on a soundstage? when you set impossible standards you better be sure you stick to them too, problem is you havent been.

Who of course, had no interest in them being taken as absolute truth!

true, they would be, but then they suffered for them, if they werent true what was the point of that? does a man suffer for a lie or just tell the truth, common sense kills that objection.

With one major difference: the persons to whom these individuals make their dying declarations, are also not around to testify.That makes it hearsay.

they wrote it down, that makes it a statement.

I’ve already dismissed this argument.

no, you made a poor analogy of a hearsay situation instead of an eyewitness situation, not dismissable at all. especially not a few dozen statements. by people unknown to eachother with no motivation to lie.

I’m sorry? You’re surely not saying this proves anything?

yes i am saying such. lets start with contingency, then move to the others, and we can discuss any science you wnat to also.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re right, the dictionary doesn’t mention empirical. Your assumption that the definition most appropriate to discussions of absolute proof is ‘my personal’ definition is rather petulant. It’s a similar level of integrity to that required in law courts - although the process by which that integrity is arrived at is different.

whats this absolute proof? unless we are talking some forms of mathematical proofs, no such thing exists. beyond a reasonable doubt is fine by me, but i dont know what it means in the scottish legal system. i can only assume it means the same as the american system.

Personally I believe in animal emotion for a couple of reasons: Firstly because I believe in evolution, and from that perspective **it seems reasonable **to believe that animals have at least some of the non-tangible traits that humans do; Secondly, by observation one can infer from the actions, attitude and expression of an animal, **that they appear to show **the specific emotion one might expect for a given situation.
Neither of these constitute fact, nevertheless they are reasonable assumptions given the level of experiment one can undertake. No such observable experiments can be performed on the God hypothesis.

excuse me? the bolded parts arent the standard of evidence you would use for the evidence in favor of G-d.in fact both phrases amount to faith based on your opinion. thats a laughably hypocritical position to hold on the standard of evidence for your beliefs and our beliefs.

I don’t have a scientific explanation for the beginning of the Universe. There are theories, the main one being the Big Bang from singularity. Nobody knows whether these theories are correct. But observation shows that the universe is expanding over time, so it’s logical to be able to reverse that expansion and arrive at a point in time when the universe was infinitely small.

how is it logical? by your standard you require empirical evidence, there is none for anything prior to planck time, its reasonable, but thats not your standard, yours is “empirical”. fact is we dont know there was any singularity at all, it could just as well have been G-d. imagine youre a fish looking at the surface of a pond at night. you could see the ripples, or expansion, from a central point, and it could be a kids finger as easily as a rock. without empirical evidence you have no way to prefer one cause over another.

The question becomes, “Where did that singularity come from?” - a question clearly not satisfactorily answered by, “God did it.”

what singularity? guess what, you cant prove there was one. neither can any physicist.

My standards are consistent, it is your ‘evidence’ that is lacking.

as i just shredded the idea that your standards are consistent. you know the phrases **it seems reasonable ** and **that they appear to show ** in comparison to your insistence that empirical is the adjective to use. you may as well give it up and use a reasonable defintion of evidence so we can move on to issues of validity.

 

[wanstronian]

Opened the book a few times at random just now…

Joshua taking a city and talk about not being like Rahab a prostitute

“You will drink your sister’s cup, a cup large and deep;
It will bring scorn and derision, for it holds so much…
You will dash it to pieces and tear your breasts.”

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.”

“The western boundary is the coastline of the Great Sea”.

“Moab has been at rest from her youth, like wine left on its dregs.”

One of those is slightly encouraging. The others, hmmmm. The Bible ain’t exactly a self-help book, buddy.

That’s the only text on each of the pages you opened?

But in any case, it could still be coincidence. Unless you consistently open the bible at a page that offers succor or guidance most times that you need it, it would be a touch presumption to see it as a sign.

 

[wanstronian]

Assertion number one with no counterpoint.

Then correct my misunderstanding, and try to be clearer in future.

Wrong. We can’t prove the existence of an objective consciousness using the empirical method.

No, not directly - nor did I say we could.

You know that you are conscious, and then you make the assumption that there are other conscious beings in reality like you, and this assumption is based on the observation that other objects move towards purposeful ends

like you do. Exactly as I said - we measure the observed effects of others’ actions, and infer consciousness. We also use the fact of our own consciousness and apply basic logic and probability theory. You seem to be saying roughly the same thing as me, but with an implication that I am wrong and you are not?

We assume that there are other people, based on logical inference

, and then we use the empirical method to measure the link between the conscious mind and the brain. Please get your facts straight before arrogantly dismissing peoples argumentsNothing wrong with my facts, thank you. I’m not sure where your aggression comes from, perhaps you can explain?

 

[wanstronian]

if they know the odds and dont believe they are ignoring the evidence. and yeah, ignoring proof of G-d just to keep some cherished idea is pretty much mad as a hatter.

Ignoring any incontrovertible evidence is nuts. But as I have pointed out, the level of evidence that you are offering is insufficient. Your reliance on the dictionary definition is laughable – as I have pointed out, that definition would not be sufficient in court. And incidentally, you have cherry-picked your definition. Why should we not use the OE’s definition: “Facts or testimony in support of a conclusion, statement, or belief?” Evidence should prove beyond reasonable doubt. Yours doesn’t.

what? your the one asserting it could be a conspriracy. thats your burden of proof.

How can I **assert **that something **could **be? There is no burden of proof on me, just because I point out a potential flaw in your assertions.

so you have a list of rebuttals? like ive been saying for awhile now? and yes i should have capitalized, but that neither here nor there, the qualifier was the people giving testimony no?

No, I don’t have a list, despite your obvious desire to slur my character. But depending on your meaning of ‘apostles,’ different arguments could be used to rebut your ‘evidence.’ There’s nothing unusual about this – how can I rebut your argument without knowing what it is?

how about the actual definition of evidence and not the one you dont even apply to yourself? the word empirical isnt in the dictionary definition of evidence after all.

You’re hanging on to this for dear life, aren’t you! The word “facts” **is **in the dictionary definition, and for something to be considered a “fact” the supporting case should be beyond reasonable doubt. Your ‘evidence’ does **not **meet that criterion.

then why dont you just hit the evidence dead on rather than every dodge in the book? oh wait you have a personal definition, yeah right…DODGE!

I’ve addressed the integrity of your ‘evidence’ on several occasions now. You can accuse me of dodging if you like, but it’s starting to sound like a desperate last resort as you have realised that your ‘evidence’ doesn’t make the grade. This is not me dodging, this is you failing to provide evidence to the accepted (not personal) standard of “beyond reasonable doubt.”

where did you get the idea it has something to do with the chronology? here is the math.
didgodlie.com/odds.html

Not conclusive – no proof that the prophecies were specific enough, or that they were not fulfilled merely in writing rather than reality.

messianic-prophecy.net/Messianic-Prophecy.htm

As above.

star.mrklingon.org/ (also has a downloadable odds calculator)

As above.

excellentevidence.com/pdf/Odds%20of%20Jesus%20Fulfilling%2048%20Prophecies.pdf (this one is just for illustration.)

As above.

preceptaustin.org/messianic_prophecies.htm

Look, none of these have any weight unless it can be proved beyond doubt that they were actually fulfilled. Having it come true in the Bible is not evidence.

there are many, many more, so as you furiously search for refutations, there is only one, conspiracy theories, ask yourself if you really want to be an atheist bad enough to ignore the math.

Yes, you seem to have taken on this new attack position, whereby you accuse me of simply **wanting **God not to exist. What possible reason would I have to take this view? This is rather juvenile – not to mention hypocritical - on your part. I’m basing my stance on the facts, and unfortunately for you, your ‘evidence’ is not enough to prove the existence of God.

you like to define things in ways that support your position, how about we stick withe actual definitions huh? as to the PSR, you cant define your way out of it. just another dodge.

Hey, don’t take my word for it. Google it. Your version of the PSR has been rejected. Your definition of ‘Sufficient’ is erroneous. You also mistake ‘Reason’ for ‘Purpose.’ The PSR, at face value, makes perfect sense. If there is sufficient reason to believe in something, then it should be believed in. However, if one reads ‘sufficient’ as ‘providing an answer, regardless of that answer’s integrity’, then the PSR is utterly worthless other than to philosophers.

if the PSR is incorrect, then where is evidence, you know things happening for no reason, or insufficient reason? where is this expressed in the universe?

I think that you and I have different interpretations of the PSR. Yours supports your view; mine supports mine, and there’s not much point arguing the toss. Let’s agree to disagree.

 

[wanstronian]

DODGE!

How is it a dodge to point out the irony of your apparent wish to stick to the scientific method? “To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”Your version of the PSR is NOT supported by the scientific method. Your version of the PSR supports the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

i read dissertations on the subject, so cite your sources. i did ask for sources didnt i?

Well, it seems that there are many forms of the PSR, and you are taking one that supports your ‘evidence;’ I am taking one that requires the provision of something a little more believable. As I said before, let’s agree to disagree. If you want to call this a dodge, go right ahead, I don’t really care.

…yeah…

Glad you understand me now!

DODGE! why is it wrong for the purposes of this discussion? how about we stick to real definitions and not your personal ones. if 2+2=4 then 2+1 is insufficient, or if a galss is to be filled, you must have sufficient water to fill it. so your personal ideas of suffeciency dont come into play.

How is a straight answer a dodge? The hypocrisy of you accusing me of letting my desires get in the way of my facts, is titanic in light of your efforts!

funny, but thats not close to true, people are convicted of murder without a body, apparently empirical evidence isnt the standard. whats that about animal emotions again

Now you are just showing you don’t even know the basics. Conviction without habeas corpus is subject to the mandate that reasonableness is, “generally to be decided by the jury which heard the evidence and where the jury is authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt.” Note the, “sufficient to exclude every reasonably hypothesis” – this is where your case falls down.

the official dictionary definition proved you wrong. im pointing out that you dont apply that standard of evidence to yourself. or even to the empirical evidence we have the universe.

We’ve covered the dictionary definition(s) – you’ve cherry-picked yours, I’ve provided the dictionary definition (from the OED) that I consider to be more appropriate to discussions regarding proof beyond reasonable doubt. I would be happy for any independent person to assess the relative merits of our definitions in an abstract but logically relevant manner.

then what more do you need to know?

Nothing really – you were bleating on about your conversion as if you were expecting me to follow in your footsteps, but you weren’t making much grammatical sense. Let’s leave it!

maybe, maybe not. its up to G-d.

Or not!

read the dictionary definition yet? seems im right, which makes you what?..thats right…wrong

Hopefully I’ve dispelled your delusion in this area now.

I’ll do you a favour - point me towards your favourite link for the argument from contingency, and I’ll read it with an open mind and let you know my honest thoughts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_contingency#The_argument_from_contingency
lets start with an easy one. the basic refutations are known.

My, aren’t you the patronising one? It’s a nice article, well-balanced and well-written. The refutations make sense. And with regard to the first objection, it’s all very well to state that a cause is only required if an entity has a beginning; but if the claim is instead that the entity had no beginning, this is no more rational or defensible than the principle of infinite regress.
It also explicitly suggests the Big Bang as an example of a First Cause, so from this pov it does nothing to promote the existence of God, other than to those who already believe it.
So I’m sorry, but I can’t see how it supports your cause.

hardly, that just sets another impossible standard, do you have this information on the magna carta? maybe they just made that up, how about the american constitution? or the moonlanding, are you sure that wasnt shot on a soundstage? when you set impossible standards you better be sure you stick to them too, problem is you havent been.

I don’t think any independent person would consider your examples to be the same as the Bible stories.

true, they would be, but then they suffered for them, if they werent true what was the point of that? does a man suffer for a lie or just tell the truth, common sense kills that objection.

Not at all: it is perfectly possible that people could suffer in the name of what they believe to be true, without it actually being true. Do you even have proper evidence that these people existed, let alone suffered? Or is it just written in the Bible?

they wrote it down, that makes it a statement.

I admit that I haven’t read the bible (keep meaning to get started!), but I’m not aware of any first person accounts in it. What I am aware of is that the first of the gospels was written at least a couple of generations after Jesus’ alleged death (Chinese Whispers, anyone?); that they are contradictory; that they are startlingly well written considering their authors were almost certainly illiterate; that they were not even attributed to specific authors until well after (100+ years) their original publication; that they were originally many more gospels that contradicted each other to a greater or lesser degree; and that, when all is said and done, the New Testament cannot really be trusted as a reliable source of information.

no, you made a poor analogy of a hearsay situation instead of an eyewitness situation, not dismissable at all. especially not a few dozen statements. by people unknown to eachother with no motivation to lie.

Well, I’m afraid that hearsay is exactly what it is. It is not a first person account or a witnessed transcription.

yes i am saying such. lets start with contingency, then move to the others, and we can discuss any science you wnat to also.

I guess we’ve covered contingency, I’ve found it lacking for reasons outlined above.

 

[wanstronian]

whats this absolute proof? unless we are talking some forms of mathematical proofs, no such thing exists. beyond a reasonable doubt is fine by me,

Okay, let’s go with that. I concede, absolute proof is unnecessary.

but i dont know what it means in the scottish legal system. i can only assume it means the same as the american system.

Nor me, I’m not Scottish!

excuse me? the bolded parts arent the standard of evidence you would use for the evidence in favor of G-d.

I disagree. Firstly, the supporting evidence of evolution is a very strong indicator. Secondly, the observable effects are virtually identical to the way we infer consciousness in other humans. Combined, I think that this removes reasonable doubt.

. in fact both phrases amount to faith based on your opinion. thats a laughably hypocritical position to hold on the standard of evidence for your beliefs and our beliefs.

how is it logical? by your standard you require empirical evidence, there is none for anything prior to planck time, its reasonable, but thats not your standard, yours is “empirical”. You forget that I am not stating the Big Bang as fact, but as theory supported by accepted theories such as General Relativity.

fact is we dont know there was any singularity at all, it could just as well have been G-d.

That’s right, we don’t know. There’s no conclusive evidence either way, but there are testable theories that support the Big Bang explanation. There are no such theories for God.

imagine youre a fish looking at the surface of a pond at night. you could see the ripples, or expansion, from a central point, and it could be a kids finger as easily as a rock. without empirical evidence you have no way to prefer one cause over another.

That’s true, so why should that fish start to believe that it was definitely a kid’s finger, if there’s no evidence to support it?
what singularity? guess what, you cant prove there was one. neither can any physicist.That’s not the point, I was demonstrating the lack of logic of postulating God as a cause, whether or not it was via singularity.

as i just shredded the idea that your standards are consistent. you know the phrases it seems reasonable and that they appear to show in comparison to your insistence that empirical is the adjective to use. you may as well give it up and use a reasonable defintion of evidence so we can move on to issues of validity.

Okay, well let’s ignore my beliefs on animal consciousness then. How do you define a reasonable definition of ‘evidence?’ For me, it has to be more than a mere suggestion. It should demonstrate that no other explanation can cause the effect that we see.