You're playing silly games and lost already. If you can't abide by what the rest of the world defines as empirical evidence, you are only going to live in and believe in a fantasy. Which you do
With his ignorance that the date of first self replicating molecule is not subjective, we can all agree Denny doesn't actually understand. If you cannot observe a molecule forming from non-genetic matter, then the result is purely subjective.
It's easy to have a "peer review" on testimony. They can grab another 1 million Christians and do the same test. If those same people have the same testimonies, then you can give the hypothesis more credit. There are billions of people to run this test on.
Truth is not a game. I am using your definition. I am using, what you believe, to prove that there is evidence that God exists. You can choose to ignore the data because of your refusal to seek truth. You aren't un-bias, you are stubborn. You cannot live with the knowledge that you can use a scientific method on testimony. You won't even give it a chance. And to think you claim to be a logical realist. tsk tsk
Many of the people who testify that a god exists also testify that the earth is 6000 years old. Do you believe it? LOL
To prove god exists, I need to see some evidence that is objective. A long trail of footprints. A photograph. That he shows up via ultrasound or x-rays or whatever. Otherwise it's hogwash. Snake oil.
Does it matter? It is still evidence nonetheless. Still doesn't credit your statement that "There is no evidence that God exists"
Do you have a photograph of the first self replicating molecule manifesting from non genetic material? Yet here you are believing in that. Why is that not hogwash?
It is awful evidence, not credible. I don't believe in bigfoot or aliens either. Show me a crashed saucer or a corpse or captured bigfoot and I'm a believer.
Thank you! And how long did it take for you to finally admit that it is empirical evidence? From now on, you can edit your statement "There is no evidence that God exists" We can move on now.
We know there was one through inductive reasoning. That is there is plenty of physical and objective evidence they exist and we know there was a time when there were not even the tiniest bits that make up molecules. Somewhere in between, they had to form. On the other hand, we don't know there is a god at all. All there is is a book of fairy tales written by human beings with an agenda at best, and mass psychosis at the worst.
face palm time. Where did you stretch "awful" evidence into "empirical" - the words do not have even close to the same meaning.
The face palm is all you bro. I have already made my case and its "iron clad". Ive used all the definitions you have provided and gave credit to the statement that personal testimony is "very empirical". You can discredit it like those that could laugh at those that believe in Multi-verses. But you won't ever hear a professional in the scientific community that would respond in your way.
You have to understand DC . . . any evidence that does not fall in line with his position is not credible evidence. While evidence that does favor his position can be relied on. There is a pattern to his arguments.
What you've done repeatedly in post after post is prove there is no empirical evidence for god. Only unreliable testimony. Thanks!
This has become a giant, "I'm rubber, you're glue.." argument between Denny and Mags. "I face palm" "No, I face palm." "You don't understand." "No, you don't understand." Please continue, I'm enjoying this.
1.) posteriori: deriving knowledge from experience: reasoning from observed facts or events back to their causes. - Last time I checked, a personal testimony is deriving knowledge from experience. When you testify on events that you have experienced, you are observing the cause of events that happened ones your life. 2.) Sense of experience: This is pretty self explanatory. The feeling one has in their personal experience is the "sense of experience". 3.) Observation: 1.) paying attention - the attentive watching of somebody or something 2.) observing of developments in something - the careful watching and recording of something, e.g. a natural phenomenon, as it happens 3.) record of something seen or noted: the result or record of observing something such as a natural phenomenon and noting developments. - carefully read this definition. Accounts of personal testimony falls in the definition of observation. But the definition itself also explains natural phenomenon, as the joy one has when they talk about Christ. Their biological positive reaction with their testimony would give you a good indicator if they truly believe in their testimony. 4.) Experimentation: the act, process, practice, or an instance of making experiments. - One could easily suggest that giving a poll of one thousand Christians and their personal account with God is a form of experience. So according to Denny's definition, not only is "personal testimony" empirical, it can be respected with a intense experimentation of over 1 million people. The argument that there is no evidence that God exists is wrong. Denny is wrong. NEXT... <Fade in on Denny in the fetal position> NO IT'S NOT!!!! WAHHHHHHHHHH!
What you've done repeatedly in post after post is prove there is no empirical evidence for god. Only unreliable testimony. Thanks!
