Do extrordinary events require extrordinary evidence?

[ManOnFire]

Indeed. It is a waste of time to argue with those people who are ignorant and do not wish to listen. The ignorant ones who wish to learn and are willing to listen are a very different category.

Yes, those ignorant people who refuse to see both sides need to open their minds to full consideration, not just partial consideration. It’s funny how atheist cosmologists keep looking for a beginning of time and space when only God could have been the First Mover to create them. If, as they believe, God doesn’t exist, then why keep looking for a beginning of time and space that your own beliefs tell you doesn’t exist? The narrow minded among them refuse to use basic LOGIC. They would have to be bigots not to see that if they believe there’s no God, then there’s also no way to create matter from nothing without something else existing. If God doesn’t exist, then time and space are/were infinitesimal with no beginning nor ending. If elapsed time is infinite, then there’s an infinite wait to get to right here and now, so we would still be waiting for now to get here if there is no God. But here it is.

It’s one thing to be intellectually honest by admitting that no godless physical solution can exist. The only question that really matters is the last one. Logic and open-mindedness are the things that are becoming extinct.

 

[Keeler]

Yes, those ignorant people who refuse to see both sides need to open their minds to full consideration, not just partial consideration. It’s funny how atheist cosmologists keep looking for a beginning of time and space when only God could have been the First Mover to create them. If, as they believe, God doesn’t exist, then why keep looking for a beginning of time and space that your own beliefs tell you doesn’t exist? The narrow minded among them refuse to use basic LOGIC. They would have to be bigots not to see that if they believe there’s no God, then there’s also no way to create matter from nothing without something else existing. If God doesn’t exist, then time and space are/were infinitesimal with no beginning nor ending. If elapsed time is infinite, then there’s an infinite wait to get to right here and now, so we would still be waiting for now to get here if there is no God. But here it is.

It’s one thing to be intellectually honest by admitting that no godless physical solution can exist. The only question that really matters is the last one. Logic and open-mindedness are the things that are becoming extinct.

Out of topic ranting, buddy. Stick to the problem at hand.

 

[ManOnFire]

Out of topic ranting, buddy. Stick to the problem at hand.

Ah, you have no intelligent answer. The question was “Do extrordinary events require extrordinary evidence?” I would call the Big Bang an alleged extraordinary event for which there is no real evidence, only theory. They even chose to deceive the public by naming a TV show after it. Why would any logical person choose to believe in such mystical thinking? Some people refuse to see parallel “ignorance.”

First flat earth, then geocentric, heliocentric, one universe, big bang, etc.etc. etc. If God doesn’t exist, then space goes on infinitely. Even if matter can be created de novo from gravity, what would make anyone honestly believe it happened only once? In one place? Even if science figures out “this next” mystery in a godless world, the next generation will learn more than the last, on and on, infinitely, with NO end, thanks to infinity. To think otherwise would be to believe in magical thinking and mystical beliefs. We can stop giving out awards to genius scientists who have figured out what’s “next” because they will never reach “the end,” since, logically, there would be no beginning nor end if God doesn’t exist. What changes are the sensitivity of the instruments used to measure the repeatable patterns of new knowlede, a new name ascribed and a new genius proclaimed, only to be obsolete in a few years, infinitely.

First cells, then molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks, neutrinos, on and on infinitely microscopically. To think otherwise in a godless world would be to believe in magical thinking and mystical beliefs. What changes are the sensitivity of the instruments used to measure the repeatable patterns of new knowlede, a new name ascribed and a new genius proclaimed, only to be obsolete in a few years, infinitely. I just don’t know what some people are thinking.

 

[Keeler]

Ah, you have no intelligent answer.

If that makes you happy, by all means keep on thinking that. I simply do not care to derail this thread.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Yes, those ignorant people who refuse to see both sides need to open their minds to full consideration, not just partial consideration. It’s funny how atheist cosmologists keep looking for a beginning of time and space when only God could have been the First Mover to create them. If, as they believe, God doesn’t exist, then why keep looking for a beginning of time and space that your own beliefs tell you doesn’t exist? The narrow minded among them refuse to use basic LOGIC. They would have to be bigots not to see that if they believe there’s no God, then there’s also no way to create matter from nothing without something else existing. If God doesn’t exist, then time and space are/were infinitesimal with no beginning nor ending. If elapsed time is infinite, then there’s an infinite wait to get to right here and now, so we would still be waiting for now to get here if there is no God. But here it is.

It’s one thing to be intellectually honest by admitting that no godless physical solution can exist. The only question that really matters is the last one. Logic and open-mindedness are the things that are becoming extinct.

You don’t understand how science works.
You have made a lot of claims here that you simply can’t know with certainty. That is what this thread is about.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I did not contradict.

Being obtuse won’t save you. Are you then accepting logical contradictions as valid?

You mean believe before I start looking for evidence?..

I said “start” looking for G-d. Of course, as empiricism and verification/falsification schemes are demonstrated logical contradictions, I know you must not mean that you want empirical evidence. That is unless you are willing to admit that you accept demonstrable logical contradictions as valid.

Yes, it can change my mind. So far none has…

And yet billions of people many of whom are much more intelligent and better educated than us have found evidence. By saying this you are simply admitting that the standard of evidence you use is subjective. Which is no different than saying that you will believe what you want to. So the claim that evidence can really change your mind is false isn’t it?

See the trap now? You are either irrational and thus dismissable if you accept logical contradictions as valid, or you claim a subjective standard of evidence different from the billions of theists on the planet, which would make you dismissable because you are making it up as you go along. That also means your claim that evidence can change your mind is false. Or you can refuse to accept logical contradictions as valid as rational men do. Make good on your word that evidence convinces you and start looking for G-d. After all, if you refuse to look for evidence then you don’t run the risk of finding any do you. I am pretty sure you will dodge it any way you can, and I won’t bother to push it after this post if you don’t answer it. But if you don’t then we will both know what kind of man “honestquestions” really is, won’t we?

 

[davidv]

It seems to me that the exchange on this topic has proven the the term “extrordinary” is so ambiguous that it makes the thread title almost unintelligible.

Evidence is evidence. “Extrordinary” and “ordinary” are meaningless adjectives in this context.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What logical contradictions? Surely you are not still referring to the incredulous one as I have have already shown that I do not deny your claim because it sounds too incredible.

That’s, the Fallacy of Incredulity. Not a logical contradiction. I am referring to the empiricism and verification contradictions. The basis of atheism.

 

[Keeler]

It seems to me that the exchange on this topic has proven the the term “extrordinary” is so ambiguous that it makes the thread title almost unintelligible.

Evidence is evidence. “Extrordinary” and “ordinary” are meaningless adjectives in this context.

Not bad. The proper way to put it “claims require evidence”. What is evidence for a claim is the important part, not the quibbling about “ordinary” and “extraordinary”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Don’t expect an answer. Wsp has this delusion that “empiricism” equals “logical positivism” and no matter how many times we explain him the difference, he does not understand it. A waste of time to read his blabberings.

No one ever mentioned logical positivism to my knowledge. You wouldn’t be making false statements would you? :yup: Let me ask, do you need empirical evidence to prove that G-d exists? If yes, then you are saying the same thing that the logical positivists said. You are making the strong empirical statement, If not, then why are you an atheist?

 

[StrawberryJam]

It seems to me that the exchange on this topic has proven the the term “extrordinary” is so ambiguous that it makes the thread title almost unintelligible.

Evidence is evidence. “Extrordinary” and “ordinary” are meaningless adjectives in this context.

I’d agree. Standards of evidence would differ depending on the claim.

I could claim I ate lunch today at the Oven Grinder.
This would require evidence that I would be able to furnish.
I could claim I ate lunch today on Venus with Plato.
This would require I provide evidence. It would also cause us to ask if my claim is consistant with what is known to be possible.

 

[ManOnFire]

You don’t understand how science works.
You have made a lot of claims here that you simply can’t know with certainty. That is what this thread is about.

I have 2 science degrees. I understand science. Scientists make many claims such as Big Bang which they don’t know with certainty.

What many atheists fail to accept is that not only do we not have the answers today, but that we will NEVER have the answers. They are infinite if G-d does not exist. I have accepted this, but others continue on with their silly faith, hope, beliefs that we will someday have the answers. Time and space are infinite if G-d doesn’t exist.

 

[ManOnFire]

I simply do not care to derail this thread.

I’m not derailing the thread. I’m simply jumping to the end of the argument. The Last answer is the only one that really matters. There’s no pride in believing that one is one step closer to a non-answer.

 

[honestquestions]

It seems to me that the exchange on this topic has proven the the term “extrordinary” is so ambiguous that it makes the thread title almost unintelligible.

Evidence is evidence. “Extrordinary” and “ordinary” are meaningless adjectives in this context.

Right, that’s what I pointed out probably back on page 10 but people kept rambling.

 

[honestquestions]

Scientists make many claims such as Big Bang which they don’t know with certainty.

Right, nothing is absolute certainty. Theories are based on countless amounts of evidence which is why it’s reasonable to believe. A theory is not a hunch.

What many atheists fail to accept is that not only do we not have the answers today, but that we will NEVER have the answers.

Did someone like you say the same think in 1858?
YES.
They got owned in 1859.

I have accepted this, but others continue on with their silly faith, hope, beliefs that we will someday have the answers.

It’s not faith. It’s evidence of a long history that science has answered more and more. I trust with evidence.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have 2 science degrees. I understand science. Scientists make many claims such as Big Bang which they don’t know with certainty.

What many atheists fail to accept is that not only do we not have the answers today, but that we will NEVER have the answers. They are infinite if G-d does not exist. I have accepted this, but others continue on with their silly faith, hope, beliefs that we will someday have the answers. Time and space are infinite if G-d doesn’t exist.

Atheists did not come up with the Big Bang theory.

Telling me that we will never have the answers does not prove there is a God. Let alone yours.

Telling me that we will never have the answers does not mean you are correct that we will not, or that you are correct in your theory that we must stop seeking them and put this to bed and just call the whole thing off and accept that a God, or even your particular God has anything to do with it.

The ability or inability to have the answers now or in the future do not make the case for your God.

Considering a viewpoint that differs from your own to be “silly faith, hope, beliefs that we will someday have the answers”

Is not giving me any reason to consider adjusting my view.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing it all now, or ever.

There is something terribly wrong with a desire to stop seeking and start filling in things to stop the desire to know.

Some have a low level of tolerance for ambiguity. Others see there is a long walk ahead, and the blanks have not been filled in.

 

[davidv]

Right, that’s what I pointed out probably back on page 10 but people kept rambling.

So it seems then that those who throw up this defense against the faith claims of Catholism/Christianity are being rather disingenuis.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Right, that’s what I pointed out probably back on page 10 but people kept rambling.

Then choose any adjective that you want, the problem with ECREE is in the logic, I don’t think it would matter what language we speak.

 

[honestquestions]

So it seems then that those who throw up this defense against the faith claims of Catholism/Christianity are being rather disingenuis.

You just came into this forum - did you read the previous pages? I dismissed something similar already. In terms of what is obviously understood by people, the saying holds true. If we go by the textbook definition of the words, then it would not hold true. Obviously we cannot dismiss something because it just sounds rare. But we can dismiss when the testimony goes against all known laws of nature, in which case more physical evidence would be required. The point is that the question this forum asks is too general as it does not pertain to anything. So why not specifically use it in the form of a meaningful question, such as with this claim: if someone raises to life after being dead for three days despite this ever being proven, and likewise conflicts with everything that we have proven, what forms of evidence would be required to believe such a claim?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But we can dismiss when the testimony goes against all known laws of nature, in which case more physical evidence would be required.

Empiricism/verifications schemes are still logical contradictions, even if you phrase it as "physical’ evidence. Nor can you dismiss testimony that goes against the laws of nature because that would be the Fallacy of Incredulity. To a Ptolemy a light bulb would violate the laws of nature, yet we know it as a common device. Clearly our understanding of the laws of nature cannot be used as any kind of standard by which we test a claim. As Clarke’s 3rd Law says Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. We have no way to differentiate claims that are possible from those that are impossible, so the only rational position is to require the same amount of evidence for every claim…