Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[Bubbles]

Surely that's the type of thing that only disturbs if you feel there might be something in it.

No it's hurtful.

The fact someone is nasty enough to tell you, is disturbing.

I don't believe in curses, but I would find it disturbing and hurtful if someone aimed one at me.

A poison pen letter or abusive phone call can be disturbing, there doesn't have to be any truth in it whatsoever.

It's the act.

I was disturbed when animal rights people targeted a neighbour of mine and sent poisonous letters around to all us neighbours and the police were involved, they do threaten people's  lives and families and that can be disturbing.


It's the nastiness that's disturbing, and people telling you, you are going to hell if you don't believe what they believe, is nasty.

Especially if done with a sort of joyous nastiness.

You can get it from door to door and street evangelists now and again.

[floo]

Pot calling Kettle black applies more to you and Shaker. Plus the others adding their two penneth worth.
For a start miracles done in the name of Christ do have proof including medical proof people have been healed. The fact you are all too lazy to search shows the real hypocrites around here are the atheists.
In the refusal of your own ignorance of what to have faith means you make false accusations against people like Bash and Hope. Bash not being here to defend himself. As for hypocrite .... calling yourselves open minded is a myth which is dispersed by the posts you have written about others and their beliefs in God and Christ.
We all know you cannot disprove Christ and God. But if honest and truly seeking truth and to understand believers you would be watching things like the 700 club where evidence can be obtained of healing and doctors real medical doctors who have confirmed such healing's.

The only real hypocrites around here are the one throwing stones like yourself and Shaker to name but two. Atheists who say one thing and mean another. Who talk and profess to be open minded then posts the posts that show how closed minded and how unfair they really are... Double standards and without any real basis but your own guilt being transferred onto others.

Either research the evidence available or admit, there is nothing open minded about the things you believe.
And stop trying to call Kettle black when the pot is the same colour and you are colour blind serving your own purpose.

There is NO verifiable evidence. Sass until you can provide that sort of evidence, which you can't, I advice you not to make more of a twit of yourself than you are.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Can  I also enquire into where the methodology is? It just seems like bad history and convoluted logic to me. In other words naturalistic methods done badly.

Can we have some further explanation on this matter please. Gordon and I asked some pretty straightforward questions, such as were exactly is the methodology? If you could perhaps bold the methodology explanation in your previous message it would be appreciated.

Ta

[Hope]

Can we have some further explanation on this matter please. Gordon and I asked some pretty straightforward questions, such as were exactly is the methodology? If you could perhaps bold the methodology explanation in your previous message it would be appreciated.

Ta

Stephen, I and others had provided explanations over the months and years we've been here (ad elsewhere): however, if by 'verifiable' you are excluding anything that doesn't come in a scientific/naturalistic guise, I doubt whether your request will ever be satisfied.  It's tantamount to saying that you will listen to evidence, provided that it fits with your pre-existing understanding of reality.

[Gordon]

Stephen, I and others had provided explanations over the months and years we've been here (ad elsewhere): however, if by 'verifiable' you are excluding anything that doesn't come in a scientific/naturalistic guise, I doubt whether your request will ever be satisfied.  It's tantamount to saying that you will listen to evidence, provided that it fits with your pre-existing understanding of reality.

We don't expect it to fit naturalism, since if it did then it wouldn't be supernatural! As such you've been asked for the methodology that you use in respect of the non-natural since it is the method that determines the evidence.

It seems self-evident that you can't provide one and, therefore, what you assert about this 'god' of yours is exactly that: assertion without any supporting evidence.

[jeremyp]

Stephen, I and others had provided explanations over the months and years we've been here (ad elsewhere):

And yet you are never able to point to the posts in which you explained your method, nor do a repost of it.

however, if by 'verifiable' you are excluding anything that doesn't come in a scientific/naturalistic guise,

No. By "verifiable" he means the method and the results must be verifiable. You are the one who is pretending that we mean naturalistic.

[ippy]

Stephen, I and others had provided explanations over the months and years we've been here (ad elsewhere): however, if by 'verifiable' you are excluding anything that doesn't come in a scientific/naturalistic guise, I doubt whether your request will ever be satisfied.  It's tantamount to saying that you will listen to evidence, provided that it fits with your pre-existing understanding of reality.

What was that old song? "Here We Go Again Happy as Can be", something like that, you've lost it again Hope.

ippy

[Shaker]

And yet you are never able to point to the posts in which you explained your method, nor do a repost of it.

Indeed. With this one it's always "someplace else, another time" (as though that's relevant to this forum without a link) or, if he claims it was posted here, it's unavailable for one reason or another - it was removed in a purge, the mods deleted it, etc.

In short, a long string of feeble excuses that fools no one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it's hurtful.

The fact someone is nasty enough to tell you, is disturbing.

I don't believe in curses, but I would find it disturbing and hurtful if someone aimed one at me.

I'm sorry but I have hardly encountered street evangelists let alone nasty ones and wouldn't know where to find any so perhaps you could supply a location so we could road test them for ourselves.

When I was a non Christian I imagined that religion was being forced down my throat. I came to understand what that feeling was all about. I actually talked to a couple of Christians in a non church settings and they just calmly talked about God and kept it  mainly in the context of my own newly found non specific general theism.

I think if this troubles something you should determine is whether it is the context or the content.

If it is the latter then I'm afraid to say I think you are being disturbed by God himself and have entered engagement with him.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Stephen, I and others had provided explanations over the months and years we've been here (ad elsewhere): however, if by 'verifiable' you are excluding anything that doesn't come in a scientific/naturalistic guise, I doubt whether your request will ever be satisfied.  It's tantamount to saying that you will listen to evidence, provided that it fits with your pre-existing understanding of reality.

That is simply untrue. Two points:

1) You have not posted any method. I specifically asked you to point out where in your previous reply you highlighted a method. Your post contained a claim of a resurrection and then some discussion about the nature of Jesus. Where was the method? If you are insisting that a resurrection took place then you need to show that is was though divine intervention.

2) I have stated on several occasions that I have not insisted on a naturalistic explanation. It's out there in many posts for all to see.

Finally, it seems to me that you are simply providing a God of the gaps type argument mixed in with a shifting of the burden of proof. I/Science can't explain it therefore God!  I claim God resurrected Jesus, prove he didn't!

I'm sure you're aware that that would be fallacious reasoning.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I think if this troubles something you should determine is whether it is the context or the content.

If it is the latter then I'm afraid to say I think you are being disturbed by God himself and have entered engagement with him.

Could you please clarify what you are saying here?

[Owlswing]

I'm sorry but I have hardly encountered street evangelists let alone nasty ones and wouldn't know where to find any so perhaps you could supply a location so we could road test them for ourselves.

Hounslow High Street, Hayes and Harlington Station, Piccadilly Circus, Paddington Station, the pedestrian area outside the Pavilions Mall in Uxbridge.

Do no expect to find them at any of these locations at any specific time, as they tend to get moved on by the police who get complaints from people who do not like being grabbed by the arm when they try to walk away without listening to the full blurb, or people who find prosletyising offensive.

In Hounslow High Street I do not include the JW's who stand in silence holding up their tracts and only speak if spoken to, a tactic that the Christian preachers could well do with copying!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We don't expect it to fit naturalism, since if it did then it wouldn't be supernatural! As such you've been asked for the methodology that you use in respect of the non-natural since it is the method that determines the evidence.

It seems self-evident that you can't provide one and, therefore, what you assert about this 'god' of yours is exactly that: assertion without any supporting evidence.

A few category errors here. Matter is not determined methodologically.
For example the existence of the 4o foot truck coming towards me does not depend on any methodology but by empirical and instrumental detection.

Matter has if you like revealed itself.

The latest methodology craze amongst your community is  a craze.

Our scripture suggests that God reveals himself and is not winkled out by science.
The bible ends with an ultimate act of self revelation which will be self evident to all.

Which after all is merely how material does its stuff now.

I think it was Gonnagle last Sunday who pointed out that atheists experienced being disturbed by God. That is evidence of God

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hounslow High Street, Hayes and Harlington Station, Piccadilly Circus, Paddington Station, the pedestrian area outside the Pavilions Mall in Uxbridge.

Do no expect to find them at any of these locations at any specific time, as they tend to get moved on by the police who get complaints from people who do not like being grabbed by the arm when they try to walk away without listening to the full blurb, or people who find prosletyising offensive.

In Hounslow High Street I do not include the JW's who stand in silence holding up their tracts and only speak if spoken to, a tactic that the Christian preachers could well do with copying!

If it's you Owlswing we can't be sure that you didn't seek these people out  and wade in with all guns blazing which solicited a Christian ninja respons.
The most aggressive street proselytiser I came across when I was out with an agnostic associate was Hari Krishna and we soon had him on ropes.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Oh dear,

For example the existence of the 4o foot truck coming towards me does not depend on any methodology but by empirical and instrumental detection.

No one is saying that the existence  of the truck depends on a methodology. However, if someone claims that a 40 foot truck is coming down the road then we do have a method for determining if the claim is true.

In the case of the theist the claim is that God is coming down the road. The question is how do you know, what method do you use?

And before you say it no one is asking for a scientific method.

The latest methodology craze amongst your community is  a craze.

It wouldn't be asked if theist didn't a) claim they had one or b) show us what it is.

Our scripture suggests that God reveals himself and is not wrinkled out by science.
The bible ends with an ultimate act of self revelation which will be self evident to all.

So is that your method then? Divine revelation.

I think it was Gonnagle last Sunday who pointed out that atheists experienced being disturbed by God. That is evidence of God

errrmm how?

[Bubbles]

I'm sorry but I have hardly encountered street evangelists let alone nasty ones and wouldn't know where to find any so perhaps you could supply a location so we could road test them for ourselves.

When I was a non Christian I imagined that religion was being forced down my throat. I came to understand what that feeling was all about. I actually talked to a couple of Christians in a non church settings and they just calmly talked about God and kept it  mainly in the context of my own newly found non specific general theism.

I think if this troubles something you should determine is whether it is the context or the content.

If it is the latter then I'm afraid to say I think you are being disturbed by God himself and have entered engagement with him.

Ok try Taunton

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-31829498

Or Manchester

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/piccadilly-gardens-hate-preachers-council-7004510

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could you please clarify what you are saying here?

Could you please clarify what you are saying here?

Certainly. Rose says she is disturbed by people relating to the Gospel.
Is that because of the context namely place or style? Or is she upset by the content,the idea that all have fallen short and are in need of salvation.

ogres are dreadful and kill people but I have a level of disbelief in them not to be disturbed by them.
Many atheists don't and can't have that disbelief of God look at Dawkins himself

[Rhiannon]

I think it was Gonnagle last Sunday who pointed out that atheists experienced being disturbed by God. That is evidence of God

That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Thank you that is clear.

Or is she upset by the content,the idea that all have fallen short and are in need of salvation.

You would have to ask Rose.

I think that when you are walking down the street and people start telling you that you are in need of salvation, that you are a sinner, deficient in some way then some people are going to feel awkward. Trying to make people feel small and inadequate, when they are just going about their day to day business is classic bullying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear,

No one is saying that the existence  of the truck depends on a methodology. However, if someone claims that a 40 foot truck is coming down the road then we do have a method for determining if the claim is true

Yes based entirely on the revelation of itself.

In terms of being told that God is coming down the road, the response of an atheist is qualitatively and neurologically different to that of an atheist being told that an angry dragon is coming to despatch him. This has to be since atheists are more agnostic toward God than dragons in whom disbelief is certain. Neurology is making great strides you know.

[Rhiannon]

You do talk a load of shit sometimes, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking.

No it is a possible explanation for the neurological disturbance caused by reception by an atheist of the word God. Do you have a better one or do we merely have to be satisfied by your customary assertion plus aggression?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Yes based entirely on the revelation of itself.

You previously said.

For example the existence of the 4o foot truck coming towards me does not depend on any methodology but by empirical and instrumental detection

The empirical and instrumental detection is the methodology.

In terms of being told that God is coming down the road, the response of an atheist is qualitatively and neurologically different to that of an atheist being told that an angry dragon is coming to despatch him. This has to be since atheists are more agnostic toward God than dragons in whom disbelief is certain. Neurology is making great strides you know.

Are you sure you didn't make some typos in there? It makes no sense at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do talk a load of shit sometimes, Vlad.

Is that all you've got?

[Rhiannon]

Is that all you've got?

Sometimes it's all that needs to be said. Any more and you might think you had something to say worth the argument.