Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1401 of 1482 (845498)
12-16-2018 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1399 by Phat
12-16-2018 2:02 PM


Re: Creation
Phat writes:
Which extrapolates into: "Unless there is evidence pointing to a cause-effect relationship between GOD and_________, we cannot conclude that God exists or is effective." You will never convince the old man of that!
Well, of course not. I wouldn't waste a word trying to convince him that water is wet. But hopefully somebody else will see how foolish his ideas are.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1399 by Phat, posted 12-16-2018 2:02 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1402 by Phat, posted 12-16-2018 2:17 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1403 of 1482 (845506)
12-16-2018 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1402 by Phat
12-16-2018 2:17 PM


Re: Creation
Phat writes:
Is the fact that water is wet an absolute truth?
It's a consensus.
And you're shooting yourself in the foot, deviating again from God being the only absolute truth.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1402 by Phat, posted 12-16-2018 2:17 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1404 by Phat, posted 12-16-2018 3:08 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1405 of 1482 (845517)
12-16-2018 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1404 by Phat
12-16-2018 3:08 PM


Re: Creation
Phat writes:
I am concurring that God is the only necessary absolute truth.
In what way is God "necessary"?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1404 by Phat, posted 12-16-2018 3:08 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1414 by Phat, posted 12-17-2018 10:47 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1417 of 1482 (845556)
12-17-2018 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1411 by ICANT
12-16-2018 10:10 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
I know prayer works from personal experience but anything I said you would say it was a coincidence regardless of how many events took place due to prayer over one major event.
It's called confirmation bias: If you believe that prayer works, you'll be able to attribute all kinds of things to "answered prayer". But an objective observer will look for a cause-effect relationship.
ICANT writes:
ringo writes:
Mental illness is another possibility. The person who is hallucinating is the last one to be qualified to determine whether he is hallucinating or not.
My doctor disagrees with you.
Really? Your doctor doesn't believe in mental illness? He thinks a person can always tell when he's hallucinating? I don't believe you.
ICANT writes:
ringo writes:
I said I SAW two [moons] at once.
Which is building a strawman.
How on earth is that a strawman?
I'll tell you the story:
In the first instance, I saw one full moon and then another. I quickly noticed that one of them had a smoother surface and its shape was more balloony than loony. Sure enough, I heard on the news later that several people had reported seeing a UFO and the Weather Office had confirmed that it was a weather balloon.
In the second instance, I was standing in a glass bus shelter when I noticed there was one full moon on the east side and another on the west side. Obviously, one of them was a reflection - but which one? I could have done an experiment - i.e. gone outside of the shelter to eliminate the possibility of reflections - but I figured it out using logic and "assumptions".
(Solution: The sun had just set in the west (an assumption based on prior observation). The sun is farther away than the moon (an assumption based on prior observation). The moon could not be shining full with the sun behind it; therefore the one in the east must be the real one.)
Where's the straw?
ICANT writes:
But you did not see two moons from earth.
Yes I did. I saw them as plainly as I see three computers in front of me now. I saw them more directly than I see politicians on TV.
ICANT writes:
So you were either dreaming or either hallucinating.
No. As I explained above, my initial interpretation was flawed, as all eyewitness evidence is flawed.
ICANT writes:
Since you know there is only one moon visible you are arguing and being deliberately obtuse.
I'm illustrating how eyewitness evidence can be wrong. I can misinterpret seeing two moons. You can misinterpret seeing the results of prayer.
ICANT writes:
Dictionaries are what defines the words we use.
Usage is what defines the words we use. Dictionaries only describe the usage.
ICANT writes:
ringo writes:
Who said it was "better" than a hypothesis? Why should it be?
Then my hypothesis is just as valid.
Again, you're not reading what I wrote. I was replying to your statement in Message 1389: "So a scientific fact has no certain or fixed; provisional making it no better than a hypothesis." I said that a hypothesis is not "better" than a fact. I did not say that one hypothesis is as good as another.
ICANT writes:
And don't tell me I don't have any evidence.
You don't have evidence that confirms your hypothesis and denies another.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1411 by ICANT, posted 12-16-2018 10:10 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1418 of 1482 (845558)
12-17-2018 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1414 by Phat
12-17-2018 10:47 AM


Re: Creation
Phat writes:
It prevents the fear of our species becoming orphans in a vast indifferent universe.
I asked: In what way is God "necessary"?
The belief in a god might alleviate that fear in some believers but I didn't ask you why the belief is necessary. I asked you why the god is necessary.
Phat writes:
You will *sigh* as always argue that there is no evidence of such a God or leader being omnipresent....
Or present at all.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1414 by Phat, posted 12-17-2018 10:47 AM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1429 of 1482 (845652)
12-18-2018 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1428 by Phat
12-18-2018 12:06 PM


Re: Creation
Phat writes:
They can't see Him and won't accept the "evidence" of Romans 1:18.
Well, let's see:
quote:
Romans 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
The evidence shows that the wrath of God is aimed at believers and unbelievers alike.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1428 by Phat, posted 12-18-2018 12:06 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024