Ranchhoddas:
Incontrovertible evidence. One that cannot be explained away.

Is there really anything like "incontrovertible" evidence in the presence of a deceptive mind?

is there any thing that cannot be used to generate controversy? If one is really desperate to generate doubt?

felixomor:


Is there really anything like "incontrovertible" evidence in the presence of a deceptive mind?

is there any thing that cannot be used to generate controversy? If one is really desperate to generate doubt?

How would a deceptive mind deny the existence of the Sun?

PastorAIO:


How would a deceptive mind deny the existence of the Sun?

In as much as u are yet to reply on ur earlier post,

I will still take the pain to answer u on this one:

Thank God u have put ur finger on something:

Please just go to google and search "Does the sun exist?"

And see whether some desperate fools (just like those who create controversy over God's existence) have not created controversy on the existence of the sun before.

Then come back and tell me that deceptive people cannot create controversy out of anything.

felixomor:


Is there really anything like "incontrovertible" evidence in the presence of a deceptive mind?

is there any thing that cannot be used to generate controversy? If one is really desperate to generate doubt?

If it can be explained away then it's not incontrovertible. No one disputes the fact the sun rises in the east and sets in the west...I believe lawyers refer to it as ''beyond REASONABLE doubt''.

Ranchhoddas:
I if can be explained away then it's not incontrovertible. No one disputes the fact the sun rises in the east and sets in the west...I believe lawyers refer to it as ''beyond REASONABLE doubt''.

You have made an absolute statement that is not right.

Please just go to google and see whether everybody agrees with that statement u just made that I highlighted.

Come back and tell me whether "no one disputes it" as a statement by you is true.

I give u 2 mins, check and come back.

felixomor:


You have made an absolute statement that is not right.

Please just go to google and see whether everybody agrees with that statement u just made that I highlighted.

Come back and tell me whether "no one disputes it" as a statement by you is true.

I give u 2 mins, check and come back.

I think it is you who needs to google the meaning of the term ''reasonable doubt''. Take as much time as you need.

Ranchhoddas:
I think it is you who needs to google the meaning of the term ''reasonable doubt''. Take as much time as you need.

So you can see that a fool(not you though, I believe so) can create controversy out of anything. Hence your quick diversive tactics.

And Oops bad news is that your statement was even wrong. Through and through.

The sun does not rise and set.

You are actually the one who rises and sets.

So u should av actually gone to google for some little illumination.

Nevertheless, be informed.

felixomor:


So you can see that a fool(not you though, I believe so) can create controversy out of anything. Hence your quick diversive tactics.

And Oops bad news is that your statement was even wrong. Through and through.

The sun does not rise and set.

You are actually the one who rises and sets.

So u should av actually gone to google for some little illumination.

Nevertheless, be informed.

Now you are just trying to be clever by half. We can not have a meaningful discussion if you do that. The sun rises and sets from our perspective... unless you want to admit that the sun did not stand still when Joshua ordered it to. Are you also calling the Bible ignorant?

Ranchhoddas:
Now you are just trying to be clever by half. We can not have a meaningful discussion if you do that. The sun rises and sets from our perspective... unless you want to admit that the sun did not stand still when Joshua ordered it to. Are you also calling the Bible ignorant?

"From our perspective". So now u can see that somebody can have perspective. Moreover today's perspective which is by far more informed than milleniums ago cannot be compared.

That statement at your level of education (from the earlier quote) is a disgrace, sorry to say.
Compared to the level of education during the time of Moses.
That aside.

But at least now you know that even fools can have perspective, and they can argue from that perspective till tomorrow. They can ridicule any evidence from that perspective even when your so called "beyond reasonable doubts" type of evidence is produced.

Thats the case with atheists.

felixomor:



"From our perspective". So now u can see that somebody can have perspective. Moreover today's perspective which is by far more informed than milleniums ago cannot be compared.

That statement at your level of education (from the earlier quote) is a disgrace, sorry to say.
Compared to the level of education during the time of Moses.
That aside.

But at least now you know that even fools can have perspective, and they can argue from that perspective till tomorrow. They can ridicule any evidence from that perspective even when your so called "beyond reasonable doubts" type of evidence is produced.

Thats the case with atheists.

Are you now admitting that the Bible is flawed because I don't know the reason for your insistence on a strawman... If you agree that everything is perspective, why then do you and all other religious people insist that your perspective is correct?

Ranchhoddas:
Are you now admitting that the Bible is flawed because I don't know the reason for your insistence on a strawman... If you agree that everything is perspective, why then do you and all other religious people insist that your perspective is correct?

Because it is backed up by numerous evidences that are beyond reasonable doubts.

Yeah.

felixomor:


Because it is backed up by numerous evidences that are beyond reasonable doubts.

Yeah.

What/where is this evidence? Always bear in mind REASONABLE doubt before answering.

Ranchhoddas:
What/where is this evidence? Always bear in mind REASONABLE doubt before answering.

The presence of an intended design and order which the Word of God speaks of and the fulfillment of God's prophecies over time.

felixomor:


The presence of an intended design and order which the Word of God speaks of and the fulfillment of God's prophecies over time.

While I am inclined to agree with your first sentence, it isn't beyond reasonabe doubt. There are highly intelligent people who declare evolution as fact.

PastorAIO:


Duh... errr... what do you call someone that already believes in God, an atheist? Really?



What are the options? What are the various types of evidence that you are aware of?

Okay you are not an atheist. Noted.

NOTE: if the above noted statement is really true, I think we shouldn't be discussing about the reality of God, but what made you think there is God. So now my question is, what made you think there is God? And how does your view about God differ from that of an atheist.


IF the above notification, is not perfectly true that you believe in God, then we can continue below.

No, everyone is entitled to his own evidences to believe in God. I have the evidences I personally believe in and because it satisfies my doubt about God, I can rest on it unto my last blood to say that he is.

Now, my evidences I have based my faith on, may sound somehow to you, but good to me because it answers my doubt.

Everyone has his own doubt and questions that make him doubt God. So, if such a person should be on his way to finding if God is real. To make a good satisfying research, he has to do it within the four walls of his doubt.

However, I have my own doubts, on which I researched him satisfyingly and it was all answered. And at the same time you have your own doubts about him. So, when I asked you what evidence would you like to get before you believe in God. It is a question, of which its answer should be based within the four walls of YOUR OWN DOUBT.

So again, what evidence would you view as satisfying to believe in him.

Ranchhoddas:
While I am inclined to agree with your first sentence, it isn't beyond reasonabe doubt. There are highly intelligent people who declare evolution as fact.

If these your so-called intelligent people also happily believe that nothing can be source of something. Then their thinking faculty must be worse than a poo!

promise10:

If these your so-called intelligent people also happily believe that nothing can be source of something. Then their thinking faculty must be worse than a poo!

You don come again abi?

felixomor:


In as much as u are yet to reply on ur earlier post,

I will still take the pain to answer u on this one:

Thank God u have put ur finger on something:

Please just go to google and search "Does the sun exist?"

And see whether some desperate fools (just like those who create controversy over God's existence) have not created controversy on the existence of the sun before.

Then come back and tell me that deceptive people cannot create controversy out of anything.

Please go and read my question again. In fact I'll print it here again.

How would a deceptive mind deny the Sun?

I take it that a deceptive person is a person that intends to mislead.

I asked 'how', requiring a mechanism. It has not been refuted since Descartes that the only thing that cannot be doubted is one's own consciousness. That is not what I was getting at in the question.

I have followed your instruction and looked in one of the sites that came up. It had this to say:

Here's my mathematical proof:

According to Einstein's field equations devised in the early 20th century concerning the relationship between space and time as one cohesive continuum, the rate at which gravity decreases with distance is expected to be exponential. Einstein understood this to mean that we were living in a 4 dimensional universe, with 3 dimensions of space - hence, the forced and outlandishly illogical "round" Earth theory. However, when analyzing the Gravity equation Fg = GM1M2/R^2

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63776.0

What you have here is a sequence of points that are being argued out. An interlocutor can now look at the argument and refute it if he can. He does so by showing that one of the steps in the argument is faulty. Or one of the premises of the argument is not valid.
At no point in the discourse does the fellow say that those who don't agree with him are fools, or not as smart as their 4 year old son.
The Flat Earth guy lays out an argument. You are free to refute it or fail to refute it.

All that you need to do is present an argument and we'll see if you're really so convinced by your argument yourself.

ps. what post haven't I responded to, I believe I am the one waiting for your response to a post I wrote.

PastorAIO:


Okay, let me rephrase it like this:

How do YOU think he arrived at the conclusion of 'lack of evidence'? Is it by viewing various evidences?

felixomor:


Good, so according to u, your sense of sight/vision is the only validator of existence, right?

You accused me above of not answering a question. Perhaps it was this. This, where you failed to answer my question but rather you responded with a totally irrelevant question in return. I even did you the good deed of rephrasing my question as you didn't seem to understand it.

it started when you said that someone arrived at a conclusion that there was 'lack of evidence'. And you questioned it.

Surprised, I asked how else someone concludes that there is lack of evidence unless they fail to see any evidence.

You start playing semantics with me and asking me to rephrase it, which I humbly oblige.

Then you answer my question with one of the most curious questions ever. You suggest (deceptively, may I add) that I believe that only things that I see are acceptable as evidence for existence for me.

I am quite certain (Beyond Reasonable Doubt ) that radio waves exist though mine eyes have never seen them. I am quite certain that viruses exist though mine eyes have never seen them. I wonder who or what you take me for that you are trying to put such a claim on my head that I only believe in the exitence of what I see.

All the while this is going on you are failing to answer the simple question. How do you think he arrived at the conclusion of lack of evidence?

promise10:

If these your so-called intelligent people also happily believe that nothing can be source of something. Then their thinking faculty must be worse than a poo!

Have you heard of anti-matter?

When an electron collides with a positron do you realise that they obliterate each other and nothing is left?

Now imagine that that process is reversed.

There you have a model for how matter can be created from nothing.

You also seem to be convinced of the ultimate substantiality of matter. I'm not.

PastorAIO:


Please go and read my question again. In fact I'll print it here again.

How would a deceptive mind deny the Sun?

I take it that a deceptive person is a person that intends to mislead.

I asked 'how', requiring a mechanism. It has not been refuted since Descartes that the only thing that cannot be doubted is one's own consciousness. That is not what I was getting at in the question.

I have followed your instruction and looked in one of the sites that came up. It had this to say:



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63776.0

What you have here is a sequence of points that are being argued out. An interlocutor can now look at the argument and refute it if he can. He does so by showing that one of the steps in the argument is faulty. Or one of the premises of the argument is not valid.
At no point in the discourse does the fellow say that those who don't agree with him are fools, or not as smart as their 4 year old son.
The Flat Earth guy lays out an argument. You are free to refute it or fail to refute it.

All that you need to do is present an argument and we'll see if you're really so convinced by your argument yourself.

ps. what post haven't I responded to, I believe I am the one waiting for your response to a post I wrote.

Concerning ur question as regards mechanism,

I referred u to google search on an argument on the existence of the sun.

Please be honest, did u do the search?

Because just by looking at the google search results u will see more than one mechanism people were able to create arguments on the existence of the sun.

It simply involves poking holes in the evidence produced by foolishly sticking to their perspective, and thats what atheists do after requesting evidence.

Because sincerely speaking, u actually thought nobody could create such controversy thats why i pointed u to that google page.

felixomor:


How did u arrive at your supposed conclusion: "lack of evidence that God exists"?

If I may ask.

Is there a disprovable and repeatable experiment to test for his existence? I'm all ears.

PastorAIO:


One generally arrives at a conclusion of 'lack of evidence' when they do not see any evidence. I would have thought that was obvious.
....................................

Is this not your statement?

My dear, ur question reply to my question is not valid because,

My 1st question reads: "How did u arrive at such conclusion that there is lack of evidence?"

If i had a thought of how he arrived at the conclusion, I wouldn't ask that simple question.

Ur question is arising from the fact that u tried bending away from ur first statement, after you realized the error in it.

And u didnt bend it properly. Lets be honest.

You sound to me like you have been smoking some strong herbs.

I've been kind enough to follow you on a very daft runaround, even googling the things you said I should google, even copying and pasting from the sites that google suggested, even responding to you on the basis of all that, and yet you are still asking me if I did the google search. I don't think you even read my posts before you respond.

You still haven't answered my question though you responded with a question I was kind enough to answer it.




Now that thing that you call 'poking holes in evidence' is how science has developed in the last 4 hundreds years and I believe you'd agree that humanity is the better for it. (I could be wrong that you'd agree though). it's called skepticism. It is not foolish at all.

Actually I am fully aware of all sorts of theories out there, I don't think that there is anyone on this planet that is better steeped in conspiracy theories than myself, but you knew that already didn't you because you know everything and you are smarter than everyone, aren't you.

Your posts are so pathetic!!

felixomor:


Concerning ur question as regards mechanism,

I referred u to google search on an argument on the existence of the sun.

Please be honest, did u do the search?

Because just by looking at the google search results u will see more than one mechanism people were able to create arguments on the existence of the sun.

It simply involves poking holes in the evidence produced by foolishly sticking to their perspective, and thats what atheists do after requesting evidence.

Because sincerely speaking, u actually thought nobody could create such controversy thats why i pointed u to that google page.

CoolUsername:


Is there a disprovable and repeatable experiment to test for his existence? I'm all ears.

That doesnt answer the question of how u arrived at your conclusion, its a personal question of ur experience. Personal questions cant

be answered by using rhetorics.

felixomor:


That doesnt answer the question of how u arrived at your conclusion, its a personal question of ur experience. Personal questions cant

be answered by using rhetorics.

I should give evidence to show how there's no evidence of God?

Ranchhoddas:
While I am inclined to agree with your first sentence, it isn't beyond reasonabe doubt. There are highly intelligent people who declare evolution as fact.

And sorry there are many more highly intelligent people who believe in the Word of God as truth. You see?

CoolUsername:


I should give evidence to show how there's no evidence of God?

Maybe u can do that as introduction,

How many evidences did u examine?

Please lets know all of them, mind you hope u know ruling out something is more difficult than confirming it.

CoolUsername:


I should give evidence to show how there's no evidence of God?

Good luck with this guy. Me, I'm bowing out.

felixomor:


And sorry there are many more highly intelligent people who believe in the Word of God as truth. You see?

Is this the evidence?

Ranchhoddas:
Is this the evidence?

U r the one who first used "intelligent people" as ur evidence for evolution nah?

felixomor:


U r the one who first used "intelligent people" as ur evidence for evolution nah?

How did I use them as evidence? I only said that they show that your ''word of God'' claim isn't beyond reasonable doubt. Please show me how I used them as evidence.