|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3073 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Message of the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rand Al'Thor Inactive Member |
I am a green alien from Mars.
Peter by your standards this is evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
P e t e r Inactive Member |
I'd say you're the one who doesn't think testimony for God is evidence for God. P e t e r Yes, of course it isn't. Just as testimony for Santa Claus isn't evidence of Santa Claus. crashfrog I'd have to say you don't have a complete understanding of evidence. Earlier you made this statement;
I can present evidence that people believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't make Santa Claus exist. I'm guessing those people are on the little side of age.
What a world of credulity you must live in! Apparently you're willing to take all testimony at face-value. Let's get rid of the criminal justice system! All we have to do is ask them if they committed a crime or not. A world of credulity does have various subtleties such as reliability of someone's history of truthfulness. Imagine parents actually telling their young children there is a Santa Claus without having a belief for Santa. I suppose the criminal justice system could be considered in a way a temporary fix to an ongoing problem whose solution is yet to be ultimately settled. Rev 21:8 But to the fearful and unbelieving, [and sinners], and those who make themselves abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part [is] in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone; which is the second death. As you can see, Christians are only 33% of the world's believers. The majority of humans are non-Christian. Surely this is not a surprise to you? Correct.
Then maybe you can explain what you meant when you said:
Statistically, in this criteria the evidence favours there is a God. Once again you are making an inacurate statement about my position
My statement should be taken in relation to my statement immediately prior, which was;
I've yet to come across a person who believes in Jesus who professes there is no God. To elaborate, say I came across a hundred people who believe in Jesus and none of them told me they didn't believe in God, statisically the evidence favours there is a God. Why you would say I equate that with all people of various faiths and dispositions where the majority is correct by virtue of size, is beyond me.
Then please make an effort to communicate better. I can hardly be blamed if you're unwilling/unable to effectively communicate eactly what it is you're trying to say. OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
P e t e r Inactive Member |
I am a green alien from Mars. Peter by your standards this is evidence. Correct. On behalf of everybody, Welcome to Earth Question: When/how did you arrive? [This message has been edited by P e t e r, 01-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
P e t e r
Rand Al'Thor is not a green alien.Peter by your standards this is evidence. Which evidence is correct? Mine or Rand Al'Thors'? "I am not young enough to know everything. " Oscar Wilde [This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'd have to say you don't have a complete understanding of evidence. And I'd have to say that your distinction between "evidence" and "proof" is disingenuous at best. By your definition of evidence I can provide evidence for literally any statement whatsoever. How useful is evidence if it can support anything, even things that are not true?
I'm guessing those people are on the little side of age. What does age have to do with it?
A world of credulity does have various subtleties such as reliability of someone's history of truthfulness. Someone who has never lied can still be mistaken or poorly-informed.
To elaborate, say I came across a hundred people who believe in Jesus and none of them told me they didn't believe in God, statisically the evidence favours there is a God. How? What if you asked 100 atheists? Wouldn't then the evidence statsitically favor that there was no God? What does asking 100 people who you already know are going to say the same thing prove anything? Do the words "response bias" mean anything to you? If not then it's clear you don't have the training to make statistical judgements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
P e t e r Inactive Member |
In a court of law, if Sally said John committed the murder of Ed and the ONLY "evidence" of this is Sally's say so, it won't wash. If the court cannot find evidence of John's existence, no birth record, no ssn, noone who has ever seen John, except for Sally's assertions, then the court is not going to let be entered as evidence of John's culpability. You're probably right.
Actually, the post you responded to was a response to WT saying that no matter how much evidence we were shown of god's existence we would still not believe. I asked for "any" evidence of god's existence. All you have given me is evidence of people's beliefs in gods existence, not the evidence that led them to this belief. Perhaps you've have heard at one time or another someone give the reasons why they believe in God. Probably quite few different angles on that. I been trying to think of my first evidences of why I believe God exists. For now, the one that comes to mind is when I was in elementry school I got a Gideons bible and took it contents as true. All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son is pleased to reveal [him]. 23 And having turned to the disciples privately he said, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see. [This message has been edited by P e t e r, 01-11-2004]
fixed minor formating probs - The Queen [This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
P e t e r Inactive Member |
P e t e r Rand Al'Thor is not a green alien.Peter by your standards this is evidence. Which evidence is correct? Mine or Rand Al'Thors'? Ummm, another conflict of evidence. Perhaps Rand Al'Thor can help us out, is sidelined lying or telling the truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For now, the one that comes to mind is when I was in elementry school I got a Gideons bible and took it contents as true. Yeah, they get you at an early age. Like drug pushers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
P e t e r Inactive Member |
How useful is evidence if it can support anything, even things that are not true? If I'm reading your statement right, evidence can support anything, proof fulfills the accuracy of the evidence.
What does age have to do with it? Probably because youngsters tend to be trusting towards their parents.
How? What if you asked 100 atheists? 100 atheists who believe in Jesus but not God, that could be tough.If that could happen, statistically, in this criteria the evidence favours there is no God. What does asking 100 people who you already know are going to say the same thing prove anything? I'd have to say it doesn't prove, but as I stated earlier it favours.
Do the words "response bias" mean anything to you? If not then it's clear you don't have the training to make statistical judgements. Let me check on that. Response bias — In any study in which responses of some sort (e.g., answers to set questions) are required of PARTICIPANTS, response bias exists if, independently of the effect of any experimental manipulation, the participants are more likely to respond in one way than in another (e.g., more likely, in a multiple-choice task, to choose Option A than Option B). OK, I'm not an expert on that, but I'm of the opinion when you read something I write you have a tendency to translate it into something I don't mean to write. Back to that communication problem again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If I'm reading your statement right, evidence can support anything, proof fulfills the accuracy of the evidence. Why draw the distinction? Can you imagine any situation where somebody would ask for evidence, but not proof? If evidence is useless, why would anybody ask for it? Proof = evidence. It's just dishonest to try and make a distinction.
100 atheists who believe in Jesus but not God, that could be tough. If that could happen, statistically, in this criteria the evidence favours there is no God. What does belief in Jesus have to do with it? If you only ask people who already believe in Jesus, then you're going to get people who already believe in God. That's not a statistically valid sample. It's tainted by response bias. Try a random sample of human beings from all over the world. You'll find the majority don't believe in the Christian God.
OK, I'm not an expert on that, but I'm of the opinion when you read something I write you have a tendency to translate it into something I don't mean to write. How? Take the definition (a good one) of "response bias" you found and apply it to the idea of only asking people who already believe in Jesus. If you think I'm changing your words, you'll have to show me how. I'm merely showing you the consequences of your position - consequences you have not apparently thought out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
P e t e r Inactive Member |
Yeah, they get you at an early age. Like drug pushers. An unfair commentary. When I got my bible at school, drug pushers wasn't even a possibility of the mind. Perhaps these days at school bibles are prohibited and drug pushers are a problem. Proverbs 22:6 Train up the child according to the tenor of his way, and when he is old he will not depart from it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3073 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
What is your source of information for how God must/should be ?
Who's standard of morality are you using to explain God away ? Is this standard a rigged litmus test ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3073 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
What other set of assumptions are you referring to ?
The Bible teaches that if a person arbitrarily rules God out from being the Creator, then this makes violator eligible, it triggers God's response of punishment, which is He incapacitates your ability to ever want, know, or desire Him. "...does this insinuate that God controls the ability for any given person to believe in Him ??? " Yes it does. Regardless of what anyone may think subjectively, God stringently controls desire for Him. Any desire for God, no matter how large or small originates from Him. " well John 3:16 says whosoever wills may come " Dr. Scott says your "willer" won't will unless God allows it to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3073 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I am preparing a response to your post/reply. Forthcoming - Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Proverbs 22:6 Train up the child according to the tenor of his way, and when he is old he will not depart from it. In other words: "Close his mind as early as possible and it will not open when he is older."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024