Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I use words with meaning, remember?
External objective verification of claims, I feel is important, to greatly increase the likely hood you have it right.
Now, if you want to rely on personal experiences as your evidence alone, which can not be verified externally and objectively, then you are dealing with a faith belief. Some can admit that, some can't.
I'm quite certain you do.
Could be, why you have to try so hard to convince yourself.
I can't imagine the turmoil involved.
We can only work with what you post here.I feel it...
Of course. It was a self-fulfilling prophesy.My post proved prophetic.
Thanks.
I would consider your first statement objectively false. Though there is no conclusive proof of the existence of a god, there is evidence. For instance, there is the testimony of the many people that say they have had personal contact with a god. That is evidence. You may personally reject the validity of that evidence,but it is not correct to say it is not evidence. Humans are unnecessary entities as well but they still exist so being unnecessary does not preclude one from existing. Gods, or a god, being unnecessary is as irrelevant to the question of whether a god or gods exist as the fact that there is suffering.
Again, the claims are evidence they would be admissible in a court of law as evidence. You ought not confuse evidence with proof. For instance, I would be wrong to say that there is no evidence that AGW exists but correct to say there is no proof it exists. One can look at the evidence and conclude whether the evidence is convincing or not in both cases. Secondly your claim of contradiction about the evidence given by multiple witnesses about multiple gods does not stand scrutiny. There is no contradiction in the testimony on the subject of whether deities exist only about which ones and what they might be like. All the testimonies agree without exception that there is at least one god. That there are different perceptions of what those or that deity may be like does not make their testimony on existence contradictory anymore than the evidence about the existence of Tyrannosaurs coupled with evidence about the existence of Triceratops could be seen as contradictory in claiming that dinosaurs existed.
If first hand eyewitness testimony is not evidence then we really have some explaining to do involving both the recording of history and the system of justice we employ as both are, at present, very reliant upon that. Though you seem somewhat confused about the difference between testimony and anecdote,you do know how to pluralize using an s, Good for you.I hate to point out, but the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence, personal experience is by definition personal, and not evidence for someone else.
If first hand eyewitness testimony is not evidence then we really have some explaining to do involving both the recording of history and the system of justice we employ as both are, at present, very reliant upon that.
Though not absolutely reliant upon it. If multiple people testify that a global cataclysmic flood happened roughly 4000 years ago, and yet there is an absence of expected evidence of such an event in the geologic record, would it be obscene to suggest that the apparent eyewitnesses were mistaken, at least about the extent of the flood?If first hand eyewitness testimony is not evidence then we really have some explaining to do involving both the recording of history and the system of justice we employ as both are, at present, very reliant upon that. Though you seem somewhat confused about the difference between testimony and anecdote,you do know how to pluralize using an s, Good for you.
Actually they arn't, they are nothing but hearsay, and without coloberating evidence are often thrown out especially something wich can't be verified, how does one know the difference bteween someones personal experience with god, or someone lying to decieve, many will lie about being Christian for one reason or another.
Though not absolutely reliant upon it. If multiple people testify that a global cataclysmic flood happened roughly 4000 years ago, and yet there is an absence of expected evidence of such an event in the geologic record, would it be obscene to suggest that the apparent eyewitnesses were mistaken, at least about the extent of the flood?
I wanted to see what people here thought was the best argument against the existence of God was.
Hearsay is not the same as first hand testimony. I am not speaking of hearsay i am referenceing first hand testimony of people that claim to have had a personal encounter with a god. The Bible, the Quran and other books of religious significance records that testimony as well as the testimony of those that could be said to be relaying hearsay. In a court of law, sometimes there is reason to ignore first hand testimony, other times there is not, but in any case first hand testimony remains evidence until it is proven false by other evidence. That does not mean that it is assumed to be true it is simply considered evidence that something may be the case not proof that it is. I know of no instance where first hand testimony has been thrown out just because it is not corroborated. It may not be considered persuasive by those judging the case but is not thrown out simply because no other source of evidence corroborates the first hand testimony. In any case of first hand testimony it is not possible to be 100% sure of the motives of the witness. But when multiple witnesses give similar but not identical testimony it is much more convincing and less likely that there is a large conspiracy to deceive as such an attempt by a group at mass deception is more likely to produce identical rehearsed testimony.
BTW In considering whether something is historical fact hearsay is definitely considered evidence.As I see it, if the testimony of first hand witnesses is considered evidence in a court of law, and it is, and if even hearsay is considered evidence in historical research, and it is, then saying there is no evidence of the existence of a god is objectively false.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?