Author Topic: Evidence  (Read 14605 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12529
  • Darwins +325/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #232 on: July 04, 2013, 06:17:55 AM »
I see life every time I look up at the night stars. To me planets, stars, suns, the universe itself is life. Whether there's minuscule life such as "us" out there I find to be highly irrelevant compared to that.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #233 on: July 04, 2013, 08:16:14 AM »
.....anything that SETI picks up is history by the time it is received. Our nearest star is 4 light years away so we are only observing what it was like 4 years ago. We have been looking much, much further back in time but, of course, have not seen what is happening today so we may not be able to know if there are other civilisations out there.

Indeedy.  If we work on the VERY broad basis that the conditions for life to evolve in the universe were round about "now" (give or take a few million years), then it could take hundreds or even thousands more years before we will hear from civilisations that evolved on a par with our own.

Finally, we are hoping, with SETI, to pick up radio signals that are broadcast from other worlds yet another world might not be broadcasting to us. Sure they may have been like us 50 years ago when lots of radio signals got into space and beyond but there days, with low power FM and Digital stations and the increasing us of satellite broadcasting, very little radio signal gets into space so anyone looking for us from another world would not pick us up now yet I think we are here! 

Indeedy.  Just imagine.....the citizens of Gauda Prime live on a world a thousand light years from Earth.  Their early civilisations arose around 12,000 BCE (our time), and their last radio transmission was in around 786CE (our time again) when they destroyed themselves in a nuclear way.  Which means their last transmission passed earth in 1786......almost 200 years before SETI started scanning the skies.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence
« Reply #234 on: July 04, 2013, 08:20:24 AM »
SW: And what are they pray tell.

No sign of life anywhere.

Welcome to the SETI Institute
http://www.seti.org/

I know you don't like "opinion polls", so the truth is that we have not, at this point in time, observed life anywhere outside our system, in the short period of time that we have been observing.  Which is NOT the same thing as saying there is definitely NO life outside our system.

By your logic, if I have searched for, but not found, god, means that god does not exist.  I wouldn't have thought you'd have wanted to follow that line of thinking?

We are separated from God except by Spirit.  There is no physical connection to be found.
If you continue on that path the results will be the same.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence
« Reply #235 on: July 04, 2013, 08:22:27 AM »
It's worth pointing out that the universe, being vastly old, may well have already hosted civilizations on planets whose stars have since turned into red giants and engulfed them - just like our star will engulf us in due course. Again there may be places where life is developing but is not sufficiently advance yet for us to see anything from it.

Then again, anything that SETI picks up is history by the time it is received. Our nearest star is 4 light years away so we are only observing what it was like 4 years ago. We have been looking much, much further back in time but, of course, have not seen what is happening today so we may not be able to know if there are other civilisations out there.

Finally, we are hoping, with SETI, to pick up radio signals that are broadcast from other worlds yet another world might not be broadcasting to us. Sure they may have been like us 50 years ago when lots of radio signals got into space and beyond but there days, with low power FM and Digital stations and the increasing us of satellite broadcasting, very little radio signal gets into space so anyone looking for us from another world would not pick us up now yet I think we are here!  So with time a big factor, together with the possibility of radio signals escaping another world it could well be that we might just not have the possibility of knowing if there are other civilisations out there but that is not the same as saying there are none.

I stick to the hard evidence.  I only read sci-fi for amusement.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence
« Reply #236 on: July 04, 2013, 08:25:34 AM »
I see life every time I look up at the night stars. To me planets, stars, suns, the universe itself is life. Whether there's minuscule life such as "us" out there I find to be highly irrelevant compared to that.

-Nam

But it's all dead.  The only thing that matters is your family and neighbors.
Even if we pretend that the nearest star is 5 light years away and teeming
with beings, your family is all that matters. 

Unless you worship rocks.  If you have a pet rock, I apologize for my rudeness.



 
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 08:30:32 AM by SkyWriting »

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence
« Reply #237 on: July 04, 2013, 08:32:24 AM »
.....anything that SETI picks up is history by the time it is received. Our nearest star is 4 light years away so we are only observing what it was like 4 years ago. We have been looking much, much further back in time but, of course, have not seen what is happening today so we may not be able to know if there are other civilisations out there.

Indeedy.  If we work on the VERY broad basis that the conditions for life to evolve in the universe were round about "now" (give or take a few million years), then it could take hundreds or even thousands more years before we will hear from civilisations that evolved on a par with our own.

Finally, we are hoping, with SETI, to pick up radio signals that are broadcast from other worlds yet another world might not be broadcasting to us. Sure they may have been like us 50 years ago when lots of radio signals got into space and beyond but there days, with low power FM and Digital stations and the increasing us of satellite broadcasting, very little radio signal gets into space so anyone looking for us from another world would not pick us up now yet I think we are here! 

Indeedy.  Just imagine.....the citizens of Gauda Prime live on a world a thousand light years from Earth.  Their early civilisations arose around 12,000 BCE (our time), and their last radio transmission was in around 786CE (our time again) when they destroyed themselves in a nuclear way.  Which means their last transmission passed earth in 1786......almost 200 years before SETI started scanning the skies.

As I said, humans are all that matters. Especially if your story is correct.

Offline Seppuku

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3855
  • Darwins +125/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I am gay for Fred Phelps
    • Seppuku Arts
Re: Evidence
« Reply #238 on: July 04, 2013, 08:34:09 AM »
It's worth pointing out that the universe, being vastly old, may well have already hosted civilizations on planets whose stars have since turned into red giants and engulfed them - just like our star will engulf us in due course. Again there may be places where life is developing but is not sufficiently advance yet for us to see anything from it.

Then again, anything that SETI picks up is history by the time it is received. Our nearest star is 4 light years away so we are only observing what it was like 4 years ago. We have been looking much, much further back in time but, of course, have not seen what is happening today so we may not be able to know if there are other civilisations out there.

Finally, we are hoping, with SETI, to pick up radio signals that are broadcast from other worlds yet another world might not be broadcasting to us. Sure they may have been like us 50 years ago when lots of radio signals got into space and beyond but there days, with low power FM and Digital stations and the increasing us of satellite broadcasting, very little radio signal gets into space so anyone looking for us from another world would not pick us up now yet I think we are here!  So with time a big factor, together with the possibility of radio signals escaping another world it could well be that we might just not have the possibility of knowing if there are other civilisations out there but that is not the same as saying there are none.

I stick to the hard evidence.  I only read sci-fi for amusement.

But you take a fantasy novel seriously. *shrugs*
“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto Musashi
Warning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence
« Reply #239 on: July 04, 2013, 09:27:30 AM »
It's worth pointing out that the universe, being vastly old, may well have already hosted civilizations on planets whose stars have since turned into red giants and engulfed them - just like our star will engulf us in due course. Again there may be places where life is developing but is not sufficiently advance yet for us to see anything from it.

Then again, anything that SETI picks up is history by the time it is received. Our nearest star is 4 light years away so we are only observing what it was like 4 years ago. We have been looking much, much further back in time but, of course, have not seen what is happening today so we may not be able to know if there are other civilisations out there.

Finally, we are hoping, with SETI, to pick up radio signals that are broadcast from other worlds yet another world might not be broadcasting to us. Sure they may have been like us 50 years ago when lots of radio signals got into space and beyond but there days, with low power FM and Digital stations and the increasing us of satellite broadcasting, very little radio signal gets into space so anyone looking for us from another world would not pick us up now yet I think we are here!  So with time a big factor, together with the possibility of radio signals escaping another world it could well be that we might just not have the possibility of knowing if there are other civilisations out there but that is not the same as saying there are none.

I stick to the hard evidence.  I only read sci-fi for amusement.

But you take a fantasy novel seriously. *shrugs*

I've investigated it and found it to be accurate.  Nobody can prove historical events, but what can be supported, is.

Online bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1434
  • Darwins +52/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Evidence
« Reply #240 on: July 04, 2013, 10:14:59 AM »
Quote from: SkyWriting
Nobody can prove historical events
Really! Lol.
Would you like to rephrase that.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3021
  • Darwins +267/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evidence
« Reply #241 on: July 04, 2013, 10:16:27 AM »
The only thing that matters is your family and neighbors.  Even if we pretend that the nearest star is 5 light years away and teeming with beings, your family is all that matters.

You, SW, do not get to determine what *we* think matters -- You can only speak for yourself, and we for ourselves.

IMO family is important but it is not everything, and in many cases it may actually be a detriment to one's sense of meaning and purpose.  Furthermore, it's counterproductive and IMO a bit silly to insist that someone love their family to the exclusion of -- Or instead of -- someone or something else.  Love is what it is, unpredictable and personal.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #242 on: July 04, 2013, 10:22:31 AM »
... your family is all that matters.

Jesus said otherwise:

Quote
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
Git mit uns

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: Evidence
« Reply #243 on: July 04, 2013, 10:44:30 AM »
Nobody can prove historical events...

Doesn't this conclude that Christ coming to earth and Yhwh creating the world is fiction? You just said that historical events can't be proven.

And somebody tell all the forensic and other investigative agencies to shut shop and find other employment. Nothing historical can be proved. Henceforth a person will be convicted of a crime only if the judge watches the crime live.

Offline Seppuku

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3855
  • Darwins +125/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I am gay for Fred Phelps
    • Seppuku Arts
Re: Evidence
« Reply #244 on: July 04, 2013, 11:52:16 AM »
Quote from: SkyWriting
I've investigated it and found it to be accurate.  Nobody can prove historical events, but what can be supported, is.

You and several other Christians claim this and yet they're never able to provide any real evidence or anything we can test.

Science has actual testable evidence. Science is based purely on the evidence, people make hypotheses and use the evidence they find to drive them into testable theories. What the bible presents at best is a hypothesis, ideas about the world that are untested. The tests in science are HEAVILY documented. Hypotheses have to be tested heavily before they are considered a theory and even then the hypothesis may change or be forced to adapt based on new evidence, heck, a good theory can be adapted based on new evidence.

The problem with religious claims is that they're static. People rather than trying to revolve their claims around the discovery of new evidence they try to revolve the evidence around their claims and it just doesn't work that way. It's why I have more respect for Christians who'll accept science for what it is and say they believe in God and rather than claiming their belief it based around hard evidence (because they know it's not) they accept that the reason they believe is because it's their faith. They have faith in God's existence. I'm pretty sure it's what the bible asks of you too. I find it incredibly disingenuous when people try to fit the scientific method around religion, it's like trying to wear a size 6 when you're a size 13, no matter how hard you push, you're not going to make that shoe fit.

It seems this attitude derives from people disliking the challenge science places, so rather than looking at its value, people try to bring it to the same level as religion, either by using psuedo science or suggesting science itself is faith-base or misusing the word 'theory'. What it actually says to me is "I'm threatened by science, so I am going to play games so that I don't actually have to listen to anybody". This is why I have more respect for those who agree that their faith is indeed just that, faith. What their position says to me is that their faith is strongest, why? Because they're able to accept the science without it hurting their belief in God. In the cases of the Christians I know, they're able to have faith despite being critical thinkers. To me, this makes them much better Christians. Okay, they ignore the parts about killing homosexuals, but they're willing to accept that the bible was written by primitive men and not God.

But regardless, all science receives the same scrutiny when testing hypotheses and theories, be it testing cures for aids or testing the evidence for evolution. Some tests bring back results quicker than others.

But I don't see how what Seti does is science fiction, they're just looking for evidence for life other than our own, it hasn't yet claimed it has the evidence, nor does it suggest we are alone. We simply don't have enough evidence to suggest either. It is very interesting how you're dismissing one set possibilities due to lack of evidence, but accepting another than lacks evidence. I accept the possible of all that hasn't been proven or disproven, but just because I accept the possibility doesn't mean I think they all have the same probability, I would actually put deity pretty low on the list and extra terrestial life much higher.

However, if there IS evidence for this deity you believe in, present it. Many Christians before you have tried, but never actually managed to do so. If you had such conclusive evidence, it would be a major scientific breakthrough and I am certain many of the Christian scientists that are out there would happily peer review. Plus the numerous non-Christian ones. It would be fantastic to find out who's right in the end. I sure as hell would love to know.
“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto Musashi
Warning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence
« Reply #245 on: July 04, 2013, 12:38:13 PM »
I've investigated it and found it to be accurate.  Nobody can prove historical events, but what can be supported, is.
Like you 'investigated' that study you tried to use to show that the majority of scientists were religious?

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #246 on: July 04, 2013, 08:51:45 PM »

ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ]   

1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
2.proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Definition of THEORY


1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture  
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>



Theistic weasel:

"I light of #6b, I don't understand how the Theory of Evolution can't be best described as an Unproved Assumption of Evolution."




The key is that statements of witnesses can be offered as evidence, but if their testimony isn't credible, it gets tossed as garbage, and rightfully so. When someone properly examines statements of "witnesses", they are also examining if they can conclude whether or not these people are actually witnesses.

Even the word "evidence" can have different meanings. When a side of an argument offers "evidence", it is not necessarily conclusive evidence.














Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence
« Reply #247 on: July 04, 2013, 09:00:25 PM »

We are separated from God except by Spirit.  There is no physical connection to be found.

I stick to the hard evidence.

What's the difference between imagination and "spirit"?

If there is no physical connection, is it "hard evidence."?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #248 on: July 05, 2013, 04:17:58 AM »
SW: And what are they pray tell.

No sign of life anywhere.

Welcome to the SETI Institute
http://www.seti.org/

I know you don't like "opinion polls", so the truth is that we have not, at this point in time, observed life anywhere outside our system, in the short period of time that we have been observing.  Which is NOT the same thing as saying there is definitely NO life outside our system.

By your logic, if I have searched for, but not found, god, means that god does not exist.  I wouldn't have thought you'd have wanted to follow that line of thinking?

We are separated from God except by Spirit.  There is no physical connection to be found.
If you continue on that path the results will be the same.

Sorry to disappoint you Sky, but I have searched for god in a spiritual sense - and found nothing.  So I repeat:  by your logic, if I have searched for, but not found, god, means that god does not exist.

YOU are the one saying "if you search, but do not find, that proves nothing is there".  That's exactly what I'm saying to you: I've searched - spiritually - and found nothing.  Does that prove nothing is there?  If not, why not?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence
« Reply #249 on: July 05, 2013, 07:43:16 PM »
Sorry to disappoint you Sky, but I have searched for god in a spiritual sense - and found nothing. 
My bet is that you are doing it wrongly. First you have to believe in God, love Him and accept Him. He will love you back. Then you will gather faith and, when you have enough faith, you will believe in God, find that you love Him, and He will love you.

If you ever into deep s**t, He will either, (i) get you out of it or (ii) give you the strength to get through it, or (iii) use you as an example to others to show them how fortunate they are.

Always remember that He does everything, so He put you in the s**t in the first place. We do not know why he did this because "We do not understand God's Ways[1]."

Even if you have had the worst life possible, you will eventually die and go to heaven and everything will be OK. Once you are in heaven, you can scout around asking people how bad a life they had. Some people won't have had a bad life at all but you will understand why this is[2].

We know all this is true because dead people have told us... I think...
 1. However, this should never stop you telling people everything you know about God and His Ways
 2. You have to wait until you're dead to get the answer
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence
« Reply #250 on: July 05, 2013, 08:06:41 PM »
My bet is that you are doing it wrongly. First you have to believe in God, love Him and accept Him. He will love you back. Then you will gather faith and, when you have enough faith, you will believe in God, find that you love Him, and He will love you.
Circular logic at its finest.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence
« Reply #251 on: July 05, 2013, 08:16:24 PM »
As discussed here, it was a theist, Lemaitre, who discovered the very fact that there actually was an origin of creation to be investigated, much to the chagrin of atheists at the time... but I think we kinda exhausted that topic here!
I'm going to make the unwarranted assumption that you know what "chagrin" means. I think it would be useful at this point to explain what evidence you have to show for the bolded part of your statement, "Lemaitre, who discovered the very fact that there actually was an origin of creation to be investigated, much to the chagrin of atheists at the time..."

Once you have done that, would it be at all possible to break the habit of a lifetime and, instead of resisting cognitive dissonance, address my points in post #154? http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25107.msg561188.html#msg561188
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Evidence
« Reply #252 on: July 09, 2013, 03:57:02 PM »
In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

If god does not exist, then any eyewitness testimony would be invalid, and therefore not evidence.  In which case it can be said that there is absolutely no evidence for god.

Eyewitness testimony can be considered as evidence, but in order to convince a person that they are telling the truth, you need more than just those statements.  Inconsistencies in the testimony can diminish its impact.  An inability to corroborate the testimony with other evidence does so as well.  There is both eyewitness evidence (from people who are still alive) as well as photo or film evidence of the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot.  Yet this has only been sufficient to convince a very small number of people of the existence of either.

The evidence for a powerful and dynamic being who powers the universe and cares deeply about each and every one of us should really not be lacking, IMO.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6763
  • Darwins +904/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Evidence
« Reply #253 on: July 09, 2013, 04:19:44 PM »
^^^Such evidence would be be easily demonstrable, both by in-depth examination and by casual observation. It would be clear to everyone what it was-- meaning you should not need previous indoctrination into any particular religion to detect the evidence for this force or being.

Anyone from any culture should be able to agree that the evidence meant the same thing. There would not need for this being to hide its presence from "unbelievers" or to depend on people having "faith" in its existence first. And the existence of this force would not be based on a text or legend.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Umar

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Scriptural References Upon Request
    • Pathway Machine
Re: Evidence
« Reply #254 on: July 09, 2013, 10:15:15 PM »
Can you dismiss other religions and peoples of the ramifications of #3 or are they just liars?

 Do their gods exist using the same statement?

Most of their sacred or quasi sacred texts make no claim of divine inspiritation. Not the Dhammapada, Analects of Confucius, Pirqe Aboth, Nihongi, Kojiki, Tao Te Ching or Chuang Tzu.

That leaves the Bhagavad Gita and the Qur'an. I seriously doubt the Qur'an claims divine inspiration, though I have seen a surah interpreted as such.

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1287
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #255 on: July 10, 2013, 01:22:38 AM »
Most of their sacred or quasi sacred texts make no claim of divine inspiritation. Not the Dhammapada, Analects of Confucius, Pirqe Aboth, Nihongi, Kojiki, Tao Te Ching or Chuang Tzu.

That leaves the Bhagavad Gita and the Qur'an. I seriously doubt the Qur'an claims divine inspiration, though I have seen a surah interpreted as such.

Quote from: 2:23
And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.

Allah sent the sura to Muhammed and none but Allah can produce a truthful sura.

Quote from: 2:53
And [recall] when We gave Moses the Scripture and criterion that perhaps you would be guided.

The Torah was also directly given to Moses by Allah.

Quote from: 2:87
And We did certainly give Moses the Torah and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit. But is it [not] that every time a messenger came to you, [O Children of Israel], with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant? And a party [of messengers] you denied and another party you killed.

Allah gave the Torah to Moses and the 'signs'[1] to Jesus.

Quote from: 2:97
Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel - it is [none but] he who has brought the Qur'an down upon your heart, [O Muhammad], by permission of Allah, confirming that which was before it and as guidance and good tidings for the believers."

Gabriel upon the instruction of Allah brought the Quran to Muhammed, confirming the Torah and the gospels.

Note also that all these, and indeed, much of the Quran, is written in first person. Ie. these are not the words of Muhammed, but rather Allah.

The Dhammapada does indeed not claim divine inspiration ... because Buddha has knowledge SUPERIOR to that of the gods. The gods worship HIM because he has escaped from the eternal wheel of death and rebirth which they, the gods, are unable to do.
 1. ie. the gospels, 'sign' is often used to indicate scripture ... any scripture, Torah, gospels or Quran
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evidence
« Reply #256 on: July 12, 2013, 12:08:29 PM »

I stick to the hard evidence.  I only read sci-fi for amusement.

So where is your "hard evidence" of this alleged Yahweh deity?


HINT: Personal experience is not hard evidence (b/c it can't be demonstrated to anyone else) and mere CLAIMS (i.e. bible quotes) are not hard evidence either (as claims are not the same as hard evidence). Please provide the hard evidence, such as you would expect from a salesman at your front door.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12529
  • Darwins +325/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #257 on: September 10, 2013, 04:31:44 PM »
The Bible, of course and probably the thousands of books that agree with it.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evidence
« Reply #258 on: September 16, 2013, 10:06:55 PM »
Hmmm, I asked for the hard evidence on July 12th and still absolutely nothing.



Silence is Golden...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1315
  • Darwins +96/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evidence
« Reply #259 on: September 16, 2013, 10:42:33 PM »
#3 is bullcrap, and I'm a witness to that  :P

I had what I believed to be a Gawd Experience back in high school.  It was the one thing that kept me from being able to say "I'm an atheist" to myself as an adult for several years--that is, until I (roughly) recreated the feeling/experience in a different way, independent of Gawd worship.  That was the final nail in my personal gawd-shaped coffin.

Personal experiences of gawd are nothing but altered states of mind that one can elicit on one's own, independent of religion/worship of divinity.  (that or hypnosis, like those faith-healing quacks who take people's money)
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1287
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #260 on: September 17, 2013, 04:02:28 AM »
^^

Iron Maiden ... the members don't usually mention their religion, the lyrics are often quite critical of religion, they're all presumably non-theist or atheist ... except for the drummer, McBrain.

He wasn't particularly religious until, one day he was being a tourist, doing touristy things, like stroll about a city on a scalding hot day.
He spots a church and, what does a tourist do? He visits the church, right.
So he steps inside and is overcome by a "powerful sensation". His legs will no longer support him and he has to sit in one of the pews for a while.
He called this a personal god experience and becomes a born again christian.
Now, lets play that back ... scalding hot day, steps into old church with thick walls, the church might be as much as 20 degrees celsius colder than the outside.
McBrain is no spring chicken and has never taken too much care of his body. The sudden drop in temperature could easily cause the feeling of weakness.

Yet, there you go, McBrain is a christian because of a drop in temperature.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.