About the Charismatic gifts and their exercise.

[SteveH]

My statement is a fact, even if you don't regard it as such.

Your statement is your opinion, and as I've pointed out many, many times before, a bare statement of opinion, whether or not followed by "imo", is not an argument. You need to defend it with arguments and evidence (which does not include personal experiences, which prove nothing). In the case of your oft-repeated opinion that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, you could try demolishing, with logic and appropriate references, other people's claimed evidence.

[Roses]

Your statement is your opinion, and as I've pointed out many, many times before, a bare statement of opinion, whether or not followed by "imo", is not an argument. You need to defend it with arguments and evidence (which does not include personal experiences, which prove nothing). In the case of your oft-repeated opinion that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, you could try demolishing, with logic and appropriate references, other people's claimed evidence.

No it isn't an opinion, there is no evidence to substantiate god's existence, however much some people wish it to be so. You have never presented any evidence  that can be verified.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

No it isn't an opinion, there is no evidence to substantiate god's existence, however much some people wish it to be so. You have never presented any evidence  that can be verified.

Strictly Steve H is right – you cannot prove a negative. There may or may not be evidence for god(s), just as there may or may not be evidence for leprechauns. What you can say is, “I have never seen evidence for…”, “to my knowledge no evidence has ever been produced” etc but a definitive “there is no evidence” puts the burden of proof on you to demonstrate the claim, which is logically impossible to do.   

[Nearly Sane]

No it isn't an opinion, there is no evidence to substantiate god's existence, however much some people wish it to be so. You have never presented any evidence  that can be verified.

Actually it's a positive claim and you need to demonstrate it to be more than mere assertion.

[Nearly Sane]

Floo,

Strictly Steve H is right – you cannot prove a negative. There may or may not be evidence for god(s), just as there may or may not be evidence for leprechauns. What you can say is, “I have never seen evidence for…”, “to my knowledge no evidence has ever been produced” etc but a definitive “there is no evidence” puts the burden of proof on you to demonstrate the claim, which is logically impossible to do.

Except of course you can in some cases prove a negative.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except of course you can in some cases prove a negative.

But not by assertion.

[Roses]

Put it another way, what evidence is there any god exists outside of the human imagination ?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But not by assertion.

Indeed which is why Steve is right, not sure what the qualification 'strictly ' adds to that.

[Nearly Sane]

Put it another way, what evidence is there any god exists outside of the human imagination ?

That isn't putting your claim that there is no evidence for God being a fact in another way. It's a perfectly interesting question but needs the words evidence and god clearly defined.

But before we do that, could you clearly state that you understand that your claim was merely an assertion?

[SteveH]

Put it another way, what evidence is there any god exists outside of the human imagination ?

Your opinion is obviously "none", but it is your opinion: some people think there is evidence.

[Roses]

Your opinion is obviously "none", but it is your opinion: some people think there is evidence.

But have never produced any. As belief in god is a matter of faith only, no one has actually seen it, which makes its existence doubtful.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

But have never produced any. As belief in god is a matter of faith only, no one has actually seen it, which makes its existence doubtful.

Again, unless you have some means of investigating every possible instance in which evidence could have been produced you can't say never. All you can say with certainty is that you've never seen it or similar. I've never seen any either, and if there was some it seems very unlikely to me that such a momentous piece of evidence would not have come to my attention but, nonetheless, I cannot say definitively that it doesn't exist. 

[Roses]

Floo,

Again, unless you have some means of investigating every possible instance in which evidence could have been produced you can't say never. All you can say with certainty is that you've never seen it or similar. I've never seen any either, and if there was some it seems very unlikely to me that such a momentous piece of evidence would not have come to my attention but, nonetheless, I cannot say definitively that it doesn't exist.

I have never said  god doesn't exist! I have said there is no verifiable evidence that it does.

[Nearly Sane]

I have never said  god doesn't exist! I have said there is no verifiable evidence that it does.

And bhs's post talks entirely about the evidence. Which makes your response a non sequitur.

[Roses]

And bhs's post talks entirely about the evidence. Which makes your response a non sequitur.

Again, unless you have some means of investigating every possible instance in which evidence could have been produced you can't say never.

I understood that sentence to mean that I had said god didn't exist.

[Nearly Sane]

Again, unless you have some means of investigating every possible instance in which evidence could have been produced you can't say never.

I understood that sentence to mean that I had said god didn't exist.

That sentence is  clearly talking about the existence of evidence

[Roses]

That sentence is  clearly talking about the existence of evidence

If you say so, it wasn't clear to me.

[jeremyp]

Your statement is your opinion, and as I've pointed out many, many times before, a bare statement of opinion, whether or not followed by "imo", is not an argument. You need to defend it with arguments and evidence (which does not include personal experiences, which prove nothing). In the case of your oft-repeated opinion that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, you could try demolishing, with logic and appropriate references, other people's claimed evidence.

You could end the argument straight away by providing the alleged existing verifiable evidence. Why are you not doing that instead of browbeating LR?

[jeremyp]

Floo,

Again, unless you have some means of investigating every possible instance in which evidence could have been produced you can't say never. All you can say with certainty is that you've never seen it or similar. I've never seen any either, and if there was some it seems very unlikely to me that such a momentous piece of evidence would not have come to my attention but, nonetheless, I cannot say definitively that it doesn't exist.

But LR's statement is a statement about the real world. There is no absolute proof of anything in the real world, all we can do is weigh the evidence for both sides of an argument. She says there is no verifiable evidence. The fact that religionists have failed to provide any verifiable evidence despite having thousands of years to come up with the goods, puts the balance of probabilities strongly in favour of LR being correct.

Minor point of information: When LR rejoined the forum, she requested not to be addressed as "Floo" anymore.

[Nearly Sane]

You could end the argument straight away by providing the alleged existing verifiable evidence. Why are you not doing that instead of browbeating LR?

Perhaps because she claims her statement is a fact, rather than an assertion, and a positive claim, which she doesn't justify?

[jeremyp]

Perhaps because she claims her statement is a fact, rather than an assertion, and a positive claim, which she doesn't justify?

See my previous response.

[Nearly Sane]

But LR's statement is a statement about the real world. There is no absolute proof of anything in the real world, all we can do is weigh the evidence for both sides of an argument. She says there is no verifiable evidence. The fact that religionists have failed to provide any verifiable evidence despite having thousands of years to come up with the goods, puts the balance of probabilities strongly in favour of LR being correct.

Minor point of information: When LR rejoined the forum, she requested not to be addressed as "Floo" anymore.

Balance of probabilties doesn't make it a fact.

[Nearly Sane]

See my previous response.

Yeah, it was wrong.

[jeremyp]

Balance of probabilties doesn't make it a fact.

This is the real world NS. It's all we have got.

[jeremyp]

Yeah, it was wrong.

Counter example please.