Creation >> DNA Code

[Sailor Steve]

A great many different people give "testimony" about a great many different things, many of them contradictory. Is the Christian's testimony more valid than the Muslim's? In a trial a person's testimony is about what he saw happen, when it is confirmed something actually happened, and is invalid without concrete evidence. Ten people swearing they saw Joe murder Bob is on enough to convict Joe if there is no body, and no other evidence that Bob is even dead. Perhaps Bob went into hiding. Perhaps Bob framed Joe. Perhaps Joe is very good at it. In the end, many accused criminals have gotten off for that very reason.

So no, testimony without concrete evidence is worthless. Maybe some are lying, maybe to themselves. More likely is that people assign motives to happenings that are really random chance. Without any real evidence it's kind of hard to tell

As I've said, I used to believe strongly, then began to see that happenings I attributed to Divine intervention were just as likely to be lucky accidents. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying I don't know, and from what I can tell neither do you, or anyone else. Believing is fine for you, but I need some real evidence.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

testimony without concrete evidence is worthless.

Worthless maybe to you Steve. People have been convicted of crimes on eye witness testimony alone many times.

Maybe some are lying, maybe to themselves. More likely is that people assign motives to happenings that are really random chance. Without any real evidence it's kind of hard to tell

and

Believing is fine for you, but I need some real evidence.

Then why bother asking believers to try and explain their beliefs to you at all? If you're really not going to accept anything but hard evidence of Gods existence anyways then you're just toying with us and wasting our time. So you go ahead and believe what you want and we'll go ahead and believe what we want and then we'll all see who was closer to being right when we die.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Then why bother asking believers to try and explain their beliefs to you at all? If you're really not going to accept anything but hard evidence of Gods existence anyways then you're just toying with us and wasting our time. So you go ahead and believe what you want and we'll go ahead and believe what we want and then we'll all see who was closer to being right when we die.

Toying? I only ask this of those who ask me to believe. I still have Christian friends, and I don't talk to them about it at all, unless they bring it up first. And I don't bring it up here, unless someone else brings it up first. Nicolas started this thread with a very strange claim, and anyone is welcome to answer.

Toying with us? I thought you weren't a believer. As to your last comment, it's not about seeing who is right. I've also said that I wish I could believe. That's not a challenge. All I'm asking for is a concrete reason to. You seem to believe that I want to prove someone's faith wrong. I don't. I just want some real answers, and no one seems to have them.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I thought you weren't a believer.

Oh I am a believer in God, i'm just not religious.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

All I'm asking for is a concrete reason to. You seem to believe that I want to prove someone's faith wrong. I don't. I just want some real answers, and no one seems to have them.

Answers to questions that man has pondered since the dawn of time? That's what makes me wonder about your questions. You could hardly have expected an answer here at Subsim of all places.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Answers to questions that man has pondered since the dawn of time? That's what makes me wonder about your questions. You could hardly have expected an answer here at Subsim of all places.

As I've said ad infinitum, I only say that to people who claim to have answers. If they truly know something is factual, then they should be able to provide the evidence requested. I don't claim to know the answers, and I don't think they do either. It's only when they claim they do that I start asking.

[Skybird]

"Variablenkontrolle" is a term repeatedly coming to my mind when reading this thread.

"Intermittierende Variable" and "Falsification of alternate explanations" were two more.

[Platapus]

Theists and non-theists will always have a hard time discussing this issue because they approach it from different viewpoints.

The theist has an apriori belief that there is a god and asks for proof that there is no god. Lacking any proof that there is no god, leads the theist to believe that their original position (there is a god) is true.

The non-theist has an apriori belief that there is no god and asks for proof that there is a god. Lacking any proof that there is a god, leads the non-theist to believe that their original position (there is no god) is true.

Each side treats the lack of contrary proof as evidence that supports their belief position. And that is simply not logical. But it does illustrate some of the difficulty that theists and non-theists have in discussing this issue.