About the Charismatic gifts and their exercise.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

For asserting something she could not know to be a fact to be a fact, yes.

But she is right. There is no verifiable evidence for God. Otherwise where is it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

Nope.

LR claimed that there is no verifiable evidence for God. To falsify her claim, all anybody needs to do is present some verifiable evidence of a god - any god.

Nobody has done that. In fact, nobody has done that in spite of trying to find said evidence for hundreds of years. How long do we have to go on before you accept that there is no verifiable evidence for God? How long is it going to be before you accept leprechauns aren’t real?

You're not getting it. Her claim is necessarily wrong when she calls it a fact. Why? Because her non-omniscience falsifies it ipso facto. You're focusing on the content of the claim, but the wrongness concerns something else - the status she attaches to it.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

But she is right. There is no verifiable evidence for God. Otherwise where is it?

She may or may not be right about there being no verifiable evidence for god (or for leprechauns). Where she is wrong though is to assert as a fact something she cannot know to be a fact.

[Nearly Sane]

But she is right. There is no verifiable evidence for God. Otherwise where is it?

A big hello to the problem of induction.

And that's leaving aside the question of what god and evidence would be.

[Roses]

Fllo,

Why so rude?

Nothing rude about that!

[Roses]

Jeremy,

She may or may not be right about there being no verifiable evidence for god (or for leprechauns). Where she is wrong though is to assert as a fact something she cannot know to be a fact.

I am NOT wrong when I say there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

I am NOT wrong when I say there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of god.

How do you know that? You may or may not be wrong about whether there is such evidence, but you are wrong to state as a fact that's there's no evidence because that's not something you can know to be true (unless you are in fact omniscient). You can believe it to be true, you can assert it to be true, you can anything you like it to be true in fact short of knowing it to be true. 

[Roses]

Floo,

You may or may not be wrong about whether there is such evidence, but you are wrong to state as a fact that's there's no evidence because that's not something you can know to be true (unless you are in fact omniscient). You can believe it to be true, you can assert it to be true, you can anything you like in fact short of knowing it to be true.

It is a FACT that at present there is no evidence, which can be substantiated, that god exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

It is a FACT that at present there is no evidence, which can be substantiated, that god exists.

Typing "FACT" in capitals doesn't make a non-fact into a fact.

If you think it's a fact, then demonstrate it. What you actually mean is something like, "I'm not aware of any verifiable...." etc, which is epistemologically a different statement. 

[Alan Burns]

I am NOT wrong when I say there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of god.

You are the verifiable evidence, Rose, for you are God's creation.

[Stranger]

You are the verifiable evidence, Rose, for you are God's creation.

You do realise how comically circular this is, don't you?

...don't you?

[Enki]

You are the verifiable evidence, Rose, for you are God's creation.

When you say things like that you just sound like one of those empty headed disparate street preachers, or a JW who comes a knocking at the door. Surely you've a mind better than that, AB?

[Roses]

You are the verifiable evidence, Rose, for you are God's creation.

No dear, unless god had it off with my Mum, I am my parents creation.

BTW, Roses, but NEVER Rose, thanks.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

Her claim is necessarily wrong when she calls it a fact.

Rubbish. Otherwise all statements about the real world are wrong

There is no verifiable evidence of leprechauns.

Right or wrong? I'd suggest right.

Why? Because her non-omniscience falsifies it

No it doesn't.

ipso facto. You're focusing on the content of the claim

Of course. What determines the truth ofd a statement is what the statement says, not who made the statement. Your argument is an ad hominem.

[jeremyp]

A big hello to the problem of induction.

Induction is not a problem. Why do you think there is a problem with induction? Bear in mind everything we know about the real world is known because of induction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

Rubbish. Otherwise all statements about the real world are wrong

No they’re not – just the unwarranted ones obtained from induction. Think black swans.

There is no verifiable evidence of leprechauns.

How do you know that?

Right or wrong? I'd suggest right.

I’d suggest it too, but I wouldn’t overreach into calling it a fact.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. The only way you can say definitively that something doesn’t exist is to have the omniscience to know every possible location in which it could exist, and means to have found it not to be in any of them.

Of course. What determines the truth ofd a statement is what the statement says, not who made the statement. Your argument is an ad hominem.

No it isn’t. Ad hominem means something else, and in any case I made no comment about who made the statement. What I commented on is the status attached to it – ie, that it was a fact – when there was no logically coherent justification for it. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

Induction is not a problem. Why do you think there is a problem with induction? Bear in mind everything we know about the real world is known because of induction.

It's a problem when for example on the basis that someone has only ever seen white swans he asserts it to be a fact that there are no black swans.

[Roses]

Jeremy,

It's a problem when for example on the basis that someone has only ever seen white swans he asserts it to be a fact that there are no black swans.

Not a good analogy. It is easy enough to find out  if black swans exist, which of course they do. Looking for verifiable evidence to support the existence of god is a totally different ball game.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

Not a good analogy. It is easy enough to find out  if black swans exist, which of course they do. Looking for verifiable evidence to support the existence of god is a totally different ball game.

It's a perfectly good analogy, and you're missing it still: unless you have some means of knowing and investigating every possible location in which something could exist, you cannot assert it to be a fact that it doesn't exist. What that thing is – a black swan or anything else – doesn't make any difference to that basic point.   

It's very simple.

[Nearly Sane]

Floo,

It's a perfectly good analogy, and you're missing it still: unless you have some means of knowing and investigating every possible location in which something could exist, you cannot assert it to be a fact that it doesn't exist. What that thing is – a black swan or anything else – doesn't make any difference to that basic point.   

It's very simple.

In one sense, it is very simple but it's also a bit of a rabbit hole


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

[Roses]

Floo,

It's a perfectly good analogy, and you're missing it still: unless you have some means of knowing and investigating every possible location in which something could exist, you cannot assert it to be a fact that it doesn't exist. What that thing is – a black swan or anything else – doesn't make any difference to that basic point.   

It's very simple.

OK then, if it is so simple how does one set about proving or disproving the existence of god?

[Nearly Sane]

OK then, if it is so simple how does one set about proving or disproving the existence of god?

That's a non sequitur to bhs's post.

[Roses]

That's a non sequitur to bhs's post.

I was pointing out that you can prove black swans exist, you can't as yet prove or otherwise the same about god.

[Nearly Sane]

I was pointing out that you can prove black swans exist, you can't as yet prove or otherwise the same about god.

which is irrelevant to the problem of induction.

[Roses]

which is irrelevant to the problem of induction.

Sometimes I think we are talking different languages!