The circular argument of God and miracles

[DogmaHunter]

...and isn't open minded about hearing possible explanations. That's the point that's been made repeatedly.

I'll respond to this, with a quote by Richard Dawkins (imagine a rather annoying old man's voice, with a delightfull british accent, for extra dramatic effect):
"We should have an open mind... just not so open that our brains start falling out..."

I can only repeat myself: unfalsifiable models are infinite in number.

Demanding an actual shred of evidence / data / reasonable argumentation that is supportive of a certain proposition, in order to actually consider the proposition as being a valid option, is NOT "having a closed mind".

Rather, it is having a rational mind.

Otherwise, you'll be rather busy considering / pondering and infinite amount of unfalsifiable models. It literally is only limited by your imagination.

It. Is. A. Waste. Of. Time.

 

[miknik5]

You don't have anything constructive to respond to the points being raised?

What would you like me to add that Alice hasn't already given?

Is there something above the Truth of God that needs to be "added"?

 

[miknik5]

You don't have anything constructive to respond to the points being raised?

What Albion said

 

[DogmaHunter]

What did you think this argument has to do with?

One states matter of fact because of an incident happening it is GOD. The other doesn't quite believe this to be the reason for this thing

After that I don't know what you expect others here to do.

The sides are separated and the line is drawn between the two

It's an ongoing battle between "Alice" and "Bob"

So.... no explanation on how Alices's proposed "answer" of "god-dun-it", is testable?

Seems like I wasn't wrong after all then, and Alice's model indeed is not testable.

Consider yourself invited as well as motivated to share with us all at any time, how it is testable in your opinion.

 

[miknik5]

I'll respond to this, with a quote by Richard Dawkins (imagine a rather annoying old man's voice, with a delightfull british accent, for extra dramatic effect):
"We should have an open mind... just not so open that our brains start falling out..."

I can only repeat myself: unfalsifiable models are infinite in number.

Demanding an actual shred of evidence / data / reasonable argumentation that is supportive of a certain proposition, in order to actually consider the proposition as being a valid option, is NOT "having a closed mind".

Rather, it is having a rational mind.

Otherwise, you'll be rather busy considering / pondering and infinite amount of unfalsifiable models. It literally is only limited by your imagination.

It. Is. A. Waste. Of. Time.

Actually. Take care of that before they do

 

[DogmaHunter]

What would you like me to add that Alice hasn't already given?

How about, a way to test Alice's "hypothesis"?

Is there something above the Truth of God that needs to be "added"?

Yes: evidence that it is, in fact, the truth.

 

[miknik5]

So.... no explanation on how Alices's proposed "answer" of "god-dun-it", is testable?

Seems like I wasn't wrong after all then, and Alice's model indeed is not testable.

Consider yourself invited as well as motivated to share with us all at any time, how it is testable in your opinion.

Yes.

The "wind" blew where it listeth

 

[DogmaHunter]

What Albion said

You mean, his fallacious post that I just exposed?

 

[miknik5]

How about, a way to test Alice's "hypothesis"?



Yes: evidence that it is, in fact, the truth.

Wait

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes.

The "wind" blew where it listeth

Whut?

 

[miknik5]

You mean, his fallacious post that I just exposed?

I mean the truth that this thread is properly titled. Except there is "Alice" on the merry go round calmly stating a Truth and then there is "Bob" and "Bobs" getting on and off and complaining

Sir. You don't know how lucky you really are that "Alice" is patient and still on the merry go round

She doesn't really have to go anywhere

"Bob" does

 

[miknik5]

Whut?

wel there's your homework for the day

John 3
1 John 2
John 20


I'm sorry. I am not one to break up chapters and provide verses

You'll have to read the whole chapter. If you are still having difficulty making the connection I can help you

But you have to do your own homework

Now get off the merry go round "Bob" and do the testing

 

[Albion]

How about, a way to test Alice's "hypothesis"?

Or Bob's.

Yeh, that might be better than

1) satirizing theists as yokels:

no explanation on how Alices's proposed "answer" of "god-dun-it", is testable.

or

2) sticking one's fingers in the ears and stamping one's feet:

You mean, his fallacious post that I just exposed?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I mean the truth that this thread is properly titled. Except there is "Alice" on the merry go round calmly stating a Truth and then there is "Bob" and "Bobs" getting on and off and complaining

How can it be verified that what you call a "Truth" here, is, in fact, a "truth"?

Sir. You don't know how lucky you really are that "Alice" is patient and still on the merry go round

I'ld consider myself "luckier", if Alice could actually demonstrate that what she says is, in fact, truth.

She doesn't really have to go anywhere

Ow yes, she does. You know where? Her burden of proof!

 

[DogmaHunter]

wel there's your homework for the day

John 3
1 John 2
John 20

I'm sorry. I am not one to break up chapters and provide verses

You'll have to read the whole chapter. If you are still having difficulty making the connection I can help you

But you have to do your own homework

Sorry, but my question is not answerable by pointing out religious claims in a bronze age book.

I'm asking you for ways to test the "hypothesis".
I'm not asking you to pile up even more unsubstantiated claims.

You don't test a claim, by adding more claims.

Now get off the merry go round "Bob" and do the testing

Test what and how?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Or Bob's.

Bob isn't proposing anything. He's just saying that he doesn't know. There isn't anything to test.

Yeh, that might be better than

1) satirizing theists as yokels:


or

2) sticking one's fingers in the ears and stamping one's feet:

Instead of posting meaningless one liners, perhaps you should go into my post and point out where you disagree and explain why.

 

[Albion]

Bob isn't proposing anything.

Sure he is.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It means you first believe there is a God and you go to seek to know Him for yourself


Which is what you are supposed to do

Without faith it is impossible to please GOD for one would have to believe that HE IS and a rewarder of all who diligently seek HIM

So we're first supposed to believe in Vishnu and then go seek him out.

Gotcha.

 

[miknik5]

How do you differentiate your own imagination, from the voice of an undectable entity that only you can hear?

Do you agree that a lot of people have hallucinations (both auditive as well as visual)? That some people simply are mistaken about the nature of certain things that happen to them?

How do you know that you aren't one of them?



Funny how, whenever a person claims to have had a divine being talk to them, it always ended up being a character for the religion they already know about.

Muslims hear/see Allah, Christians hear/see Christ and Hindu's hear/see Vishnu, etc.

Seeing how all these religions are mutually exclusive, at best only one of you can be correct.

Considering that you all make similar claims, that all of you except one (at most) are wrong/mistaken by definition and that there is no way to differentiate the claims all of you make.... it most likely outcome, by far, is that you are all wrong.

How can it be verified that what you call a "Truth" here, is, in fact, a "truth"?



I'ld consider myself "luckier", if Alice could actually demonstrate that what she says is, in fact, truth.



Ow yes, she does. You know where? Her burden of proof!

it is not a burden to her sir. In fact all burdens in this world are lifted off of her

She knows what she knows

She has stated what she knows

The burden is in the one who stands in disbelief

And more so if he thinks he can point his finger at the one who testified and say but I did not believe her testimony

Be like the toenspeople who heard the woman at the wells testimony

And do what the townspeople did

Reference John 4

 

[miknik5]

So we're first supposed to believe in Vishnu and then go seek him out.

Gotcha.

Ridiculous And dishonest
You know what you were told to do.
Do the same thing as was told to Dogmahunter regarding the woman at the wells testimony

She was not testifying of Vishnu. I can assure you of that