True there doesn't necessarily need to be an affect to amplify. I imply there is with my bias, and you imply there isn't from your bias. You consider your position the null position, but I consider my experiences rational and valid and consider them the justified position.
As far as your assumptions about the credibility. What is your opinion of the particular study I used in this particular case and it's source? Is it's reputation strong enough for you?
That's my problem with a lot of athesitic arguments (I'm sure they have plenty for me) that it's not enough evidence, then any evidence will do, oh but then the evidence isn't objective enough, unbiased enough... oh it is.. then it hasn't been peer reviewed enough or ran through enough times. For the claim of an entity existing outside the universe I understand that it requires extraordinary evidence, but I can never find the line.
As far as your assumptions about the credibility. What is your opinion of the particular study I used in this particular case and it's source? Is it's reputation strong enough for you?
That's my problem with a lot of athesitic arguments (I'm sure they have plenty for me) that it's not enough evidence, then any evidence will do, oh but then the evidence isn't objective enough, unbiased enough... oh it is.. then it hasn't been peer reviewed enough or ran through enough times. For the claim of an entity existing outside the universe I understand that it requires extraordinary evidence, but I can never find the line.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
