True atheists?

[Alive_Again]

<The NDE folks were never dead. Period. And I've considered the idea of purpose and divine order.

<No evidence.

I suppose this is a prime example of "glossing over" the evidence so that you won't see it. The evidence is actually out there. Many were pronounced dead, with a death certificate already made out. The world would call this evidence. Some were dead for hours and were already laid out in the morgue. In some cases you've had their brains hanging out with absolutely no hope of recovery. Hospital staff were shocked and afraid to see them live again. What is the fruit of their life now? They want to tell people about Jesus and warn them about Hell. That there is too much fulfillment to forsake by going about oblivious to the spirit realm and God's plan for ALL of our lives.

One of the things I wanted to point out in my previous email was that you don't want to render a final judgment. Although you don't recognize the authority of the Word of God, I know that all people, even Christians can prevent the revelation of God to them in certain areas because of judgments they make in their hearts or with their lips. That is why if one were to truly be open to "seeing" differently on this subject, looking for "evidence", you wouldn't want to close the door yourself and hinder God from giving you revelation regarding His existence and presence. To be able so recognize His handiwork in creation by "seeing" and "hearing". Although you don't know this, but it's true anyway: "God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble".

In the case of the NDEs, you quickly dismissed their cases for lack of evidence. It is likely that you have not looked into their circumstances or you would not have replied like this. Unless of course, you don't consider death certificates by doctors to be evidence. If that is the case, you might fall under the category of the "willfully ignorant".

Unlike the spiritual enemies of God, God does not flaunt Himself personally. It's obvious in creation that there is a God. You might find if you change from rendering final judgment on matters and be open, that you might find the evidence overwhelming. If you look under enough logs, you'll definitely see evidence of demons. Watch them flee at the name of Jesus to "see" who's really in charge of the cosmos. (This happens in churches all of the time). "The Kingdom of God does not admit of observation". It's in the spirit realm. There is plenty of evidence of the spirit realm. You have to have "eyes" and "ears" to perceive it. If you're not humble, and you're not a seeker, or you've closed them by already rendering judgment (Why would you do this? Isn't that a bit premature?) you won't see, and it will be because you've willingly, beyond all logical reason chose to close them.

Although darkness is still darkness, I still think it better to be an agnostic (in spite of the Latin meaning "ignoramus") because at least you're open to discovering evidence to the contrary.

 

[Gishin]

<The NDE folks were never dead. Period. And I've considered the idea of purpose and divine order.

<No evidence.

1. I suppose this is a prime example of "glossing over" the evidence so that you won't see it. The evidence is actually out there. Many were pronounced dead, with a death certificate already made out. The world would call this evidence. Some were dead for hours and were already laid out in the morgue. In some cases you've had their brains hanging out with absolutely no hope of recovery. Hospital staff were shocked and afraid to see them live again. What is the fruit of their life now? They want to tell people about Jesus and warn them about Hell. That there is too much fulfillment to forsake by going about oblivious to the spirit realm and God's plan for ALL of our lives.

2. One of the things I wanted to point out in my previous email was that you don't want to render a final judgment. Although you don't recognize the authority of the Word of God, I know that all people, even Christians can prevent the revelation of God to them in certain areas because of judgments they make in their hearts or with their lips. That is why if one were to truly be open to "seeing" differently on this subject, looking for "evidence", you wouldn't want to close the door yourself and hinder God from giving you revelation regarding His existence and presence. To be able so recognize His handiwork in creation by "seeing" and "hearing". Although you don't know this, but it's true anyway: "God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble".

3. In the case of the NDEs, you quickly dismissed their cases for lack of evidence. It is likely that you have not looked into their circumstances or you would not have replied like this. Unless of course, you don't consider death certificates by doctors to be evidence. If that is the case, you might fall under the category of the "willfully ignorant".

4. Unlike the spiritual enemies of God, God does not flaunt Himself personally. It's obvious in creation that there is a God. You might find if you change from rendering final judgment on matters and be open, that you might find the evidence overwhelming. If you look under enough logs, you'll definitely see evidence of demons. Watch them flee at the name of Jesus to "see" who's really in charge of the cosmos. (This happens in churches all of the time). "The Kingdom of God does not admit of observation". It's in the spirit realm. There is plenty of evidence of the spirit realm. You have to have "eyes" and "ears" to perceive it. If you're not humble, and you're not a seeker, or you've closed them by already rendering judgment (Why would you do this? Isn't that a bit premature?) you won't see, and it will be because you've willingly, beyond all logical reason chose to close them.

5. Although darkness is still darkness, I still think it better to be an agnostic (in spite of the Latin meaning "ignoramus") because at least you're open to discovering evidence to the contrary.

1. No, there is no glossing over the evidence, no evidence was presented. Near death experiences are bad examples. When people are dying or injured their brains tend to do crazy things, like hallucinate. The "white light" and seeing the faces of loved ones is also present when people have other kinds of traumatic brain injury. Different hospitals also have different standards for "dead" and the line isn't clearly drawn. There's "dead" as in their heart stops beating, "dead" as in no more cognitive brain function, and "dead" as in all of their organs no longer work.

2. Why is it the burden of the thoughtful and the critical to suffer hell then? You're basically saying is the reason I don't believe is because I don't believe. Obviously I don't believe in it, so I can't make myself believe it.

3. You presented no cases for us to consider, you merely made a claim. Give us a case if you want us to consider it, preferrably not a personal anecdote.

4. If it was so obvious God was behind creation, well, frankly it would be more obvious. I don't believe in demons, and I don't believe you when you say you make them flee in the name of Jesus. I believe you believe in it, but that's not evidence. You wish for something hard enough, you're told something often enough, and it's reinforced in you often enough, you'll believe anything, especially if you leave your logic and reason at the door.

5. I'm open to any credible evidence and will consider any argument. There has not been any evidence and every argument has failed logically, including yours.

 

[Alive_Again]

<1. No, there is no glossing over the evidence, no evidence was presented.

Does evidence have to present itself to you before you consider it? Even investigators go and find evidence. The judgment was rendered as final without any consideration of evidence. It was sealed with a "period", as though that was indeed the final word. This is the "spirit" of being closed to seeing with spiritual eyes and ears by rendering final judgments. Sorry to say, because I seek your welfare, it perfectly illustrated my point in my first post.

Although you can't accept my reasoning about how making judgments limits God because He won't violate His Word, I offer you this "possibility" to consider, because you stand nothing to gain at all with a stance of being "closed" to consider seeing and hearing with senses you aren't aware of. Take a chance, we're only talking about your destiny after you die. Since you haven't died yet, and you will eventually, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, but "opening" yourself by rescinding the heart condition of final judgments.

<Near death experiences are bad examples. When people are dying or injured their brains tend to do crazy things, like hallucinate.

That's the reasoning people accept because accepting this violates their whole concept of no afterlife. Although there are those who were dead for a few minutes, and you might point to those if you must, we're really talking about those clinically dead: zero brain waves in this country. And not for just a brief period of time. Some of these were dead for hours, laid out in the morgue already with toe tags, etc. They're excellent examples because they provide true evidence, medically verified, that they had died (with zero brain function), with a subsequent testimony of leaving their bodies and witnessing possible destinations for those who also die (Heaven and Hell). The testimonies they have reflect biblical preaching about Heaven and Hell. Also, their lives are radically reformed and become testimonies for all (you and I) to consider.

<Different hospitals also have different standards for "dead" and the line isn't clearly drawn.

Maybe at one time (pre-1980s), but there's no room for controversy now.

<2. Why is it the burden of the thoughtful and the critical to suffer hell then?

We're not talking about being "thoughtful" and "critical". We're talking about rendering final judgments. As a believer, by courtesy I point out to you that you can block the very thing you would like to be convinced of if you ever even considered that there were consequences for our lifestyles by a creator.

If you wanted to be thoughtful and critical, then you might resemble the proverb that says: "A fool believes every word, but a wise man looks well to his going."

<You're basically saying is the reason I don't believe is because I don't believe.

I'm not asking you to "drum up" some belief or feeling that isn't true to your reasoning. I propose that you consider repenting (if you will) of the position of rendering final judgment.

<3. You presented no cases for us to consider, you merely made a claim. Give us a case if you want us to consider it, preferrably not a personal anecdote.

Possibly, though considering the stakes provided, and what is to be gained, is it not for you to review and consider (in a state of humility and openness)? Atheists are typically seen to be haughty and highminded. Break the trend and make a point of being open.

<4. If it was so obvious God was behind creation, well, frankly it would be more obvious.

The Word says that it is obvious and relates a blindness and a foolishness for those who would be (other)"wise". I believe it to be completely apparent myself.

<I don't believe in demons, and I don't believe you when you say you make them flee in the name of Jesus.

Not that I suggest this, but if you take a vacation in the carribean voodoo culture, possession is obvious. Also, spirits that counterfeit spiritual gifts (like the word of knowledge) by what are know as "familiar spirits" who live unseen in the world and can easily comment on things only known by direct parties. The church runs across people who manifest demons all of the time, and they are subject to the name of Jesus. It's not about what I think. The fruits are apparent. Of course you won't see these because you aren't in church.

<You wish for something hard enough, you're told something often enough, and it's reinforced in you often enough, you'll believe anything, especially if you leave your logic and reason at the door.

It's not about wishing. We certainly don't leave logic and reasoning at the door. God says that His ways are higher than our ways. He proves this and by experiencing the truth we consent to His authority and power. He does this again and again.

<5. I'm open to any credible evidence and will consider any argument. There has not been any evidence and every argument has failed logically, including yours.

My argument is that by previous discussion here, final judgment was rendered without consideration of the facts. It didn't fail because right from the first sentences, it demonstrated the very thing I was asking atheists to consider. Isn't saying that it failed logically to be another continuation of that blindness? We've already determined that individual cases were not investigated and an immediate judgment was made.

You have more "faith" in the hypothesis about supposed "hallucinations" from people with zero brain waves. Have you considered how quickly you received that? There are far more people who have died, enough for a few minutes that came back convinced of God and Jesus just like we are taught in the Bible. The way more convincing cases are "cold ones" with zero brain activity who were dead for an hour or more who return on a mission from God Himself. Isn't that more striking to a reasoning person? How about when some of them come back healed?

I have no doubt that there are delirious people who hallucinate wild things, but not from people without any brain activity.

I know from God's Word that spiritual learning is done precept upon precept. We can relate that to logical reasoning in the "natural". My recommendation to you and others in your position is to change your mind regarding rash judgments and to put yourself in a place where you objectively consider alternate views, as a "seeker" with a humble heart, you might find that you eventually receive God's grace and begin to "see" and "hear" with your heart. Although you don't believe it, I have found that this is a heart condition God can work with. It is necessary to finding Him.

You have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.

 

[Gishin]

So many words yet to said nothing, just gave me another variation of Pascal's Wager and betrayed your belief in other superstitions such as voodoo. You going to tell me the Loa are real too, and Baron Samedi is going to show up, tophat and all?

 

[Alive_Again]

<So many words yet to said nothing, just gave me another variation of Pascal's Wager and betrayed your belief in other superstitions such as voodoo. You going to tell me the Loa are real too, and Baron Samedi is going to show up, tophat and all?

There is no "belief" in voodoo. I know for a fact it is a religion run by demons. I know there are devils. Devils know there is a God. This is nothing new. Not that I would seek it out, but if you came across it, you'd acknowledge that it's more than pitchforks and superstition/stereotypes, and you might find yourself intuitively calling out for the calvary.

We know that the blind see nothing, as you indicate. While I merely point out that willfully putting yourself in a closed position "closes" the spiritual eyes and ears, you say that I say nothing. The whole point of my plea to you and your kind is to choose to open the eye. There should be no point of contention really since that doesn't provide the content, but will only allow you to see.

As they say "There's no one as blind as those who will not see". A choice. Opening the eyes is only the first part. Supplying what would be seen is not done by the eye, but by the actual substance that is seen, is not seen by a closed eye.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

<1. No, there is no glossing over the evidence, no evidence was presented.

Does evidence have to present itself to you before you consider it?

If there is specific incidents you think are compelling - yes, evidence must be presented.

Even investigators go and find evidence.

I have looked into many NDE cases, and found no evidence that actual brain death occurred. If there are specific incidents that you think make your case, it's incumbent on you to present them.

The judgment was rendered as final without any consideration of evidence. It was sealed with a "period", as though that was indeed the final word.

Not true. You presume we haven't already examined these cases.

This is the "spirit" of being closed to seeing with spiritual eyes and ears by rendering final judgments. Sorry to say, because I seek your welfare, it perfectly illustrated my point in my first post.

No, actually you don't speak our welfare. If you did, you'd follow the precepts of your Christ and allow his words to speak, rather than making unwarranted assumptions about us and being offensive from the beginning.

Although you can't accept my reasoning about how making judgments limits God because He won't violate His Word, I offer you this "possibility" to consider, because you stand nothing to gain at all with a stance of being "closed" to consider seeing and hearing with senses you aren't aware of. Take a chance, we're only talking about your destiny after you die. Since you haven't died yet, and you will eventually, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, but "opening" yourself by rescinding the heart condition of final judgments.

Pascal's Wager. Long discredited. Why should I take your Bible as truth rather than the Vedas or the Qu'ran.

That's the reasoning people accept because accepting this violates their whole concept of no afterlife.

No, that's because the evidence points us to that.

Although there are those who were dead for a few minutes, and you might point to those if you must, we're really talking about those clinically dead: zero brain waves in this country. And not for just a brief period of time. Some of these were dead for hours, laid out in the morgue already with toe tags, etc. They're excellent examples because they provide true evidence, medically verified, that they had died (with zero brain function), with a subsequent testimony of leaving their bodies and witnessing possible destinations for those who also die (Heaven and Hell). The testimonies they have reflect biblical preaching about Heaven and Hell. Also, their lives are radically reformed and become testimonies for all (you and I) to consider.

Without specifics, this cannot be evaluated.

<2. Why is it the burden of the thoughtful and the critical to suffer hell then?

We're not talking about being "thoughtful" and "critical". We're talking about rendering final judgments. As a believer, by courtesy I point out to you that you can block the very thing you would like to be convinced of if you ever even considered that there were consequences for our lifestyles by a creator.

But you're not being courteous; you're being rude. And we haven't rendered final judgement, so for you to accuse of doing so is incorrect.

<You're basically saying is the reason I don't believe is because I don't believe.

I'm not asking you to "drum up" some belief or feeling that isn't true to your reasoning. I propose that you consider repenting (if you will) of the position of rendering final judgment.

None of us have done that. You should stop telling us to stop rendering final judgement when we haven't done so. On the other hand, you have.

<3. You presented no cases for us to consider, you merely made a claim. Give us a case if you want us to consider it, preferrably not a personal anecdote.

Possibly, though considering the stakes provided, and what is to be gained, is it not for you to review and consider (in a state of humility and openness)? Atheists are typically seen to be haughty and highminded. Break the trend and make a point of being open.

We are. You didn't bother to find out.

<4. If it was so obvious God was behind creation, well, frankly it would be more obvious.

The Word says that it is obvious and relates a blindness and a foolishness for those who would be (other)"wise". I believe it to be completely apparent myself.

And we don't. See how that works? You have your opinion, but you present nothing to support your opinion. And you can't claim that the evidence is obvious on the basis of Biblical claims because that's part of what's under consideration.

<I don't believe in demons, and I don't believe you when you say you make them flee in the name of Jesus.

Not that I suggest this, but if you take a vacation in the carribean voodoo culture, possession is obvious. Also, spirits that counterfeit spiritual gifts (like the word of knowledge) by what are know as "familiar spirits" who live unseen in the world and can easily comment on things only known by direct parties. The church runs across people who manifest demons all of the time, and they are subject to the name of Jesus. It's not about what I think. The fruits are apparent. Of course you won't see these because you aren't in church.

Ah, once again - evidence you claim but cannot produce.

<You wish for something hard enough, you're told something often enough, and it's reinforced in you often enough, you'll believe anything, especially if you leave your logic and reason at the door.

It's not about wishing. We certainly don't leave logic and reasoning at the door. God says that His ways are higher than our ways. He proves this and by experiencing the truth we consent to His authority and power. He does this again and again.

We haven't experienced these things. No evidence.

<5. I'm open to any credible evidence and will consider any argument. There has not been any evidence and every argument has failed logically, including yours.

My argument is that by previous discussion here, final judgment was rendered without consideration of the facts.

Your argument was wrong.

It didn't fail because right from the first sentences, it demonstrated the very thing I was asking atheists to consider. Isn't saying that it failed logically to be another continuation of that blindness? We've already determined that individual cases were not investigated and an immediate judgment was made.

False. These cases have been investigated and found wanting. It happened long before you came along.

You have more "faith" in the hypothesis about supposed "hallucinations" from people with zero brain waves. Have you considered how quickly you received that? There are far more people who have died, enough for a few minutes that came back convinced of God and Jesus just like we are taught in the Bible. The way more convincing cases are "cold ones" with zero brain activity who were dead for an hour or more who return on a mission from God Himself. Isn't that more striking to a reasoning person? How about when some of them come back healed?

Cases? Actual citations? None of them came back healed. You've been reading tripe again.

I know from God's Word that spiritual learning is done precept upon precept. We can relate that to logical reasoning in the "natural". My recommendation to you and others in your position is to change your mind regarding rash judgments and to put yourself in a place where you objectively consider alternate views, as a "seeker" with a humble heart, you might find that you eventually receive God's grace and begin to "see" and "hear" with your heart. Although you don't believe it, I have found that this is a heart condition God can work with. It is necessary to finding Him.

No evidence. Try again.

You have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.

And you end with Pascal's Wager. Again. How absolutely predictable.

Please don't take up missionary work.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

<So many words yet to said nothing, just gave me another variation of Pascal's Wager and betrayed your belief in other superstitions such as voodoo. You going to tell me the Loa are real too, and Baron Samedi is going to show up, tophat and all?

There is no "belief" in voodoo. I know for a fact it is a religion run by demons. I know there are devils. Devils know there is a God. This is nothing new. Not that I would seek it out, but if you came across it, you'd acknowledge that it's more than pitchforks and superstition/stereotypes, and you might find yourself intuitively calling out for the calvary.

Based on what facts? What evidence? How do you KNOW this?

We know that the blind see nothing, as you indicate. While I merely point out that willfully putting yourself in a closed position "closes" the spiritual eyes and ears, you say that I say nothing. The whole point of my plea to you and your kind is to choose to open the eye. There should be no point of contention really since that doesn't provide the content, but will only allow you to see.

There is no evidence that we have spiritual eyes and ears.

As they say "There's no one as blind as those who will not see". A choice. Opening the eyes is only the first part. Supplying what would be seen is not done by the eye, but by the actual substance that is seen, is not seen by a closed eye.

I am perfectly open to any specific evidence you care to produce. But I've looked at the Bible and various theistic claims quite a bit. I've found nothing.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

This is vague. I know I will die. I don't believe there will be an afterlife or judge, so I'm not worried.

I thought Buddhists believe in reincarnation.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

<1. No, there is no glossing over the evidence, no evidence was presented.

Does evidence have to present itself to you before you consider it? Even investigators go and find evidence.

That's true. I rely on the media to get the evidence for me and to present it to me. I don't hang around hospitals to witness near death experiences. The assumption is that any miraculous event will be publicised and investigated.

That's the reasoning people accept because accepting this violates their whole concept of no afterlife.

It also violates nature.

Although there are those who were dead for a few minutes, and you might point to those if you must, we're really talking about those clinically dead: zero brain waves in this country. And not for just a brief period of time. Some of these were dead for hours, laid out in the morgue already with toe tags, etc. They're excellent examples because they provide true evidence, medically verified, that they had died (with zero brain function), with a subsequent testimony of leaving their bodies and witnessing possible destinations for those who also die (Heaven and Hell). The testimonies they have reflect biblical preaching about Heaven and Hell. Also, their lives are radically reformed and become testimonies for all (you and I) to consider.

Consider science-grade evidence, conjecture and myth. Before you apply your "virtue" of open-mindedness to a claim you had better work out what category the claim falls under very carefully. Open-mindedness is not a virtue if you throw scrutiny out of the window; that's called being naive.
Without oxygen, at normal body temperature, the brain is dead after a few minutes. Believe me, if there were any science-grade evidence to the contrary there would be a queue of a thousand scientists outside the door.

You have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.

There is much to lose. You are asking people to lose their integrity. To abandon their commitment to objectivity. To reject nature as it presents itself to us in favour of an ego-centric fantasy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Unless of course, you don't consider death certificates by doctors to be evidence.

They aren't evidence. Death certificates mean that a patient could not be revived by a doctor. They don't mean that it is biologically impossible for the patient to regain consciousness.

Death certificates do not pretend to assert that complete biological death has occurred.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

The evidence is actually out there.

Like a voice on the radio and radio waves. Thats why to me, the man is sufficient. The beliefs waged as counter arguments "one day we will..materialism... because past" etc is a universal creed in atheism, and is not only applied to the man. Yet to determine what should be pursued, you need to have a grasp of what was actually given in the beginning, enabling you to know what to look for. The nature of the derived enabling the awareness of certain conditions to be met, behavior enabling predictions to be made, tests to be conducted, and ultimately confirmed.

But to them it is "leprachology". Stripping the fervently pursued exalted state of the atheist, analysis of person is more telling. And without a firm grasp on what is actually given, the "one day we will...materialism..because past" is like a mental shock collar. Even if the data is right in front your face, this belief comes into play, in every single instance for every thing presented. With the way this argument is heading, this point cannot be emphasized more. Just a little heads up.

As an example, men claiming radio waves don't exist. It is given in the beginning that one article of evidence, voice on the radio, is the result of radio waves. Why is the attributing of the voice on the radio not evidence for radio waves? Because [insert primer for primitive and ignorance] men attributed radio waves to things in the past and there is a faith and hope that one day man will find a localized source for the voice on the radio.

So when something like Darwinism (little men in the radio hypothesis) comes along..."last person to get there is a doo doo head!"

 

[Eudaimonist]

Almost all of your post was incomprehensible. I did manage to parse this part:

As an example, men claiming radio waves don't exist. It is given in the beginning that one article of evidence, voice on the radio, is the result of radio waves. Why is the attributing of the voice on the radio not evidence for radio waves?

The voice on the radio is not by itself sufficient evidence to conclude that radio waves were involved. It is evidence that a voice is being produced by the equipment somehow. The voice, taken by itself, is ambiguous as evidence. The inference that it is radio waves that produce the voice requires a larger context of evidence.

It is only because the inventor of the radio had specifically designed the equipment to be able to transmit and receive radio waves that it was concluded that it was specifically radio waves that carried the voice-information. The conclusion required a pre-existing foundation in scientific knowledge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I thought Buddhists believe in reincarnation.

Some do; some don't. It's not a requirement.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Like a voice on the radio and radio waves. Thats why to me, the man is sufficient.

Why "the man" and not the transmission of radio signals?

And evidence for what, precisely? Eudaimonist is right in pointing out that it "is evidence that a voice is being produced by the equipment somehow." We can easily opt to call this unknown 'somehow' a name. "Transmission mechanism" for instance, or "Radio waves", although I would think that a few more requirememts need to be met before the title "wave" is bestowed upon the mechanism.

Similar with "the man" or NDEs or you-name-it. Something, somehow, sure. We could even give it a name. Sure. Go on.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

In the case of the NDEs, you quickly dismissed their cases for lack of evidence. It is likely that you have not looked into their circumstances or you would not have replied like this. Unless of course, you don't consider death certificates by doctors to be evidence. If that is the case, you might fall under the category of the "willfully ignorant".

How are NDEs explained by that what you call "God." Try as I might can't draw a conlclusion and/or see them as evidence for ... well, yeah ... For what exactly? It is a total dud.

 

[Greg1234]

Almost all of your post was incomprehensible. I did manage to parse this part:



The voice on the radio is not by itself sufficient evidence to conclude that radio waves were involved. It is evidence that a voice is being produced by the equipment somehow. The voice, taken by itself, is ambiguous as evidence. The inference that it is radio waves that produce the voice requires a larger context of evidence.

That is because the voice on the radio is not "by itself". An effect is presented with the cause. The investigation of the components and methodology involved in the application of radio waves always follow. Your attempt to separate them can for the most part, remain ignored.

In the mean time though, you ask for evidence for radio waves, so I show you the voice on the radio. Whether or not you have sufficiently studied and applied information given on the radio, methods of receiving and the conditions to be met in tests carried out outlining the role and implementation of the various components involved in application, is on you.

Your next option is counter evidence regarding the points outlined above. And this is provided comparatively in the form of little men in the radio. In fact, proper study of what is given is enough to provide a rebut.

It is only because the inventor of the radio had specifically designed

Uh oh. Study the text and you will avoid handing yourself over like that.

the equipment to be able to transmit and receive radio waves that it was concluded that it was specifically radio waves that carried the voice-information. The conclusion required a pre-existing foundation in scientific knowledge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The conclusion that the voice on the radio is caused by radio waves does not require pre existing knowledge that the equipment was designed as a transceiver, though this aids and is employed in both cases. The knowledge that the man is designed for this purpose and through these means has already been handed down. Replace "scientific knowledge" with the "Leprachology" misnomer.

The application of scientific knowledge (leprachology) will enable a man to identify the various components involved, their relation to the nature of radio waves, conduct tests and experiment with conditions to be fulfilled based on the nature of this frequency, diagnose phenomena involved and see that it is through the application of radio waves, the voice on the radio is manifested.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In the mean time though, you ask for evidence for radio waves, so I show you the voice on the radio. Whether or not you have sufficiently studied and applied information given on the radio, methods of receiving and the conditions to be met in tests carried out outlining the role and implementation of the various components involved in application, is on you.

No, the burden really is on you to present this evidence. We are not obligated to challenge ambiguous evidence. Even if we were the ones to investigate, until the case is made no one is entitled to say that the voice is evidence of specifically radio waves. The voice is just as likely evidence of your masterful ventriloquism skills.

Your next option is counter evidence regarding the points outlined above.

No, it isn't, since there is no unambiguous conclusion to draw from that evidence. You still have the burden of proof. You could, after all, still have a tape recorder hidden inside of your "radio".

The conclusion that the voice on the radio is caused by radio waves does not require pre existing knowledge that the equipment was designed as a transceiver

It could be a pure accident that your gizmo happened to act like a radio, but there is a burden on you to show that it is radio waves that are responsible for the voice, and not a tape recorder or some other cause producing that voice.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

Why "the man" and not the transmission of radio signals?

And evidence for what, precisely? Eudaimonist is right in pointing out that it "is evidence that a voice is being produced by the equipment somehow." We can easily opt to call this unknown 'somehow' a name. "Transmission mechanism" for instance, or "Radio waves", although I would think that a few more requirememts need to be met before the title "wave" is bestowed upon the mechanism.

We already have a cause for the voice on the radio. Radio waves. This is well in progress and study and application is a norm. The "somehow" appeal by Mr "Eudaimonist" is merely that same latent "men used to believe radio waves...primitive..so materialism...somehow" belief being cued and applied.

This belief is not shared and with study, one can look at what is given for what it is (sans the "men used to"). The trees are in the field, the car is driving, and chance cannot assemble life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

We already have a cause for the voice on the radio. Radio waves.

Why do we know that cause?

Because we know what electromagnetic waves are, and we know how certain technological devices can produce them and receive them.

The rest of your post isn't in the English language, and so I can't respond to that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

No, the burden really is on you to present this evidence. We are not obligated to challenge ambiguous evidence. Even if we were the ones to investigate, until the case is made no one is entitled to say that the voice is evidence of specifically radio waves.

The case has been made. Thousands of pages have been written. Methods applied. That they should be rejected is your belief (remember that). If you have no counter evidence, I am not obligated to chase you down and drill it into you. There was the need to see evidence for radio waves, the voice on the radio was given. If you are not even aware of how the radio works then your next option is to present a cogent rebut.

The voice is just as likely evidence of your masterful ventriloquism skills.

If you had investigated the radio you would have found the methods utilized to produce the voice on the radio. Applied it independently, and see that it works without presence of big or little men. On that same note, the belief that the voice on the radio is made by big men belongs to that set which warrants your belief that the voice on the radio is to be rejected as evidence for radio waves.

No, it isn't, since there is no unambiguous conclusion to draw from that evidence. You still have the burden of proof.

The method for conclusion has been outlined in the previous post. See that part where the effect is produced with a cause and not "by itself". This is another attempt to separate. The voice on the radio is not "by itself". There is the radio, there are the components, there is the method of receipt, there is a manual on how a radio works, there are active and ongoing phenomena, there is investigation of the conditions, and there is the voice on the radio. All these factors are points of rebut. Do that. One of the reasons why you can present tape recorders and ventriloquists is through blocking out all this, or at least attempting to, and of course employing "The Belief".

You could, after all, still have a tape recorder hidden inside of your "radio".

This is another belief in the set you dwell in, warranting your rejection. It is not shared. Your "could be", is yours and sustains your belief. The rejection for what is given, (the cause of the voice on the radio is a result of radio waves) for "it could be..." is also drawing on the "men used to believe radio waves..it could be...rejected...materialism". I do not share that belief. Nor is the big men, little men, or tape recorded men applicable when the method of receiving is examined.

It could be a pure accident that your gizmo happened to act like a radio, but there is a burden on you to show that it is radio waves that are responsible for the voice, and not a tape recorder or some other cause producing that voice.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Again, your "could be" is yours. If you have evidence for tape recorders or little men, present it. Otherwise, I acknowledge your belief. The way radio waves are determined to be the cause of the voice on the radio was just outlined in the previous post.