Is John 14:6 The Most Blatant Example of False Prophecy?

a reply to: Lazy88

I have been healed because Moon Bugz haven’t been able to mine me for coal.

My Sun Dog may also be giving them a steady dose of lithium, an anti psychotic, to eventually eliminate them.

I agree with you on just one point, this healing is by the grace of God. “Never the less…” God helps those who help themselves.

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

We are talking about where the author "John" might have been in his mind before he was exiled to the island of Patmos.
Makes perfect sense the "father" of John would have been far from universally perceived.

Lots of cryptic evidence to sift through in the case of the apostle John.
The search for John's father might be similar to Homers allegorical journey of Odysseus to find his wife.

What was Judas the 12th Apostle thinking when he took the 30 silver coins?

The number 30 can be factored into just three base 10 numbers "2 and 3 and 5".

You take the 30 coins and now you are insane like Vincent Van Gogh?
He wanted to be a minister not Judas after all, which likely caused some of his struggle.
The bars that prevent your exit through the lunatic asylum window certainly limits and narrows your view.
Gauguin didn't finish his painting of the "Yellow Jesus" with a sword either.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

The difference between science and religion is that one is guided by evidence and ready to change its mind when new evidence is presented and the other is guided by dogma that never changes because it's what it is: dogma.

Your definition of religion is wrong. Evidence and change of mind are at the heart of of religious thought.

Science is guided by evidence, but you have been arguing that there was no evidence of the supernatural. No evidence is no evidence, it isn't a 'type' of evidence.

Is not a serious argument to argue we don't have evidence the universe wasn't created by a supernatural force.

Then why are you arguing that; "we don't have evidence the universe wasn't created by a supernatural force"? That has been precisely your argument.

You may change this God of yours with the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible space unicorn and it doesn't make any difference.

No, I'm not going to try and make the argument reductio in absurdum. That is what you are trying to do. It's a logical fallacy.

You want me or other posters to prove a negative?? It doesn't work this way I am afraid. The burden of proof is on those who make claims of the supernatural.

The burden of proof is equally on those who make claims that there is no supernatural. Each case has identical burden of proof.

Evidence stands to prove them - but an absence of evidence cannot.

Science IS based upon evidence, evidence which you say we don't have, so that your stated opinion clearly has nothing to do with science - at all.

And I don't know if you have the habit to disregard science, facts, and evidence based conclusions, but like I said earlier and in other threads referring to a number of creationists, all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and there is not a single one having supernatural causes.

The Second World War was caused by the propensity in human society towards military conflict. It was also caused by the expansionist rise of the Nazi regime. It was also caused by the ecopolitical pressures brought about due to reparations for the first World War.

In the real world, things often have multiple causes. The suggestion that one cause precludes all others is a nonsense. A false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

The something from nothing is a clear misunderstanding of many people who don't bother to read the basics in cosmology. And the fact that currently science is looking to find the causes of the bog bang doesn't need to give hope to supernatural claims. But the religion of gaps is doing it again and again just like in the numerous times during the past (unsuccessfully of course)

The gaps aren't in religion.

Religions usually claim quite complete and well-integrated set of paradigms.

The gaps are in scientific knowledge. You cannot say that a gap in knowledge, i.e: ignorance, proves or disproves a conjecture.

The religions also almost always pre-exist the scientific knowledge, by centuries, if not millennia. They clearly and obviously aren't attempts to 'fill holes' in naturalistic theory.

And even if science had complete knowledge of everything natural, it still would not preclude things supernatural. The supernatural and natural are conceived of as co-existing. Insistence that the existence of one overrides the existence of other is borne of ignorance.

Your entire thesis is based upon the irrational belief that one thing negates all others, on a false dichotomy.

Yep you got this right! There is no evidence of the supernatural world and that's not a claim but I am simply stating facts.

I think you have mixed up who said what. It's you who argues there is no evidence the universe wasn't created by a supernatural force, in a few words you are arguing a negative and you believe we need to somehow disprove the universe wasn't created by a God or a flying spaghetti monster and an invisible space unicorn. That's so absurd.

Your faulty reasoning and complete fallacies can be seen in your arguments and your logic is completely erroneous. All I did was to just state the obvious. There is no evidence for the claims made by your fellow creationists and religionists. Nothing so far as they are all assertions of faith without any back up. Zero evidence and no proof.

You got this wrong again. The burden of proof is on those who make claims of the supernatural not on those who point out that the claims made by creationists are completely unsubstantiated with zero supporting evidence. I am just stating facts not making claims. You have mixed things quite a lot.

There is zero evidence for the supernatural world and the claims made in its favour have no leg to stand on.

You said the gaps aren't in religion. But religion has no leg to stand on because it's based on faith and pure fantasy not on evidence. Science on the other hand is based on evidence, observation, experimentation, measurements and mathematics. Religion doesn't need independent verification but blind faith in the absence of any evidence.

The natural and supernatural don't coexist as you claimed. The supernatural world exists only in the minds of religious believers and nowhere else.

Either you are very confused or competent disingenuous. It could be both but anyone can see you are arguing as a religious apologist who has made a range of demonstrably false claims that have been debunked again and again.

Yourself and other religious apologists/creationists have been trying to involve the supernatural in physical and biochemical processes. But all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes. We don't know any having supernatural causes. Can you find me one?? I have asked the question many times and it was dodged as expected.

a reply to: Skinnerbot

In my mind, It all boils down to would you rather die or quit orgasms and live forever? Keep it simple stupid. KISS.

I don’t think it’s an unfair deal to help keep the universe going.

Then there is the consideration of more complicated deals like, is there a fast track price for eternal life?

Ascending to Heaven is false prophecy in my mind…

Look at it this way… Death or Life?

You go to Heaven, abandon Man, cuz you figured out the riddle, had good discipline, and impressed Jesus, who put in a good word with God.

Or you live 200 years on Earth to prove a point, which ultimately saves Man, and then say go to hell to Jesus and God.

???

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
And you can’t call my claim untrue unless you test it.

Likewise, you can't call your claim true unless you provide empirical evidence for it.

Now, I could claim that jumping from a 30 story building will 100% result in one's death. However, I won't provide evidence to it directly. Why? Because of the overwhelming piles of evidence from physics and the laws of nature, I can easily infer a logical outcome.

The same cannot be said for any religious claim.

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

I don't know what John was thinking when he said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

KISS?

Occam's razor requires picking something close at hand out of your own immediate experience for simplicity.

King Herod was a brilliant architect however his wife Herodias hated John for criticizing her marriage. Herod's Temple had kind of a flat layout and John might not have impressed with a Mercator projection of his own ideas. Occam's razor implies its really just your own head on the platter, so we may never know what that was all about.

The earths tilt had been slowly increasing since the last ice age and would have reached 23.5 degrees between the equator and tropics about the same time the Antikythera device was built by Posidonius engineering staff ~80 BC. The Metonic dial was the main upper dial on the rear of the mechanism. The Metonic cycle, defined in several physical units, is 235 synodic months, which is very close (to within less than 13 one-millionths) to 19 tropical years. Homer knew about the luni-solar cycles and The Odyssey and the Iliad are linked by the Metonic cycle. Venus and the Pleiades also dance.

Van Gogh had painted some scenes of the Weaver (wife of Odysseus) near Weverstraat in Nuenen about five years before he was committed to the insane asylum.

We will never hear about it, They organize the mad house like that scene in "the Prisoner" episode "fall out" from the 60's.

a reply to: Skinnerbot

Van Gogh shot himself in the chest, dying by suicide.

He had previously tried to chop off his ear.

I tell you, I have seen my tinnitus fade sharply since I got serious about my own health. Though it’s still there, I can’t claim I’m absolutely cured, but very much cured.

I never would have tried to chop my ear off, in response to God trolling me with tinnitus!

Nor would I try to kill my Moon Bugz and/or Catz by literally shooting my toxic self in my heart!

Clearly Van Gogh was a lunatic, but a talented one. Did he ever consider what would have really cured him? We will never know.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

Yep you got this right! There is no evidence of the supernatural world and that's not a claim but I am simply stating facts.

You just said it again.

You said that there is "no evidence" i.e. an absence of evidence, and then you went on to make a statement based upon what you believe (but have no evidence for).

I think you have mixed up who said what. It's you who argues there is no evidence the universe wasn't created by a supernatural force, in a few words you are arguing a negative and you believe we need to somehow disprove the universe wasn't created by a God or a flying spaghetti monster and an invisible space unicorn. That's so absurd.

My argument has been, and is, that there is abundant evidence of the existence of God.

Your faulty reasoning and complete fallacies can be seen in your arguments and your logic is completely erroneous. All I did was to just state the obvious. There is no evidence for the claims made by your fellow creationists and religionists. Nothing so far as they are all assertions of faith without any back up. Zero evidence and no proof.

You say the evidentiary weight = 0
You say, the weight of proof = 0

How can you make a case based upon that? Based upon nothing?

You got this wrong again. The burden of proof is on those who make claims of the supernatural not on those who point out that the claims made by creationists are completely unsubstantiated with zero supporting evidence. I am just stating facts not making claims. You have mixed things quite a lot.

Why is the burden of proof only on the side that you say has none? Why isn't it equally on both sides of the argument?

Let me explain by analogy:

In a court of law, there are two cases presented, one for the prosecution (the accuser) and one for the defence (the accused). If the defence were merely to sit passively until the prosecution presented even the slightest bit of evidence, then even circumstantial evidence would damn a case with no evidence on their side.

In our hypothetical case, lets say the prosecution has DNA evidence that places the accused at the scene, but the accused has an incontrovertible alibi that they were elsewhere at the time the crime was committed.

So, even though both sides have strong evidence, one side's evidence is not what it appears. And that is why we have such trials, to try and resolve the truth of the matter beyond all reasonable doubt.

In a court of law, as in science, evidence strengthens the case, but it is never absolute proof, as you seem to be assuming in your argument.

Nor is absence of evidence a type of evidence.

Returning to our court scenario, If there is reasonable doubt, then the accused must be acquitted in line with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Now you can see, both sides have a burden of proof. It isn't lopsided.

An acquittal also does not mean a crime has not been committed, real-world things that have occurred, are still on record and evidenced by their existence.

And the presumption of innocence until proven guilty does not just apply just to the accused, but to both sides, as is exemplified in defamation cases where the accuser is potentially the guilty party.

Hutchings rule is an oversimplification, a reductio-in-absurdum argument. Of course if you discount the argument of one side off-hand, all that remains is the other side.

There is zero evidence for the supernatural world and the claims made in its favour have no leg to stand on.

You said the gaps aren't in religion. But religion has no leg to stand on because it's based on faith and pure fantasy not on evidence. Science on the other hand is based on evidence, observation, experimentation, measurements and mathematics. Religion doesn't need independent verification but blind faith in the absence of any evidence.

Religion is not based upon faith alone. When someone experiences something supernatural, it doesn't take any faith at all that something well out of the ordinary has occurred.

As someone separate from their experience, you could deny that it really happened, but you literally have nothing to base that denial on. The experiencer, though, has personal and direct evidence of what happened.

Most of the human population, for most of history, have spoken of experiencing the supernatural. Some keep experiencing it, frequently. Some people have a naturally great singing voice, and some don't. We are all different.

Just because you aren't like others, does not invalidate what is a common human experience in others.

The natural and supernatural don't coexist as you claimed. The supernatural world exists only in the minds of religious believers and nowhere else.

And also in the minds of very many great scientific greats. Do you want to dumb them down, to fit your concept of a purely mechanical universe?

Either you are very confused or competent disingenuous. It could be both but anyone can see you are arguing as a religious apologist who has made a range of demonstrably false claims that have been debunked again and again.

You have not debunked a single one of my claims. Do you think that if you keep repeating your litany, it will become true? That's supernatural thinking! LOL.

Yourself and other religious apologists/creationists have been trying to involve the supernatural in physical and biochemical processes. But all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes.

You have evidence of this? Present it.

We don't know any having supernatural causes. Can you find me one?? I have asked the question many times and it was dodged as expected.

Have you seen that scene in the Jim Carey move where he is in his car and prays "Oh God, give me a sign"

a reply to: chr0naut

You are seriously mistaken for once more. The burden of proof is on the claimant and you have made a number of claims for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Notably you said there is plenty of evidence for ynd existence of God. Let's see it then. Asserting there is evidence doesn't make it true.

You to argue the existence of the universe may have supernatural causes. From all we know all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes. You seem to doubt it. Can you find me one that has a supernatural cause?

I don't need to prove that physical and biochemical processes have natural causes as this is a fact. The burden of proof is on you and all the others who claim the supernatural causes.

You seem to deliberately try to blend facts with fiction and hypothesis based on religious beliefs. You seriously need to open a book before making these wild claims.

Religion is based on blind faith and not on evidence as you claimed in various posts. I ve lost count on how many claims you made. Science is based on facts (we know this), religion on the other hand is a rather different story.

You and other religionists don't know where the burden of proof is and you seem to be confusing claims with facts. There is a difference between stating facts and making claims

a reply to: Venkuish1

I have some evidence that the first 2 commandments given to Man contain some truth.

Those 2 commandments being:

1. Don’t masturbate
2. Throw out your hand if you want to live forever

The evidence is :

Cured heart attacks
Cured IBS
Increased flexibility
Increase in strength and muscle mass (at least 15 lbs).

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: chr0naut

You are seriously mistaken for once more. The burden of proof is on the claimant and you have made a number of claims for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

You claimed that there is no supernatural and you claimed that there was no evidence for it. That's two claims. You apparently have two burdens of proof.

Notably you said there is plenty of evidence for ynd existence of God. Let's see it then. Asserting there is evidence doesn't make it true.

The existence of all things, from out of absolute nothingness, has no natural explanation. Therefore the alternate reason for existence is supernatural. And all things exist as objective evidence of their existence. Until we discover a natural explanation for the existence of all things (if we ever will), then we must define such origins as supernatural (it's an either-or situation).

But if we analyse your statement that 'no evidence exists for the supernatural', for that to be the case, we would need to know absolutely all things, and neither of us do. Because we are extrapolating from a 'little island of the known' in a 'sea of the unknown and probably unknowable'.

So your case that the supernatural doesn't exist is entirely your opinion. You cannot prove it with any more confidence than I can disprove it. In fact your case is based on what you are claiming is an absence of proof.

You to argue the existence of the universe may have supernatural causes. From all we know all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes.

I have italicised the relevant part above that indicates that you are using an argument from ignorance.

You seem to doubt it. Can you find me one that has a supernatural cause?

I don't need to prove that physical and biochemical processes have natural causes as this is a fact. The burden of proof is on you and all the others who claim the supernatural causes.

And you have no burden of proof to prove your case? What a cop-out!

We have equal burden of proof.

You seem to deliberately try to blend facts with fiction and hypothesis based on religious beliefs. You seriously need to open a book before making these wild claims.

There are religions which disavow the existence of the supernatural, and religions to which the supernatural is irrelevant.

Religion is based on blind faith and not on evidence as you claimed in various posts.

Religion is not only about faith. Religion often encompasses abstract paradigms. It involves issues of morality, ethics, law, systems of community, nation, ethnicity, tribe and family.

In most religions, stories aren't just narrative, but they have underlying meaning and philosophical weight.

I've lost count on how many claims you made. Science is based on facts (we know this), religion on the other hand is a rather different story.

Some science is based upon hypothesis and theory, too.

Usually, there is some evidence that supports the theoretical framework, but we don't know everything. Old ideas and paradigms once thought of as being science are discarded when supplanted by newer models or disproven by test and experiment.

The process of science is ongoing, but we know that not all of it is fact.

Last year, confidence in the completeness of the standard model was deeply shaken by some things from the LHC and similar experiments. This sort of thing happens very regularly.

You and other religionists don't know where the burden of proof is and you seem to be confusing claims with facts. There is a difference between stating facts and making claims

Science and atheism can be religions. Especially where one places faith in them to describe all things, and that based upon an absence of evidence in something.

If you make a claim that there is no supernatural, and that there is no evidence for the supernatural, than that is an argument from ignorance, an evidentially unsupported argument, and you have a burden of proof that you cannot hope to to ever prove, because you are making a claim. You are a claimant, as am I.

Science cannot explain all things, even in the natural realm. It doesn't even have the tools.

There are real things that are paradigms (like for instance morality) that have real and heavy impact upon our lives and that science cannot fairly advise on.

You would hardly like natural selections "red in tooth and claw" to be the primary moral and legal dictate for the function of society.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: chr0naut

You are seriously mistaken for once more. The burden of proof is on the claimant and you have made a number of claims for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

You claimed that there is no supernatural and you claimed that there was no evidence for it. That's two claims. You apparently have two burdens of proof.

Notably you said there is plenty of evidence for ynd existence of God. Let's see it then. Asserting there is evidence doesn't make it true.

The existence of all things, from out of absolute nothingness, has no natural explanation. Therefore the alternate reason for existence is supernatural. And all things exist as objective evidence of their existence. Until we discover a natural explanation for the existence of all things (if we ever will), then we must define such origins as supernatural (it's an either-or situation).

But if we analyse your statement that 'no evidence exists for the supernatural', for that to be the case, we would need to know absolutely all things, and neither of us do. Because we are extrapolating from a 'little island of the known' in a 'sea of the unknown and probably unknowable'.

So your case that the supernatural doesn't exist is entirely your opinion. You cannot prove it with any more confidence than I can disprove it. In fact your case is based on what you are claiming is an absence of proof.

You to argue the existence of the universe may have supernatural causes. From all we know all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes.

I have italicised the relevant part above that indicates that you are using an argument from ignorance.

You seem to doubt it. Can you find me one that has a supernatural cause?

I don't need to prove that physical and biochemical processes have natural causes as this is a fact. The burden of proof is on you and all the others who claim the supernatural causes.

And you have no burden of proof to prove your case? What a cop-out!

We have equal burden of proof.

You seem to deliberately try to blend facts with fiction and hypothesis based on religious beliefs. You seriously need to open a book before making these wild claims.

There are religions which disavow the existence of the supernatural, and religions to which the supernatural is irrelevant.

Religion is based on blind faith and not on evidence as you claimed in various posts.

Religion is not only about faith. Religion often encompasses abstract paradigms. It involves issues of morality, ethics, law, systems of community, nation, ethnicity, tribe and family.

In most religions, stories aren't just narrative, but they have underlying meaning and philosophical weight.

I've lost count on how many claims you made. Science is based on facts (we know this), religion on the other hand is a rather different story.

Some science is based upon hypothesis and theory, too.

Usually, there is some evidence that supports the theoretical framework, but we don't know everything. Old ideas and paradigms once thought of as being science are discarded when supplanted by newer models or disproven by test and experiment.

The process of science is ongoing, but we know that not all of it is fact.

Last year, confidence in the completeness of the standard model was deeply shaken by some things from the LHC and similar experiments. This sort of thing happens very regularly.

You and other religionists don't know where the burden of proof is and you seem to be confusing claims with facts. There is a difference between stating facts and making claims

Science and atheism can be religions. Especially where one places faith in them to describe all things, and that based upon an absence of evidence in something.

If you make a claim that there is no supernatural, and that there is no evidence for the supernatural, than that is an argument from ignorance, an evidentially unsupported argument, and you have a burden of proof that you cannot hope to to ever prove, because you are making a claim. You are a claimant, as am I.

Science cannot explain all things, even in the natural realm. It doesn't even have the tools.

There are real things that are paradigms (like for instance morality) that have real and heavy impact upon our lives and that science cannot fairly advise on.

You would hardly like natural selections "red in tooth and claw" to be the primary moral and legal dictate for the function of society.

I didn't make a claim. I stated a fact -all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and we learn this from school to university. Facts are very different from claims.

This is where all religionists get things wrong. The rest of your text is a repetition based on the previous religious apology to justify the existence of the supernatural.

I can say that the Earth is orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit. I state a fact. It is proven. And the force behind the motion is not something supernatural. I don't need to prove facts.

Science can't explain everything at a given time but as time passes we get better understanding. Religion is based on blind faith and revelation. We have discussed this so many times.

Burden of proof is on the religionists who only have faith and revelation.

Since you mentioned it and demanded proof for established facts then can you tell me which of the following physical and biochemical processes have supernatural causes

Photosynthesis, planet formation, star formation, galaxy formation, synthesis of proteins, fatty acid synthesis and anything else you can think of.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: chr0naut

I didn't make a claim. I stated a fact -all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and we learn this from school to university. Facts are very different from claims.

If you stated a fact, then present evidence for that 'fact'.

Not for other unrelated facts of science, but evidence that specifically supports your statement.

This is where all religionists get things wrong. The rest of your text is a repetition based on the previous religious apology to justify the existence of the supernatural.

Except you omit that the evidences I spoke of were not from some religious tome, but were from everyday experience, rationalism, and science.

I can say that the Earth is orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit. I state a fact. It is proven. And the force behind the motion is not something supernatural. I don't need to prove facts.

Then you can explain how that force propagates. How does it reach from one object, over nearly empty space, to another object? Is there a medium over which it propagates, and what is its energy density? Is it particulate and packetized, and if so, what are the details of each packet (duration, momentum, at rest energy/mass, phase, frequency, etc).

Science can't explain everything at a given time but as time passes we get better understanding.

There are things that we know are unknowable. Incompleteness tells us that. No matter how much we learn, there's stuff we don't and can't know. Lets not pretend science is what it isn't.

Religion is based on blind faith and revelation. We have discussed this so many times.

Burden of proof is on the religionists who only have faith and revelation.

Ooh, now it is based on revelation, too. Like observing or experiencing something?

You seem to have blurred your boundaries.

Because, wouldn't that be subjective evidence, rather than no evidence, and would it not require any faith to experience something?

So forget the burden of proof thing, because your case is that you aren't proposing a case, so until you can be honest about it, we can't resolve that. Instead, take a leap of faith and ask God to give you evidence, and hang around to see if such evidence manifests.

It's like Pascals wager. You aren't going to lose anything much by taking it up.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: chr0naut

I didn't make a claim. I stated a fact -all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and we learn this from school to university. Facts are very different from claims.

If you stated a fact, then present evidence for that 'fact'.

Not for other unrelated facts of science, but evidence that specifically supports your statement.

This is where all religionists get things wrong. The rest of your text is a repetition based on the previous religious apology to justify the existence of the supernatural.

Except you omit that the evidences I spoke of were not from some religious tome, but were from everyday experience, rationalism, and science.

I can say that the Earth is orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit. I state a fact. It is proven. And the force behind the motion is not something supernatural. I don't need to prove facts.

Then you can explain how that force propagates. How does it reach from one object, over nearly empty space, to another object? Is there a medium over which it propagates, and what is its energy density? Is it particulate and packetized, and if so, what are the details of each packet (duration, momentum, at rest energy/mass, phase, frequency, etc).

Science can't explain everything at a given time but as time passes we get better understanding.

There are things that we know are unknowable. Incompleteness tells us that. No matter how much we learn, there's stuff we don't and can't know. Lets not pretend science is what it isn't.

Religion is based on blind faith and revelation. We have discussed this so many times.

Burden of proof is on the religionists who only have faith and revelation.

Ooh, now it is based on revelation, too. Like observing or experiencing something?

You seem to have blurred your boundaries.

Because, wouldn't that be subjective evidence, rather than no evidence, and would it not require any faith to experience something?

So forget the burden of proof thing, because your case is that you aren't proposing a case, so until you can be honest about it, we can't resolve that. Instead, take a leap of faith and ask God to give you evidence, and hang around to see if such evidence manifests.

It's like Pascals wager. You aren't going to lose anything much by taking it up.

You have to be able to distinguish facts from claims. When you state facts you don't need evidence or explanations.

All physical and biochemical processes have natural causes. This is a fact.

You said you have evidence for the existence of God. Where is it? You said all around us! That's not evidence and neither is a serious explanation.

In your last part, do you really think that religion is based on anything else other than bling faith. Because faith exists when evidence isn't around. Otherwise why having faith if you have evidence and proof?

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: chr0naut

I didn't make a claim. I stated a fact -all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and we learn this from school to university. Facts are very different from claims.

If you stated a fact, then present evidence for that 'fact'.

Not for other unrelated facts of science, but evidence that specifically supports your statement.

This is where all religionists get things wrong. The rest of your text is a repetition based on the previous religious apology to justify the existence of the supernatural.

Except you omit that the evidences I spoke of were not from some religious tome, but were from everyday experience, rationalism, and science.

I can say that the Earth is orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit. I state a fact. It is proven. And the force behind the motion is not something supernatural. I don't need to prove facts.

Then you can explain how that force propagates. How does it reach from one object, over nearly empty space, to another object? Is there a medium over which it propagates, and what is its energy density? Is it particulate and packetized, and if so, what are the details of each packet (duration, momentum, at rest energy/mass, phase, frequency, etc).

Science can't explain everything at a given time but as time passes we get better understanding.

There are things that we know are unknowable. Incompleteness tells us that. No matter how much we learn, there's stuff we don't and can't know. Lets not pretend science is what it isn't.

Religion is based on blind faith and revelation. We have discussed this so many times.

Burden of proof is on the religionists who only have faith and revelation.

Ooh, now it is based on revelation, too. Like observing or experiencing something?

You seem to have blurred your boundaries.

Because, wouldn't that be subjective evidence, rather than no evidence, and would it not require any faith to experience something?

So forget the burden of proof thing, because your case is that you aren't proposing a case, so until you can be honest about it, we can't resolve that. Instead, take a leap of faith and ask God to give you evidence, and hang around to see if such evidence manifests.

It's like Pascals wager. You aren't going to lose anything much by taking it up.

You have to be able to distinguish facts from claims.

I do distinguish between them. But your language in previous posts seems to suggest that you are not distinguishing 'evidence' from 'facts'.

An absence of evidence for something neither means that it does, nor does not exist. An absence of evidence is equivalent to 'no idea about it' one way or the other.

Any argument based upon an absence of evidence alone is an argument from ignorance (or, using religious language, faith in an unfounded opinion).

Evidence needs to be evaluated to determine what it is showing, but the evidence itself is rarely the whole truth.

Truth is an absolute. What is true, is true regardless of if there is evidence.

The evidences we observe are only exemplar of the truth, and 'contradictory evidence' can, and does, also exist, but if something is not true, then it is false. There is no grey area. Truth is an absolute. Interpretation of evidence is not.

When you state facts you don't need evidence or explanations.

That sounds a little unscientific. Then if someone were to disagree with what you believe is the truth, how do you know if what you believe is factual?

All physical and biochemical processes have natural causes. This is a fact.

Then you are making a claim and therefore the burden of proof is on you.

So, prove it.

Prove with evidence that all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes. Specific instances of circumstantial evidence are inadequate to prove that ALL physical and biochemical processes have natural causes. Especially when we know, evidenced by escalating 'new' discoveries, that we have not discovered, nor described, all physical and biochemical processes.

And of course, you are making the erroneous assumption that something having one type of cause, cannot also simultaneously have another type of cause. This is not the case especially in a complex universe, where it can be empirically demonstrated that an effect in nature can have several simultaneous natural causes. By rational extension, one might validly assume that this would also easily extend to supernatural causes, too.

You said you have evidence for the existence of God. Where is it? You said all around us! That's not evidence and neither is a serious explanation.

It is the only rational conclusion if there is a supreme and singular cause for all things.

Otherwise, you have to have a causeless universe applicable to all possible things in all possible situations. That is vanishingly unlikely - something like one over multiplied infinities or near infinities.

In your last part, do you really think that religion is based on anything else other than bling faith. Because faith exists when evidence isn't around. Otherwise why having faith if you have evidence and proof?

Because evidence has to be evaluated.

For example: that 'chemical A' reacts with 'chemical B' to produce 'chemical C', has nothing to do with the ultimate cause of existence of the atoms and forces in the first place. The scientific repeatability and experimental proofs cannot be applied universally to all things outside of the specific limitations of the experiment. That's not good science.