If you are referring to my discussion with mauser9mm, so who was discussing "Truth vs Belief"? Not us, and not any threads that I know of....and God did not enter on my part of the discussion....my conjecture was/is "evidence and proof are not the same" period.
Man, you are off course...what in the world kinda of mishmash mixed salad verbiage is that? Where is the point that we are discussing? I am not talking about God at all....but you are using the typical atheism tactic, and that is to redirect away from the point....the point is, you said evidence is proof...and I proved you wrong....oh, and the book is from a Yale University geopolitical class.
Let us examine the accuracy of these statements shall we?
On 6/9/22 it certainly was about religious belief and Raspy dismissed the necessity of evidence:
Mauser - What is your soul ?
Can you articulately define what that is ?
I know our Aussie friends do not believe and that is their choice....but my belief of the soul is....the part of a person that is not physical. It is the part of every human being that lasts eternally after the body experiences death. Genesis 35:18 describes the death of Rachel, Jacob’s wife, saying she named her son “as her soul was departing.” From this we know that the soul is different from the body and that it continues to live after physical death.
That's not evidence, that's just what somebody wrote.
Sorry, I forgot....
Atheist need evidence....and Christians and others do not.
Upon reconsideration of the importance of evidence and proof Raspy modifies his views to try to muster up some sort of credibility. On 6/13/22 Raspy responded:
Further, the Holy Spirit.....".... lives with you (us) and will be IN you. So, when a Christian says "I have proof." He really does... the Spirit of Truth is living in that born again Christian.
All other religions claim the same “proof” – you sure you haven’t been fooled by Satan? It sounds like the sort thing that he would convince you of.
Accept or reject....Choose wisely.....
Serious consideration would require evidence. Faith choices are made without demonstrable evidence and sounds more like a gambling issue.
Oh?,
but faith is made of demonstrable evidence as in textual studies, to show that we have trustworthy versions of the original biblical documents....historical studies, to show that there is considerable demonstrable truth in the Gospels.....biblical studies, to demonstrate the remarkable consistency the Bible demonstrates from beginning to end.... the use of philosophical arguments to show that there is a reasonably high probability that God exists.....then there is the non-eternality of the physical universe....the unique nature of humans, including rationality, consciousness, moral responsibility.... fine-tuning of the universe to permit chemical complexity, and thereby life itself....the existential conflict of humans: our awareness of falling short of something better....
so yes,
I consider the above as EVIDENCE.....but, and this is a big but, there is no actual PROOF....that is why Christians and others have the BELIEF....gambling issue (Pasqual's Wager), yes, that is what started me off in believing (decades ago) as the stakes would just too high for me not to believe... like I said before, I am choosing to believe because the fifty-fifty odds are just too great for me to wager...so I will continue to pray, ask for forgiveness, and always do the right thing.... But I don't believe that it can stop there. I must become mature in my faith and have definitive reasons for it that are based on the truth and not just pragmatism, because as stated before, God can see what is truly in the heart.
The bible is factually and historically wrong, written over centuries past the alledged events and by some unknown authors. And there is zero evidence to support the fantastic events written down in it. Don't even start to talk about the inconsistencies and contradictions, and lack of clarity. What is it, 200 denominations of Christians reading from the same book?
The bible is evidence than many people wrote a book. Harry Potter has at least a known author.
You still cling to the totally flawed Pascal's Wager - it could be argued to show that the atheist is going to be better off, but gambling taken seriously is prety stupid anyway.
Well, my friend,
I wrote of evidence and not of proof...that is my story...you may choose as you believe..i like the biblical evidence....the Wager is not flawed from my perspective...either there is or either there is not an afterlife.
On 6/16/22 Raspy continues to associate evidence with religious belief:
You mixed up the quotes....
I must have said it to you many times....
that there is loads of evidence, but no actual proof....I also said I do not know what Jesus looks like....and I give you that he may have looked like your image....but, if you did see one of the images in person, what that convince you of an afterlife?
Never mind...you will say something snarky and will never say yes or no....[/quote]
You are picking and choosing...you are wrong, and you are a perpetual loser that keeps going and going with insinuations and lies...
Without God in our conversation, you said evidence and proof are the same...I said you are wrong. It seems you think I mean evidence of God and proof of God.....no, just the words evidence and proof, and that's it period...this is not a quote from me....see below...
[quote=mauserand9mm][quote=Raspy][quote=mauserand9mm][quote=TF49]Further, the Holy Spirit.....".... lives with you (us) and will be IN you. So, when a Christian says "I have proof." He really does... the Spirit of Truth is living in that born again Christian.
The above is manipulated by you....that is not my quote...you are either intoxicated or a liar or both. That is a quote from TF49.
You said evidence and proof are the same thing.....below is where evidence vs proof started....
Mauserand9mm=[quote/]
You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer.
What you define as evidence is actually data. You claim as evidence because you have a preconcieved belief of a god, and are therefore ascribing the data as evidence of god. You have to prove a god exists first and then prove the data is a result of the god's actions, irrespective of how much data you have.
Just look up the meaning of evidence.
You are trying to make the data fit the god belief. This is just what the bible writers did, except they fabicated stories to try and make it fit - just look at how many things they got wrong as our understanding of the natural world grew. God never told them, they were bullcrapping.
No, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief....you state that evidence is proof....I said you are wrong in that proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....then I added, as for me, because of all the evidence (leading me in the direction of a fact) (but no PROOF), I choose to be a believer....you say evidence is proof and I say you are wrong....it is simple, leave the God factor out, and it is very simple even more...evidence is not proof.
Evidence is proof. It only becomes evidence of x when x has been proven to be true. Before that it is just exhibit, data or observations. I did the Google hard yards for you:
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV. They sometimes use the term "evidence" along with the accusation of guilt but that's just a supposition - if the supposition is false then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence and never was.
You're just collecting the data and pretending it's potential evidence for your belief in Allah, or space apes or whatever you are wanting to believe in, as if it provides more credibility to your belief. It's only leading you to where you want to go and isn't actually leading you anywhere at all. It's more of a mental masturbation exercise than anything. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself of your faith - it just takes one big leap I would've thought.
You are bigly wrong...First, you were telling me I'm trying to make a fit for God, and now you say I'm watching too many lawyer shows...again, evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses…. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.....here is an image from Wikipedia, maybe it will help you see better regarding evidence vs proof....
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Wikipedia and I are in agreement....
I understand your source of confusion.
You are relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better - it's the same thinking and reasoning that resulted in the burning of witches for example. The earlier use of the term "evidence" is now known as what is observed or experienced and is just data. The modern definition of Evidence confirms a proposition, or supports a proposition already proved by other means ie is proof, as defined in the Oxford definition I provided. We're not all superstitious savages these days.
I suspect that the mountains of observations that you are behoovering your way through will actually have natural causes that have been proven to be true by the natural causes thanks to critical thinking and scientific explanations. I wouldn't be surprised that the critical piece has already collapsed the entire edifice.
I'd be keen to see examples of some of your more profound observations that you are having trouble with and flippantly wanting to assign against supernatural origin. (Generalities are generally useless.)
Let's see all this started when you said, "evidence is proof"..... I said, no, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....you said, I am trying to make the data fit the god belief....I said, no, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief..... I said you are wrong, meaning that, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement (again)....you said, I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV....I said, what a joke....now you say, I am relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better ....
Let me try again on disagreeing with you that evidence and proof are not the same....look at the below scenario (again)...
Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it.
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Not sure where you got that image from but the text it contains is hilariously wrong. If it came from a book that you have, the best thing you should do is to simply burn it.
One other thing that you don't understand is that under your definition "evidence" can be proven false of the claim made with it - in that case it's not evidence and never was. It was only ever "observation", "data" or "exhibits". Evidence doesn't suddenly become non-evidence. I thought that would have been evident. As an example:
A body is discovered, by neighbors, of person who has been very obviously stabbed to death and the knife is nowhere to be found in the vicinity. Constable Raspy happens to find a blood covered knife in a ditch just down the road of the crime scene. He puts on rubber gloves, carefully picks up the knife and places it inside a plastic zip-lock lunch bag, and puts on a label sticker and writes "ËVIDENCE" on it.
At the subsequent investigations the forensics team discover that the blood on the knife is not the victims and is actually chicken blood. So the knife is not evidence at all, and never was. It was an exhibit that was proven to not be evidence of the crime. (The premise that it was evidence of the crime turned out to be false and it was premature and wrong to consider it as evidence in the first place. Constable Raspy was subsequently demoted having made this mistake, and receiving warnings, many times before.)
[As a side note: The fingerprints on the knife were found to belong the leader of the satanic chicken chokers cult but no case was launched since no fowl play was reported.]
I'm still keen to see what observational data you have that you are setting aside as your unproven "evidence" of god.
Man, you are off course...what in the world kinda of mishmash mixed salad verbiage is that? Where is the point that we are discussing? I am not talking about God at all....but you are using the typical atheism tactic, and that is to redirect away from the point....the point is, you said evidence is proof...and I proved you wrong....oh, and the book is from a Yale University geopolitical class.
Let me try again regarding evidence vs proof just in case you will read it when you are sober.....
Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it.
