Probably because rain is MUCH more likely than any alleged deity.

I got it.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary scientific evidence.
Extraordinary convincing religious proof comes from extraordinary mental gymnastics.
Extraordinary faith requires extraordinary ignorance.

Don't be sad religious people. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

(November 10, 2015 at 11:43 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 10, 2015 at 9:13 pm)bennyboy Wrote: So when I don't apply the same standards to "It's raining today" as I do to "We don't know what made the universe, therefore Sky Daddy," I'm moving goalposts, huh?

Despite the straw man here, I believe that you are making more assumptions in accepting the claim it is raining outside or you may have other reasons for not perusing it as persistently as other claims.  Given the same circumstances though you do not have any more or less reason to believe.

Sure I do.  One is a particular instance of something I already know about the world-- that it sometimes rains.  I only have to determine whether you are telling the truth.

The God claim is entirely different.  It consists of something that I do not know about the world.  And even if I consider you a truthful person, I have to determine whether you have the willingness and capacity to accurately assess the source of your experiences.  Given that God is meant to be immaterial, and that our senses are purely to deal with material substances, then I'd be highly suspicious, therefore, that despite your experiences being powerful ones, you've made a serious mistake in attributing them to an immaterial Sky Daddy.

(November 11, 2015 at 7:19 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(November 10, 2015 at 11:43 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Despite the straw man here, I believe that you are making more assumptions in accepting the claim it is raining outside or you may have other reasons for not perusing it as persistently as other claims.  Given the same circumstances though you do not have any more or less reason to believe.

Sure I do.  One is a particular instance of something I already know about the world-- that it sometimes rains.  I only have to determine whether you are telling the truth.

The God claim is entirely different.  It consists of something that I do not know about the world.  And even if I consider you a truthful person, I have to determine whether you have the willingness and capacity to accurately assess the source of your experiences.  Given that God is meant to be immaterial, and that our senses are purely to deal with material substances, then I'd be highly suspicious, therefore, that despite your experiences being powerful ones, you've made a serious mistake in attributing them to an immaterial Sky Daddy.

If the same standard was applicable to "it's raining" and "god exists," we would be able to stick our head out the window, look up, and see both

(November 11, 2015 at 11:35 am)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: If the same standard was applicable to "it's raining" and "god exists," we would be able to stick our head out the window, look up, and see both

Y'all can close this thread now, after that hammer hit the nailhead, it's done.

(November 11, 2015 at 11:35 am)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: If the same standard was applicable to "it's raining" and "god exists," we would be able to stick our head out the window, look up, and see both

In the context of the discussion all I am arguing for is that similar claims, should be treated fairly and consistently. I do agree, that where you can physically verify the claim for yourself, then it is good to do so. However for many thing is this large world, we cannot do that with.

Although according to some, in the Witness Evidence thread I started, your observation that it is or is not raining my not be reliable.

(November 11, 2015 at 4:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 11, 2015 at 11:35 am)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: If the same standard was applicable to "it's raining" and "god exists," we would be able to stick our head out the window, look up, and see both

In the context of the discussion all I am arguing for is that similar claims, should be treated fairly and consistently. I do agree, that where you can physically verify the claim for yourself, then it is good to do so. However for many thing is this large world, we cannot do that with.

Although according to some, in the Witness Evidence thread I started, your observation that it is or is not raining my not be reliable.

It is so easily verified that your comparison is irrelevant.

I responded to the examples with what wsas

(November 11, 2015 at 5:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 11, 2015 at 4:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: In the context of the discussion all I am arguing for is that similar claims, should be treated fairly and consistently.  I do agree, that where you can physically verify the claim for yourself, then it is good to do so.  However for many thing is this large world, we cannot do that with.  

Although according to some, in the Witness Evidence thread I started, your observation that it is or is not raining my not be reliable.

It is so easily verified that your comparison is irrelevant.

I was responding to the example with what was given and was supplied in a similar context (someone else making a claim).   It wasn't my comparison and I was only responding to the evidence of people making a claim, and not attempting further investigation.  If you are going to go that route, then I don't think that the claim it is raining outside, is comparable to the earth is round.  One takes more work to verify than the other.

(November 11, 2015 at 5:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I responded to the examples with what wsas

(November 11, 2015 at 5:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It is so easily verified that your comparison is irrelevant.

I was responding to the example with what was given and was supplied in a similar context (someone else making a claim).   It wasn't my comparison and I was only responding to the evidence of people making a claim, and not attempting further investigation.  If you are going to go that route, then I don't think that the claim it is raining outside, is comparable to the earth is round.  One takes more work to verify than the other.

But they can be verified. That's the thing.

With God, Jesus' resurrection, and all that, no.

(November 11, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(November 11, 2015 at 5:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I responded to the examples with what wsas

I was responding to the example with what was given and was supplied in a similar context (someone else making a claim).   It wasn't my comparison and I was only responding to the evidence of people making a claim, and not attempting further investigation.  If you are going to go that route, then I don't think that the claim it is raining outside, is comparable to the earth is round.  One takes more work to verify than the other.

But they can be verified. That's the thing.

With God, Jesus' resurrection, and all that, no.

Do you only believe that which you can personally verify?   By the way, I think many have mistakenly assumed that I am looking to turn this into a thread showing evidence for God.... I'm gathering the arguments used against me here, to use against common descent evolution.  I have lots of new material, and best of all, I don't really have to investigate or understand the claims to use them.  Much less leg work involved.