Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Evidence of miracles.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Clizby WampusCat" data-source="post: 76489872" data-attributes="member: 420857"><p>If the person making claims refuses to provide the evidence they site that is not my problem.</p><p></p><p>It is if you are making the claim. </p><p></p><p>Fine but they are using unsound logic. There can be no way to know if something is inexplicable since there is no way to know of explanations that they cannot think or know of. It is a fallacy.</p><p></p><p>You should prefer pathologists with sound logic. Your apriori skeptic comment is a just an ad hominem. I have told you why I think the evidence is unsound or not sufficient for belief. You have refused to engage these. </p><p></p><p>How can you possible rule out a hoax? This is where you make your mistake. You cannot rule out solutions that you don't know about. The only way to rule out a hoax is to provide evidence it is supernatural. </p><p></p><p>Except that is a different situation and claim. The Lego claim you are witnessing the unexplained. With the Eucharist you never witness anything supernatural. You just are analyzing human tissue that you cannot know where it came from.</p><p></p><p>I agree. And so does Dawkins that there is not enough evidence to believe how life began. However, again you cannot conclude then that it was supernatural. The scientific consensus on how life began is "we don't know". </p><p></p><p>How so? Why can't both be true?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Clizby WampusCat, post: 76489872, member: 420857"] If the person making claims refuses to provide the evidence they site that is not my problem. It is if you are making the claim. Fine but they are using unsound logic. There can be no way to know if something is inexplicable since there is no way to know of explanations that they cannot think or know of. It is a fallacy. You should prefer pathologists with sound logic. Your apriori skeptic comment is a just an ad hominem. I have told you why I think the evidence is unsound or not sufficient for belief. You have refused to engage these. How can you possible rule out a hoax? This is where you make your mistake. You cannot rule out solutions that you don't know about. The only way to rule out a hoax is to provide evidence it is supernatural. Except that is a different situation and claim. The Lego claim you are witnessing the unexplained. With the Eucharist you never witness anything supernatural. You just are analyzing human tissue that you cannot know where it came from. I agree. And so does Dawkins that there is not enough evidence to believe how life began. However, again you cannot conclude then that it was supernatural. The scientific consensus on how life began is "we don't know". How so? Why can't both be true? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Evidence of miracles.
Top
Bottom