Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[wigginhall]

Not a chance. Negative proof fallacy all the way with this one.

It's incredible how common this is.  The same is true of AB with his argument that scientists haven't shown how the brain produces consciousness.  Well, OK, but then AB jumps feet first into 'therefore God does it', without having to show how that works, of course!

[Shaker]

Yup, that's the one.

Simply amazing how ineradicable it is in some people. You tell them that it's wrong, or more to the point explain exactly why it's wrong, and it's in one ear and out the other unhampered by anything in between and they're back using it again a day later. Bizarre.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure I understand what you mean by no explanation for personal experience? That you think that you have had a personal experience of God does not mean that you have had an experience of God. People hallucinate, that is a know natural fact,

But then so is people not hallucinating...but I suppose that is not safe or sexy enough for your ilk.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But then so is people not hallucinating...but I suppose that is not safe or sexy enough for your ilk.

The point was simple enough I would have thought even for your Ilk.

People experience things and sometimes those things are clearly generated in the mind. How do you know the difference.

This is not fucking difficult.

[Owlswing]

How surprising.  Floo asks a question that she has asked hundreds of times over the last few years.  Again, as usual, the questions are answered by various people and when there are enough answers that she doesn't like, Floo tends to flit off.

Excuse my French but FUCKING HELL!! - talk bout the pot calling the kettle black!

This comment coming from you Hope is the highest possible pinnacle of hypocrisy!

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But then so is people not hallucinating...but I suppose that is not safe or sexy enough for your ilk.

I am an experienced research scientist with publications to my name  along with a long list of patents. I have been there at the birth of a few new ideas where previous understanding has been overturned. So safe?.. no

So come on then why don't you have a go at sharing your insights into how we know something is supernatural or not

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point was simple enough I would have thought even for your Ilk.

People experience things and sometimes those things are clearly generated in the mind. How do you know the difference.

This is fucking difficult.

Stephen if it is an hallucination what is being hallucinated.
Secondly, prove it is an hallucination.

Some people don't realise or notice things that are plain to others. Is being atheist a form of autism? Autism is a known fact you know.

[Brownie]

Excuse my French but FUCKING HELL!! - talk bout the pot calling the kettle black!

This comment coming from you Hope is the highest possible pinnacle of hypocrisy!

Why the foul  language?  Never seen that from you before Owlswing.

From what I have seen, Hope is courteous and posts thoughtfully.

[wigginhall]

The point was simple enough I would have thought even for your Ilk.

People experience things and sometimes those things are clearly generated in the mind. How do you know the difference.

This is not fucking difficult.

Not just hallucinations, but also illusions, which I assume are different, and dreams.   They all suggest that the brain constructs representations, which are partly based on sensory information (incoming), but also that the brain has creative powers, and is able to 'fill in' missing stuff.   Change blindness seems to be another example, when we fail to perceive a change in the environment.

But on top of that, you have the question of interpretation of experiences.   I see a shadow move across the wall outside - is it my neighbour, a cat, the man with the scythe, or too much booze?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why the foul  language?  Never seen that from you before Owlswing.

I have.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Stephen if it is an hallucination what is being hallucinated.
Secondly, prove it is an hallucination.

Some people don't realise or notice things that are plain to others. Is being atheist a form of autism? Autism is a known fact you know.

If it's an hallucination of God then the it's an hallucination of God. What else?

I don't have to prove it. I didn't say it was an hallucination just that it is plausible that it might me. But it is irrelevant even if I didn't have any suggestions you can't just say it woz God what done it. YOU have to show that it is a supernatural experience and provide an appropriate methodology. This really is philosophy 101.

Are some atheists autistic? Well maybe. I am an atheist but I am not, so what is your point.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Not just hallucinations, but also illusions, which I assume are different, and dreams.   They all suggest that the brain constructs representations, which are partly based on sensory information (incoming), but also that the brain has creative powers, and is able to 'fill in' missing stuff.   Change blindness seems to be another example, when we fail to perceive a change in the environment.

But on top of that, you have the question of interpretation of experiences.   I see a shadow move across the wall outside - is it my neighbour, a cat, the man with the scythe, or too much booze?

I agree. I was just shoeing one possible explanation, but I don't actually have to present any. Hope and Vlad are the ones that say that something supernatural is going on so it is up to them to provide the methodology.

I know you know this but it helps to get it of my chest.

The frustrating thing is I would love to hear of something new and different but alas it is never forthcoming.

[ippy]

If there were any verifiable evidence Hope do you mean to say that there wouldn't be anyone else in the whole of the world that would understand your explanation.

Why not put this notorious, mysterious, elusive, evidence of yours on Wikki it would then go all the way around the world in every known language and you would become world famous.

Their must be at least one person in the world with a brain that is quick enough to understand this knowledge that as far as we know is only available to you.

I'm really looking forward to this world shattering media event when all is revealed, it could only be announced via at least one of the Dimblbies if not both.

If it's a christian god what happens to all of the others; think of it Hope, no more atheists?

ippy 

[Shaker]

Why the foul  language?  Never seen that from you before Owlswing.

From what I have seen, Hope is courteous and posts thoughtfully.

But is also a monumental hypocrite - no wonder Owly swore.

[Brownie]

I've not seen the hypocrisy Shaker, honestly.

[Shaker]

See #11.

Perhaps it's a case of your not having been here long enough or to have had enough experience of Hope's standard operating procedure - wheel out assertion after assertion for which, when challenged, he provides not a scrap of evidence, typically stonewalling all and any such requests, or better yet, claiming that he's posted the evidence before at some point in the past (unspecified; no links given) either on unnamed other forums (relevance to this forum: unknown) or on this one although the posts appear not to be traceable right now for one reason or another (the mods pulled them; they disappeared in a purge, etc.). Or simply asserting that he has answered the questions (Where? "Various places" is the best you'll ever get) but the questioner simply didn't like his answers.

In other words he's the master of the unsupported assertion and the unanswered question, hypocritically criticising Floo for his very own behaviour. Projection, I think they call it. Personally I have another term for it but Gordon, long-suffering enough already, wouldn't like it.

[Bubbles]

I agree. I was just shoeing one possible explanation, but I don't actually have to present any. Hope and Vlad are the ones that say that something supernatural is going on so it is up to them to provide the methodology.

I know you know this but it helps to get it of my chest.

The frustrating thing is I would love to hear of something new and different but alas it is never forthcoming.

What sort of evidence would be acceptable to you?

Photos can be easily dismissed as fakes.

[Owlswing]

Why the foul  language?  Never seen that from you before Owlswing.

From what I have seen, Hope is courteous and posts thoughtfully.

Have you not read this forum?

Check back and see how many times it has been noted that Hope has been asked questions again and again and again and again and again ad infinitum ad nauseam - ask Shaker and various others how many times Hope has vanished for a week or so rather than answer a question for which he has no answer by admitting he has no answer!

The bad language? I would have thought that the very level of Hope's hupocrisy in his comment about Floo acting as he so often does would make a Cardinal kick a hole oin a stained glass window and the Pope himself use bad language.

Just do me a favour and don't turn into a Bashful Anthony on the subject.

[Owlswing]

See #11.

Perhaps it's a case of your not having been here long enough or to have had enough experience of Hope's standard operating procedure - wheel out assertion after assertion for which, when challenged, he provides not a scrap of evidence, typically stonewalling all and any such requests, or better yet, claiming that he's posted the evidence before at some point in the past (unspecified; no links given) either on unnamed other forums (relevance to this forum: unknown) or on this one although the posts appear not to be traceable right now for one reason or another (the mods pulled them; they disappeared in a purge, etc.). Or simply asserting that he has answered the questions (Where? "Various places" is the best you'll ever get) but the questioner simply didn't like his answers.

In other words he's the master of the unsupported assertion and the unanswered question, hypocritically criticising Floo for his very own behaviour. Projection, I think they call it. Personally I have another term for it but Gordon, long-suffering enough already, wouldn't like it.

Thanks Shaker - I wonder if your banned word is the same as the one I wanted to use!

[Shaker]

Probably not entirely dissimilar, old fruit 

[2Corrie]

If god and Jesus want us to believe they actually exist, why is there no verifiable evidence to support that scenario? Making their existence merely a matter of faith is crazy in the extreme, and cruel if lack of faith has consequences! So many dogmas, doctrines and sects have sprung up attributed to Christianity, some more bonkers than others. People make assertions about what god and Jesus are thinking, when the truth of the matter is they can have no idea, lacking any evidence to back up their claims.

The most credible explanation is that god has never existed in reality, but was created by humans, and is continuously reinvented by those with vivid imaginations.

As for Jesus, who supposedly popped up to heaven after his resurrection and has stayed out of sight ever since, it is much more likely when he was executed he stayed dead! The guy's death was very unpleasant if he was crucified, but he was a bit of a WUM, where the religious mafia of the day were concerned. It is strange his family didn't seem to rate him much according to the gospel of St John.

So why would a 'loving' god not ensure that no one had any doubt that it existed?

Next time you pick up your Bible may I suggest that you meditate on Psalm 19

[Owlswing]

Next time you pick up your Bible may I suggest that you meditate on Psalm 19

So what - just another load of archaic gobbledegook translated no-one knows how many times and still needing a commentary for a churchman to tell the ordinary bloke in the street what it is supposed to mean - i e what the Church wants us to think that it means!

[Brownie]

I have re-read all the posts on this thread, some of which I responded to, also revisited the Alpha thread which Stephen mentioned.  I still cannot see how Hope has been hypocritical, merely that he puts forward his views which others cannot verify scientifically.  No believer can produce hard and fast facts to back up their beliefs.

Now:   am I thick?  (No need to answer that one - please)
           naive?
           vague?  (that is possible)

I wonder if I should have a little break, just a few days, as I've been posting prolifically over the past couple of weeks, and then return with a fresh approach.  I really like it here and have absolutely nothing against any fellow poster.

[Owlswing]

I have re-read all the posts on this thread, some of which I responded to, also revisited the Alpha thread which Stephen mentioned.  I still cannot see how Hope has been hypocritical, merely that he puts forward his views which others cannot verify scientifically.  No believer can produce hard and fast facts to back up their beliefs.

Now:   am I thick?  (No need to answer that one - please)
           naive?
           vague?  (that is possible)

I wonder if I should have a little break, just a few days, as I've been posting prolifically over the past couple of weeks, and then return with a fresh approach.  I really like it here and have absolutely nothing against any fellow poster.

To see what I (and Shaker) mean about Hope being hypocritical you need to read more than just one or two threads and read them from start to finish.

I do not call anyone hypocrite without fair cause (Bashful Anthony - another Christian who would brook no argument against his religion being the one true way and anyone who was NOT Christian was delusional - I more than most as I am pagan - used the word for just about anyone who dared to argue with him or his version of his religion - as a for instance - I am a hypocrite, according to him, because, as a pagan, I send Christmas cards to my Christian friends and Yule cards to my pagan ones.) and Hope is, in calling Floo out as running away because she does not like answers given her, most certainly a hypocrite of the first water.

Try reading the "Put me out of my misery (appeal to Hope)" thread on the Christian Topic for a start!

On the subject of taking a break - I have just returned from a one month enforced (by the medical people) break in which I was able to read the posts here but not contribute. It was an eye opener.

[Brownie]

Thank you.  I have read the thread you mentioned (appeal to Hope).  It's all a question of perception, I fear.

I really do not like calling out posters by name, have no personal objections to anyone on here.

Anyway I am off to bed now, will sleep on it and see you sine die.
I'm grateful for your reply.
Night night,  Brownie