Burden of proof

[Sheldon]

You are missing my point re: gravity. It is an unknown force that is observed in nature.

It's no unknown is it, and it can measured, and it's effects observed. There are two scientific theories explaining it. You are embarrassing yourself, both Isaac Newton's theories on gravity, and Einstein's have long been accepted scientific theories. I think I will accept scientific fact over your blathering superstition.

Gravity is . . . ? A known force seen by cause and effect. God may likewise be observed by cause and effect.

Then do so, simply pointed at things and saying "goddidit" is not objective evidence.

I don't have video of past exorcism sessions, but can invite you to Zoom for the next one.

I can post a video of mermaids frolicking in the surf, do you think this makes them real?

I'm aware that your worldview will take both of the above and make them either human error or "yet unknown natural causes", so don't bother, but do recognize I've just answered both your questions.

All you have done is double down on your bare subjective claims. It's also clear you haven't even a cursory understanding of what objective evidence is, or how scientific methods work to verify ideas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What?! The force of gravity is observable only by cause and effect. How do you measure it exactly? Ergs, watts? Baloney.

Newtons.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Found this on Facebook and found it relevant to the thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are missing my point re: gravity. It is an unknown force that is observed in nature. Electricity = electrons in passage. Light is particles that move as waves. Gravity is . . . ? A known force seen by cause and effect. God may likewise be observed by cause and effect.

Gravity is the name we give to some phenomenon we observe in nature. It is observable, measurable and testable.

You're positing the existence of a God that interacts with nature, sometimes and in some ways. So, like gravity, this God should be detectable in some way. You say you have detected this God. But you can't provide any way to demonstrate to anyone else that you can detect this God. People who accept the existence of gravity aren't just declaring that gravity is real to them and that it's up to the rest of us to discover gravity for ourselves. No, scientists who study this stuff can actually demonstrate that the thing they say exists and acts on nature actually exists and acts on nature. Why can't you do that with these demons you claim exist?

I don't have video of past exorcism sessions, but can invite you to Zoom for the next one. It's not a big secret. I can also recommend you to visit local churches that may be able to assist you. Both born agains and unbelievers can have a persistent demon that both harasses them and may be removed.

As I've told you before, I've seen videos claiming to be exorcisms and I've been wholly unimpressed. I've yet to see any demons present in any of them. And what I do see are a bunch of people basically torturing a person who probably has a mental illness and would benefit much more from some psychiatric therapy. Not only that but the descriptions that people who were present make about what they think happened versus what actually happened never seem to match up, with the former being much more fantastical than what actually took place.

Who has observed and measured demons? Can you point me to anyone, anywhere, at any time that has accomplished this? I've seen a whole lot of claims and no evidence whatsoever. People have been making claims like this for centuries, but yet we still have no solid evidence for the existence of demons, and gods, for that matter. How is that possible, do you think?
This is coming from a person who used to believe in all of this stuff and really, really wanted it all to be real.

I'm aware that your worldview will take both of the above and make them either human error or "yet unknown natural causes", so don't bother, but do recognize I've just answered both your questions.

My worldview is that I want to believe as many true things as possible while also disbelieving as many false things as possible.

Human beings are prone to making a lot of logical errors, and so we've got to come up with methods that can help us overcome those errors. The scientific method is one of those, hence the reason I keep harping on the idea of demonstrable evidence. These demons you claim exist, if they exist, clearly interact with the natural world, as you've described. So demonstrating their existence should be a lot easier than this. And yet here we are, with vague testimonials and accounts where we have to just take someone's word for it that they're real. Well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Gravity is the name we give to some phenomenon we observe in nature. It is observable, measurable and testable.

You're positing the existence of a God that interacts with nature, sometimes and in some ways. So, like gravity, this God should be detectable in some way. You say you have detected this God. But you can't provide any way to demonstrate to anyone else that you can detect this God. People who accept the existence of gravity aren't just declaring that gravity is real to them and that it's up to the rest of us to discover gravity for ourselves. No, scientists who study this stuff can actually demonstrate that the thing they say exists and acts on nature actually exists and acts on nature. Why can't you do that with these demons you claim exist?


As I've told you before, I've seen videos claiming to be exorcisms and I've been wholly unimpressed. I've yet to see any demons present in any of them. And what I do see are a bunch of people basically torturing a person who probably has a mental illness and would benefit much more from some psychiatric therapy. Not only that but the descriptions that people who were present make about what they think happened versus what actually happened never seem to match up, with the former being much more fantastical than what actually took place.

Who has observed and measured demons? Can you point me to anyone, anywhere, at any time that has accomplished this? I've seen a whole lot of claims and no evidence whatsoever. People have been making claims like this for centuries, but yet we still have no solid evidence for the existence of demons, and gods, for that matter. How is that possible, do you think?
This is coming from a person who used to believe in all of this stuff and really, really wanted it all to be real.

My worldview is that I want to believe as many true things as possible while also disbelieving as many false things as possible.

Human beings are prone to making a lot of logical errors, and so we've got to come up with methods that can help us overcome those errors. The scientific method is one of those, hence the reason I keep harping on the idea of demonstrable evidence. These demons you claim exist, if they exist, clearly interact with the natural world, as you've described. So demonstrating their existence should be a lot easier than this. And yet here we are, with vague testimonials and accounts where we have to just take someone's word for it that they're real. Well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.

Your first sentences: Gravity is the name we give to some phenomenon we observe in nature. It is observable, measurable and testable.

1) Replace the above with "God" since you are admitting you know gravity as cause and effect

2) Invite an atheist to interact with God, like one interacts with gravity

3) The atheist says "I don't wanna!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your first sentences: Gravity is the name we give to some phenomenon we observe in nature. It is observable, measurable and testable.

1) Replace the above with "God" since you are admitting you know gravity as cause and effect

2) Invite an atheist to interact with God, like one interacts with gravity

3) The atheist says "I don't wanna!"

What phenomena are you calling "God" in this scenario?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your first sentences: Gravity is the name we give to some phenomenon we observe in nature. It is observable, measurable and testable.

1) Replace the above with "God" since you are admitting you know gravity as cause and effect

2) Invite an atheist to interact with God, like one interacts with gravity

3) The atheist says "I don't wanna!"

1) Why would I do that? It doesn't offer any explanatory power. What phenomenon that we observe in nature are you attributing to this God? Besides that, we're talking about demons right now, remember?
2) A lot of atheists used to be Christians and have already tried that. In fact, I've told you that before about myself.
3) See above.

Once again, you've ignored the bulk of my post. Why is that?

 

[Sheldon]

Your first sentences: Gravity is the name we give to some phenomenon we observe in nature. It is observable, measurable and testable.

All of that is factually correct.

1) Replace the above with "God" since you are admitting you know gravity as cause and effect

Why would we replace an observable, testable and measurable phenomena, with a imaginary and unevidenced deity?

2) Invite an atheist to interact with God, like one interacts with gravity

Gravity's effects are not unevidenced subjective or anecdotal. It affects everyone and everything, not just people who choose to accept it is real, unlike deities of course.

3) The atheist says "I don't wanna!"

You can't objectively demonstrate you have interacted with anything, juvenile trolling is not a compelling argument to support your unevidenced claim that you have. Gravity is explained and evidenced by two separate scientific theories in good standing. Your claim is supported by "coz I say so".

 

[KWED]

Rape is always wrong, which underscores that morals exist that are absolute.

This is not the case.
What modern legal systems generally consider "rape" can be permitted and considered morally acceptable by religion.
Also, what was not rape 50 years ago is now rape, in some countries.
So, even the morality of rape is not absolute and universal.

 

[KWED]

Your first sentences: Gravity is the name we give to some phenomenon we observe in nature. It is observable, measurable and testable.

1) Replace the above with "God" since you are admitting you know gravity as cause and effect

"God is the name we give to some phenomenon we observe in nature. It is observable, measurable and testable."
Well, that is obvious nonsense.
We cannot observe, measure or test god.

2) Invite an atheist to interact with God, like one interacts with gravity

One does not decide to "interact with gravity". You can't decline to be affected by gravity.

3) The atheist says "I don't wanna!"

With all due respect, your problem is that you seem to have no idea how to construct a working analogy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Why would I do that? It doesn't offer any explanatory power. What phenomenon that we observe in nature are you attributing to this God? Besides that, we're talking about demons right now, remember?
2) A lot of atheists used to be Christians and have already tried that. In fact, I've told you that before about myself.
3) See above.

Once again, you've ignored the bulk of my post. Why is that?

The Lord told me to do so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All of that is factually correct.



Why would we replace an observable, testable and measurable phenomena, with a imaginary and unevidenced deity?



Gravity's effects are not unevidenced subjective or anecdotal. It affects everyone and everything, not just people who choose to accept it is real, unlike deities of course.



You can't objectively demonstrate you have interacted with anything, juvenile trolling is not a compelling argument to support your unevidenced claim that you have. Gravity is explained and evidenced by two separate scientific theories in good standing. Your claim is supported by "coz I say so".

Why are you afraid to apply the hypothesis method with God? He's not afraid.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is not the case.
What modern legal systems generally consider "rape" can be permitted and considered morally acceptable by religion.
Also, what was not rape 50 years ago is now rape, in some countries.
So, even the morality of rape is not absolute and universal.

Just because religious people make mistakes about rape, doesn't mean you should. Is it always wrong to you or only sometimes wrong to you?

If always wrong to you, you have a moral absolute, which points to the Father of morals.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"God is the name we give to some phenomenon we observe in nature. It is observable, measurable and testable."
Well, that is obvious nonsense.
We cannot observe, measure or test god.

One does not decide to "interact with gravity". You can't decline to be affected by gravity.

With all due respect, your problem is that you seem to have no idea how to construct a working analogy.

I think what you meant to write is "My a priori assumption is that gravity will work the next time I interact with it, based on prior observation, though it is invisible and unknown in origin."

I have seen God at work and will continue to see Him at work--and I love Him--and He loves us!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because religious people make mistakes about rape, doesn't mean you should. Is it always wrong to you or only sometimes wrong to you?

If always wrong to you, you have a moral absolute, which points to the Father of morals.

Why would believing that rape is always wrong suggest the existence of a magical being that says that rape is often okay?

 

[KWED]

Just because religious people make mistakes about rape, doesn't mean you should.

That is not what I meant. God allows things (thus making them morally acceptable to religionists) that today's laws consider rape.
So, is god wrong or the law wrong about rape? Pretty simple question, although I suspect you will have trouble presenting an answer.

Is it always wrong to you or only sometimes wrong to you?

Sex without consent of the other person is always wrong.

If always wrong to you, you have a moral absolute, which points to the Father of morals.

Why would my moral position on anything imply a god who proposed those morals? Especially in the context of rape, your "father of morals" displays a distinct immorality.

I think adult, informed, same-sex marriage is always morally acceptable. By your argument, I got that moral position from your god. Didn't think that through, did you?

 

[KWED]

I think what you meant to write is "My a priori assumption is that gravity will work the next time I interact with it, based on prior observation, though it is invisible and unknown in origin."

Love how you set up an argument and then promptly abandon it once you realise how flawed it is.

I have seen God at work and will continue to see Him at work

No you haven't.
You have had experiences that, for whatever reason, you attribute to a god. However, as you cannot demonstrate, measure or test any of your claims, they remain mere assertions. And as we know that people suffer hallucination and psychotic delusions, and we know that religionists with contradictory positions make the same unfounded experiential claims with the same level of certainty - the best explanation is that you were all just imagining it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Lord told me to do so.

Can you demonstrate that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just because religious people make mistakes about rape, doesn't mean you should. Is it always wrong to you or only sometimes wrong to you?

I can't think of a situation in which it would be moral.

If always wrong to you, you have a moral absolute, which points to the Father of morals.

How? And why do you think morals need to come from a deity, in order to hold true? I'm curious, where does it say in the Bible that rape is absolutely wrong?

And what about all the gray areas? Like lying. That can be a moral action or an immoral action, depending on the situation. In other words, it's not absolutely wrong in all cases. So does that point us in the opposite direction of a "Father of morals?" How does this work, exactly?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because religious people make mistakes about rape, doesn't mean you should. Is it always wrong to you or only sometimes wrong to you?

If always wrong to you, you have a moral absolute, which points to the Father of morals.

BTW: you understand that the idea that morals need to be created by a "Father of Morals" implies that moral absolutes aren't a thing, don't you?

Any moral tenet that depends on someone or something decreeing it isn't a moral absolute.