Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

And yet multiverses and infinite universes are of interest to some but not all Hillsides.Even though they lack evidence or perhaps could ever have any evidence.
I believe they are of great interest to Goddodgers and theophobes.

Whataboutery.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And yet multiverses and infinite universes are of interest to some but not all Hillsides.Even though they lack evidence or perhaps could ever have any evidence.
I believe they are of great interest to Goddodgers and theophobes.

I’m not claiming hypotheses about “multiverses and infinite universes” to be evidence for anything. By complete contrast, AB is claiming personal testimonies for be evidence for god, encounters with Jesus etc.

You’ve made a category error. 

[Outrider]

And yet multiverses and infinite universes are of interest to some but not all Hillsides.Even though they lack evidence or perhaps could ever have any evidence. I believe they are of great interest to Goddodgers and theophobes.

To quote the esteemed lawyer, Daniel Kaffee: "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove."

Is anyone suggesting that multiple universes is the definitive explanation for anything, or are they pointing out that an inability to deal with them, as an example, undermines claims about Big Bad Sky Fairy-story reality makers are the only viable explanation for stuff?

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

What makes you think personal testimonies are interesting when, for the reasons I’ve explained to you already, evidentially they’re largely worthless?

It’s when they have a belief they’ve “encountered Jesus”, and what extra evidential value do you think tearfulness brings to the table?

It is what follows the tears -
A monumental change in lifestyle - leaving their past behind to follow their newfound Christian faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is what follows the tears -
A monumental change in lifestyle - leaving their past behind to follow their newfound Christian faith.

Again, what do you think any of that has to do with the validity of otherwise of the reasoning these people have for their "newfound Christian faith"? 

[Maeght]

It is what follows the tears -
A monumental change in lifestyle - leaving their past behind to follow their newfound Christian faith.

Doesn't mean they actually met Jesus.

[torridon]

Interesting testimony from Sam Shamoun on how he became a Christian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0g7SUawvT4

One thing in common with the four testimonies I posted recently -
The people break down in genuine tears when they recount their encounter with Jesus.
Discovering the perfect love of Jesus is the most profound thing that could ever happen to you.

So perhaps this outcome might suggest these people are emotionally needy in the first place.

That's an explanation that does not incur the problem of explaining the dissonance implied in a God who allegedly loves everyone but only reveals himself in this way to a select few.

It's that old chestnut, Ocham's Razor.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So perhaps this outcome might suggest these people are emotionally needy in the first place.

What do you mean by that exactly.
Are you talking about an emotional need that they could be unconscious of?

[Outrider]

It is what follows the tears -
A monumental change in lifestyle - leaving their past behind to follow their newfound Christian faith.

Which is entirely consistent with them believing it, but there are nonbelievers who've made profound changes to their lives, too - in what way does this demonstrate any sort of validity to their belief, rather than demonstrating the sincerity of it?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To quote the esteemed lawyer, Daniel Kaffee: "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove."

I’m interested in why you have switched from science for support to the legal profession. As Hillside points out empiricism isn’t much interested in witnesses. Call me a cynic but I thought what matters was the ability to sway judge and jury.

Is anyone suggesting that multiple universes is the definitive explanation for anything, or are they pointing out that an inability to deal with them, as an example, undermines claims about Big Bad Sky Fairy-story reality makers are the only viable explanation for stuff?

I wasn’t addressing proof I was addressing Hillsides claim that there is no interest in personal testimony which can’t be proved.I merely pointed out that people are interested in all sorts of things that can’t be proved.

He was therefore wrong and you were wrong about my post.
Your response concerning switching from science to law looks non sequitur.

O.
[/quote]

[Maeght]

Is anyone suggesting that multiple universes is the definitive explanation for anything, or are they pointing out that an inability to deal with them, as an example, undermines claims about Big Bad Sky Fairy-story reality makers are the only viable explanation for stuff?I wasn’t addressing proof I was addressing Hillsides claim that there is no interest in personal testimony which can’t be proved.I merely pointed out that people are interested in all sorts of things that can’t be proved.

He was therefore wrong and you were wrong about my post.

O.

Presumably when AB described the personal testimony as interesting he was doing so interms of it being evidence rather than just being of interest.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Presumably when AB described the personal testimony as interesting he was doing so interms of it being evidence rather than just being of interest.

Then why does he ask AB what makes AB think personal testimonies are interesting?
Hillside of course wishes to negate even what personal testimonies have. It looks like an act of total humiliation or attempt at.

Now if he had said”The lack of empirical proof is more important than interest”. Then he is less likely to be pulled up.

Are people interested in personal testimonies? Of course.
Why suggest otherwise?

[torridon]

What do you mean by that exactly.
Are you talking about an emotional need that they could be unconscious of?

Someone bursting into tears is releasing pent-up emotions

[Maeght]

Then why does he ask AB what makes AB think personal testimonies are interesting?
Hillside of course wishes to negate even what personal testimonies have. It looks like an act of total humiliation or attempt at.

Now if he had said”The lack of empirical proof is more important than interest”. Then he is less likely to be pulled up.

Are people interested in personal testimonies? Of course.
Why suggest otherwise?

Interesting in terms of evidence as I said, but that is my presumption. What do personal testimonies have?

Personal testimony is unconvincing to me as we know we are very capable of fooling ourselves.  I don't find them to be of interest because of that, nor do I find them useful as evidence for anything other than what we are capable of doing.

[Gordon]

Then why does he ask AB what makes AB think personal testimonies are interesting?
Hillside of course wishes to negate even what personal testimonies have. It looks like an act of total humiliation or attempt at.

Now if he had said”The lack of empirical proof is more important than interest”. Then he is less likely to be pulled up.

Are people interested in personal testimonies? Of course.
Why suggest otherwise?

Surely what the personal testimony contains is relevant.

I can recount fairly accurately what it feels like to experience a bone scan, as I had two weeks ago, on the basis of how difficult it is to keep completely still for 40 minutes - now that testimony may or may not interest anyone, but it would at least be grounded in my experience of the elements of that procedure that were independent of my internal mental life (the scanner, the radioactive gunk, the staff etc).

However, a personal testimony that involved a dream or a vision of interacting with someone who, if they really did exist, had been dead for around two thousand years who also prophesied the future might well be curious but nothing about it is independent of the mental life of the person reporting it, and the details claimed don't correspond with reality as we seem to experience it (where we can't interact in real time with long-dead people).

Such 'testimonies' may interest those who like that sort of thing, but they are easily dismissed as fanciful and silly nonsense unless validated by a method that is suited to independently verifying claims of interacting with the dead during 'visions'.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Surely what the personal testimony contains is relevant.

I can recount fairly accurately what it feels like to experience a bone scan, as I had two weeks ago, on the basis of how difficult it is to keep completely still for 40 minutes - now that testimony may or may not interest anyone, but it would at least be grounded in my experience of the elements of that procedure that were independent of my internal mental life (the scanner, the radioactive gunk, the staff etc).

However, a personal testimony that involved a dream or a vision of interacting with someone who, if they really did exist, had been dead for around two thousand years who also prophesied the future might well be curious but nothing about it is independent of the mental life of the person reporting it, and the details claimed don't correspond with reality as we seem to experience it (where we can't interact in real time with long-dead people).

Such 'testimonies' may interest those who like that sort of thing, but they are easily dismissed as fanciful and silly nonsense unless validated by a method that is suited to independently verifying claims of interacting with the dead during 'visions'.

What you are describing is what I call the “Oi...Nutter!” approach of certain people towards believers, where, as politely as they try to put it, it still comes out as the accusation of mental abberation or incapacity.

But that could cover a multiplicity of underlying trends, feelings and understandings in the unbeliever.

I have never though encountered any sympathetic assistance toward me from what must be people who are supposedly in their right mind, the publicly atheist.

[Gordon]

What you are describing is what I call the “Oi...Nutter!” approach of certain people towards believers, where, as politely as they try to put it, it still comes out as the accusation of mental abberation or incapacity.

I simply think that people who claim to have had a 'vision of Jesus' are wrong.

But that could cover a multiplicity of underlying trends, feelings and understandings in the unbeliever.

I'd say it is more a critique of the claim they make: that it fails, and that it does so for reasons that are independent of me.

I have never though encountered any sympathetic assistance toward me from what must be people who are supposedly in their right mind, the publicly atheist.

Then you are personalising your interactions with people here who disagree with you instead of considering the points they actually make, and in doing so you often employ an ad hom approach.

[Enki]

As far as I can see, it was after his usual failed attempt at argument for his God and the existence of a soul, that Alan predictably turned to supposed miracles and various personal statements of belief to support his case. He normally does this by suggesting that such hearsay accounts are 'interesting' or that such selective anecdotal accounts bear witness to the 'truth' as he sees it.

After attending an alpha course many years ago, one thing that I regularly heard were the no doubt heartfelt stories of certain people there of how they had come to God, usually during a period of great stress and pain in their lives. I could empathise with their distress but, as some sort of evidence for the actual existence of their God, their declarations were empty and useless.

For the purposes of this post, I actually listened to Sam Shamoun’s testimony, which Alan linked to. It reminded me of the testimonies at that Alpha course. Obviously it affected him, but I didn't find it  particularly interesting or particularly informative. As evidence it was totally useless. Consequentially I see no reason to waste my time on looking at Alan's other You tube links.

[Alan Burns]

Interesting in terms of evidence as I said, but that is my presumption. What do personal testimonies have?

It is what these testimonies have in common which could be seen as evidence.
What is common in these and many others (I have watched dozens and there are more which I have not seen yet) is the profound love which they experience from their encounter with Jesus.  A love which is not there in the Koran or any other of the man made attempts to seek God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I wasn’t addressing proof I was addressing Hillsides claim that there is no interest in personal testimony which can’t be proved.I merely pointed out that people are interested in all sorts of things that can’t be proved.

He was therefore wrong and you were wrong about my post.
Your response concerning switching from science to law looks non sequitur.

Wrong again for the reason I explained and you’ve ignored. I asked AB why he thought that personal testimonials are interesting AS EVIDENCE FOR OBJECTIVE TRUTHS – having actually “encountered Jesus” for example ("What makes you think personal testimonies are interesting when, for the reasons I’ve explained to you already, evidentially they’re largely worthless?" – Reply 50748). The assertion to the contrary (which AB did) is the anecdotal fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Then why does he ask AB what makes AB think personal testimonies are interesting?
Hillside of course wishes to negate even what personal testimonies have. It looks like an act of total humiliation or attempt at.

Now if he had said”The lack of empirical proof is more important than interest”. Then he is less likely to be pulled up.

Are people interested in personal testimonies? Of course.
Why suggest otherwise?

Why are you still lying about this? I asked AB why he thought personal testimonies are interesting IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH HE TRIED TO USE THEM. If you want to move those goalposts to people finding interesting entirely unargued assertions about fantastical events I suppose some people might be, though I have no idea why. Would you be interested in my story about being kidnapped by aliens – an episode that reduced me to tears and made me change my lifestyle by the way? Why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What you are describing is what I call the “Oi...Nutter!” approach of certain people towards believers, where, as politely as they try to put it, it still comes out as the accusation of mental abberation or incapacity.

But that could cover a multiplicity of underlying trends, feelings and understandings in the unbeliever.

I have never though encountered any sympathetic assistance toward me from what must be people who are supposedly in their right mind, the publicly atheist.

No-one has said “Oi…nutter” about the people in the videos – you’re straw manning again about this. What they’ve actually said is that there’s no reason to treat their accounts as evidence for having encountered Jesus. 

Last Tuesday I was kidnapped by aliens for a bit. I know this is true because I felt all emotional about it, and have now painted my house to look like the USS Enterprise.

Do you take my story at face value as true, or do you think it more likely that some other explanation for my story is more likely? Why?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is what these testimonies have in common which could be seen as evidence.
What is common in these and many others (I have watched dozens and there are more which I have not seen yet) is the profound love which they experience from their encounter with Jesus.  A love which is not there in the Koran or any other of the man made attempts to seek God.

First, these stories always occur within a culturally familiar context – the Muslim woman already knew about Christian faith narratives for example. Now if instead you found an Amazonian villager from a hitherto uncontacted tribe who told you he’d met Jesus then there might be something to consider   

Second, you’re trying here (yet another) fallacy called the appeal to emotion:

“Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones (meaning the same in Latin) is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is irrelevant to or distracting from the facts of the argument (a so-called "red herring") and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion#:~:text=Appeal%20to%20emotion%20or%20argumentum,the%20absence%20of%20factual%20evidence

[Maeght]

It is what these testimonies have in common which could be seen as evidence.
What is common in these and many others (I have watched dozens and there are more which I have not seen yet) is the profound love which they experience from their encounter with Jesus.  A love which is not there in the Koran or any other of the man made attempts to seek God.

Means nothing.

[Outrider]

I wasn’t addressing proof I was addressing Hillsides claim that there is no interest in personal testimony which can’t be proved. I merely pointed out that people are interested in all sorts of things that can’t be proved.

Except that the personal testimony is being offered in support of a particular claim, expressly as 'compelling' evidence. By contrast, when it is raised, multiple universes are being raised as possibilities which undermine other claims, not proffered as a definitive explanation for something. So you aren't comparing like with like, and therefore the point stands.

He was therefore wrong and you were wrong about my post.

Nope.

Your response concerning switching from science to law looks non sequitur.

That you think that looks like a non sequitur says an awful lot for your grasp of the arguments, and not much about my point, but well done you for standing up and admitting it.

O.