Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Starkey is an idiot, liar and a waste of time. He likes to see his name a lot on message boards; that's about all he tries to accomplish.
Starkey is an idiot, liar and a waste of time. He likes to see his name a lot on message boards; that's about all he tries to accomplish.
Thank you for your admission that spiritual events cannot be validated and have no meaning, if any, other than to the individual to whom they supposedly occurred.
You are a very poor believer and preacher, and, based on your behavior on the Board, a poor witness for Jesus Christ.
The term "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. People confuse information (and sometimes bullshit) with evidence. "Evidence" is defined as "that which proves or disproves a belief". The operative word is "proves" so there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
The term "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. People confuse information (and sometimes bullshit) with evidence. "Evidence" is defined as "that which proves or disproves a belief". The operative word is "proves" so there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
Hmm, I think there is also room for evidence that is not conclusive, but makes a claim more plausible, or simply possible, without necessarily proving a claim.
In our courts we are supposed to vote for innocence if there is any *reasonable* doubt, but if a crime is very shocking and/or heinous, a jury will often vote to convict because they think the accused likely to have done the deed. They just cant tolerate the idea that an innocent vote will set him free and let him get away with the heinous thing, so they go with probable instead of certitude.
The term "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. People confuse information (and sometimes bullshit) with evidence. "Evidence" is defined as "that which proves or disproves a belief". The operative word is "proves" so there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
believing it was a miracle. that's logical fallacy #1bullshit jim....the laws of nature cannot be suspended...No, they are outside the laws of science by definition. Were they within the laws of science they would not be miracles but instead would be providential events.
Not by the literal meanings, though people often use them that way. A man I once knew said that he was in a car wreck and was tossed from the car as often happens. Everyone else in the car died, and his being tossed just happened to save his life when it more typically sends the person into the path of the rolling car and they die instead.
That is not a miracle though he doubtlessly felt it was.
I met a man in Germany who claimed to have been shot at by a viet cong at point blank range and after he killed the VC he looked at the bullet holes behind him and saw that they had to have passed through his body harmlessly. If true that was a miracle, but it is more likely that the bullet markings he saw predated the incident he was in, and so he merely was mistaken.
But one time I did see a real miracle that was inexplicable. I investigated the thing from every angle, above, below inside and outside and it was simply impossible to have happened the way I saw it happen, and yet it did. I'm not an idiot. I can explain various tricks and have a talent for doing so, such as Penn and Tellers bullet catching trick.
And I cannot test this phenomena, it is not repeatable. I cannot describe it because the details are pointless; it couldn't have happened and yet it did.
It changed my life, some good and some bad, but it totally altered me and my view of the world.
Science could never possibly prove that what I witnessed happened but that does not change what I saw or shake my certainty that it happened in reality.
THAT is a miracle.
Scientific proof is irrelevant; I know what I saw and science has nothing it can say about it. The laws of Nature were temporarily suspended for a moment and science cant touch that.
what you saw was out of your experience so you did the most human of things you came up with a logical fallacy.
There is no logical fallacy, since I agree it was impossible, hence a miracle.
What in the world do you think my logical fallacy is?
The term "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. People confuse information (and sometimes bullshit) with evidence. "Evidence" is defined as "that which proves or disproves a belief". The operative word is "proves" so there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
You can pick any definition that suits you but the term "extraordinary evidence" as Sagan used it is just fine with me.
If you found a dinosaur footprint with an indentation that looked somewhat like a human footprint that would be evidence against evolution. Just not strong enough to outweigh all the other evidence for evolution. If in that same dinosaur footprint you found a crushed human skeleton that would be extraordinary and might be enough by itself to force a rethinking of the theory.
Medical science has documented that certain events have occurred but have no verifiable way of evaluating said events. Thus your statement is false, nothing more than examples of Confirmation Bias and why non-believers have trouble believing because of nonsense like yours.
In other words, the events are only for you and have no power of witness for others.
I have no trouble with my belief in God, despite all the junk nonsense put out there by creationists that are simply unsustainable. And I don't require Confirmation Bias as you are describing it.
The events have occurred, and you admit that medical science has documented them. The fact that they cannot yet explain them is the heart of this discussion. If you chose to ignore that science does not have all the answers that is your problem, not mine.
Don't say I said things I did not say: that is dishonest.
Science does not have all the answers, but that is preferable to incidents that cannot be understood.
You may cherish and believe whatever metaphysical events you may encounter, but that is only for you; it is not a witness for others.
Information is not evidence.
The events have occurred, and you admit that medical science has documented them. The fact that they cannot yet explain them is the heart of this discussion. If you chose to ignore that science does not have all the answers that is your problem, not mine.
Don't say I said things I did not say: that is dishonest.
Science does not have all the answers, but that is preferable to incidents that cannot be understood.
You may cherish and believe whatever metaphysical events you may encounter, but that is only for you; it is not a witness for others.
You make less sense every time you post.
How is not knowing preferable to not understanding? Aren't they the same fucking thing? Is there some kind of magic in your head that makes you think that not understanding something means you know something about it?
By the way, feel free to point out where I said anything that would in any way justify you accusing me of cherishing miracles.
Don't say I said things I did not say: that is dishonest.
Science does not have all the answers, but that is preferable to incidents that cannot be understood.
You may cherish and believe whatever metaphysical events you may encounter, but that is only for you; it is not a witness for others.
You make less sense every time you post.
How is not knowing preferable to not understanding? Aren't they the same fucking thing? Is there some kind of magic in your head that makes you think that not understanding something means you know something about it?
By the way, feel free to point out where I said anything that would in any way justify you accusing me of cherishing miracles.
Only to you, my delusional buddy. And, no, information is not evidence. Assertion is not evidence. Your belief is not evidence.
To help you: we are talking about events that cannot be verified scientifically.
Whatever unverifiable events you have witnessed is only for you ken, not anyone else.
You make less sense every time you post.
How is not knowing preferable to not understanding? Aren't they the same fucking thing? Is there some kind of magic in your head that makes you think that not understanding something means you know something about it?
By the way, feel free to point out where I said anything that would in any way justify you accusing me of cherishing miracles.
Only to you, my delusional buddy. And, no, information is not evidence. Assertion is not evidence. Your belief is not evidence.
To help you: we are talking about events that cannot be verified scientifically.
Whatever unverifiable events you have witnessed is only for you ken, not anyone else.
Information is defined as facts learned about someone or something, evidenced is defined as the available body of facts about a subject. Therefore, information is evidence. Keep trying though, it amuses me.
Only to you, my delusional buddy. And, no, information is not evidence. Assertion is not evidence. Your belief is not evidence.
To help you: we are talking about events that cannot be verified scientifically.
Whatever unverifiable events you have witnessed is only for you ken, not anyone else.
Information is defined as facts learned about someone or something, evidenced is defined as the available body of facts about a subject. Therefore, information is evidence. Keep trying though, it amuses me.
Try that in a logic class, try that in a debate club, try that in court, and keep trying that here and you will keep looking delusional, which is, yes, amusing.
Information is defined as facts learned about someone or something, evidenced is defined as the available body of facts about a subject. Therefore, information is evidence. Keep trying though, it amuses me.
Try that in a logic class, try that in a debate club, try that in court, and keep trying that here and you will keep looking delusional, which is, yes, amusing.
Can you point out what part of my argument is illogical?
Didn't think so.
Information is defined as facts learned about someone or something, evidenced is defined as the available body of facts about a subject. Therefore, information is evidence. Keep trying though, it amuses me.
Try that in a logic class, try that in a debate club, try that in court, and keep trying that here and you will keep looking delusional, which is, yes, amusing.
Can you point out what part of my argument is illogical?
Didn't think so.
