(July 27, 2017 at 7:00 pm)SteveII Wrote:(July 27, 2017 at 5:40 pm)shadow Wrote: We don't demand more than regular evidence and assessment on a philosophical basis: we demand it because we want to draw good conclusions to make good decisions. If someone's claiming something that is within the laws of physics, is supported by empirical evidence and has no profit motive, I don't need as much convincing to believe them as if they are claiming there is an all powerful being controlling my destiny who wants me to give them my money. You really don't understand why? [1]
I don't understand how any of this is evidence. [2]
About 1000 years ago, germ theory was inconceivable. People also believed in witches, that the earth was flat, that the sun moved around the earth. Was the fact that the majority of the population believed in these entirely false assumptions a testament to their validity? Or is a belief in witches the result of fear, misinformation, and a lack of education? It is entirely false to say that because people believe something it is true. If you can prove something it is true. I have no interest in whether a belief is 'compelling to a significant amount of people'. Islam is compelling to 1.8 billion people: do you believe that as well? [3]
1. I'm glad you admit that the criteria is arbitrary. I and 90% of the world have no trouble in believing in the supernatural so do not dismiss evidence simply because it does not conform to a naturalistic worldview.
2. Then you do not understand the definition of evidence. Don't be one of those people who say this is not evidence--it make you sound foolish. http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/
3. You are conflating belief about how the world worked with how to interpret things they saw happen with their own eyes. Even first century people knew the difference between healed and not healed, alive and dead, water and wine.
1. Why use the word 'admit'? Are you under the impression that I'm, like, the spawn of satan who knows you're right but just doesn't want to say it? I'd suggest, if you want to achieve anything productive, change your conception of my motives. I am trying to understand your argument, not trying to punch you out. I would be thrilled to learn it is valid, but I'm not yet convinced.
Anyways, you're pulling out percentages. I just googled it, and an estimated 32% of people in the world are Christians. Hitler won 44% of the popular vote in Germany in 1933. So, by your argument that the proportion of people sheeping an argument increases its validity, Hitler's views are better than the Christian ideology? If 90% of a school class gets a test question wrong, is their empirically false answer now right by virtue of the number of misinformed students in the class?
2. You don't need to be condescending. I'm saying that nothing you quoted is actually evidence of anything. You just listed different formats for expressing information, not any actual evidence. If you have actual evidence of god, not just a bullet point list of random forms that evidence could be in, please provide.
3. Sorry, have you heard eyewitness testimony from these people? Have you seen the events that you believe in here? Are you really taking the stance that there could not possibly be a false account of something witnessed by goat herders 2000 years ago because humans are just so damn objective?
