Still begs the question.
Well, it really isn’t much of a conversation when you cherry pick posts and don’t answer questions.Off to enjoy my sat night not, I will reply tomorrow. As always, thanks for the conversations. Peace to all.
It would seem that this is the crux of the biscuit. It seems that this minority of the worlds population is above any effort to investigate, in an honest way what the truth really is, they simply want to remain the dominate intellect in their lives. A Mensa member so much as verified this to me after his conversion.
There is nothing subjective about it, that is the whole point. For example**, one method **would be repeatability… If you claim to me that gravity attracts objects to the earth at 9.8ms-2, then I can verify that by dropping an object and measuring the rates it drops at.
You HAVE to be joking. The only cherry picking I am doing is answers the points which relate to what I have ACTUALLY posted. I am not got to get drawn into pointless discussion based on straw-man arguments.
I COMPLETELY agree, hence why billions of people accept unverifiable claims. However when people can’t even take them time to understand the importance of the burden of proof, is it really that surprising?
I suggest you read and THINK ABOUT the following…
Actually, no. But I don’t really care if a man nameed Jesus existed as that is hardly and extraordinary claim. Claims he was born of a virgin on the other hand, well given that is in direct contradiction to EVERYTHING we understand about reproduction, you are going to have to provide evidence for that before I believe it.
The above is delightfully tacky AND pretentious of you :jrbirdman:
Could you provide evidence why a human being having been knit together in the womb of another human being after sexual penetration is not JUST AS EXTRAORDINARY as a human being born inside a virgin by the hand of the Creator of the cosmos?
I have little time for philosophy, to quote thunderf00t it is the discipline of those who have been thoroughly routed from the academic arena. Now that may be a bit overboard but lets put things this way, when philosophy and science go head to head regarding our understanding of the cosmos, philosophy sits down and shuts up.
Very rich given it was a reply to a comment insinuating that the only reason I don’t accept certain claims is because I have not properly thought about them, when in actual fact I have clearly though about these matters as much as anyone. Most of the replies on this thread and the other I posted on where full of logical fallacies, including yours when you presented your lack of understanding of the importance of the burden of proof.
Of course I can, one is called Meiosis and you can actually VIEW it happening and the other is saying the a entity of which its existence is not supported by a shred of evidence did it by magic.
The problem with “repeatability” is that it ONLY demonstrates that something repeats itself, it doesn’t even begin to explain WHY it does - that is where theories and explanations are proposed and tested by how well they predict what ought to happen. But a theory is only a theory. It proposes something like one part of the big or metaphysical picture. Unfortunately, theories do not encompass everything that needs to be explained before anything can be fully explained. The point is that nothing can be verified as certainly “known” in this full sense without certainty of the big picture.
Of course, until we try to explain how and why meiosis happens or how it could possibly have originally come about given the nature of matter.
Thinking about something and investigating that thing are 2 different matters. It was only after 18 years of study of the faith that I really came to a clear understanding of God.
Apparently, the difference between us is that you think it entirely appropriate to offload the “burden” of demonstrating the truth onto others whereas I propose we ought not ever do that.
Of course, the notion of “burden of proof” is entirely meaningless when you insist those with the “burden” must also “sits down and shuts up.”
They current theory is that mass warps space-time and again this is supported by verifiable evidence, but yes a agree we get to the point where we have to face the unknown like the origins of the universe. What the intellectually honest people do at this point is simply admit we do not know. Many here will tell you god made the universe but that tells us nothing about how the universe came to be, how did god do it? You may just as well just admit we do not know, It amounts to the same level of explanation.
Name me one burden I have off loaded? Again this comes down to the fact you do not understand the burden of proof. I am make NO claims so have NO burden. The root claim here is god exists, I do not accept that claim due to lack of evidence. I am not claiming a god does not exist. This is REALLY basic stuff and the entire fields of logic and philosophy support me 100%.