GAY RELUBRICANTS Where are you now? lulz

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
Extreme example, to be sure, but you are making the distinction of which testimony is allowable, and which isn't. The end point is, there is actually more evidence that God does exist, than there is evidence that he doesn't. The evidence that he doesn't exist is based solely on the fact that people don't believe the testimonials over the past thousands of years that he does.
not just no but fuck no. there is no evidence that any supernatural deity exists. evidence that is not scientific and empirical is not evidence.
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
So instead of having one witness to my house being broken into, I now have 100 witnesses. Unfortunately all the witnesses have different testimonies. One says the guy was black, one say the guy was white. One says the intruder was 7 foot tall, another says he was a midget. One says the intruder had wings and flew around the house a few times, another says he came out of the ground.

Who to believe? Or should you believe any of them?

What is the one common thing they all say? Someone broke into your house. At the core of each of their stories is the one same fact.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
Besides, the belief in a higher power isn't negated by the fact that life evolved. It really comes down to what your belief in that higher power is based on.

My personal belief comes from the fact that, in a macrocosmic view, the universe is just way to orderly. And there is just too much commonality between how an atom works, and how a solar system works, and how a universe works, for it to be just written off as cause that it's all coincidence.

your personal belief comes from something that is not a "fact". and just because inaccurate drawings of atoms make it look like a solar system (hint: electrons don't all travel on the same plane like planets) doesn't mean there's too much commonality. in fact, there really isn't that much
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
What is the one common thing they all say? Someone broke into your house. At the core of each of their stories is the one same fact.

But they all claim to have seen someone. No one has seen god. God can't be seen.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
Tell that to the courts. I'm sure they will get a kick out of it.

yeah they will, which is why in most jurisdictions people charged with serious crimes cannot be convicted on eye witness testimony alone. it requires some kind of forensic evidence that follows the rules of science in order to prove that an individual committed murder or rape. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and as of yet there is not one shred, not one ounce, not one iota of evidence that supports the existence of a higher power

trying to mully the argument by using a legal term is utterly pointless. this is about the nature of the universe, law has absolutely no impact on it. science is all that matters
 
Last edited:

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
But they all claim to have seen someone. No one has seen god. God can't be seen.

lol. So now you are taking the debate supposition we made up as some kind of factual counter? No.

Besides, to say God can't be seen would be based on, what? Stories from people you have issues believing in the first place?

we're going into a fine argument here trying to prove or disprove god, or a supreme being. Which wasn't my intent. It was simply to state that to say there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of god is not factually correct. You have a rather large data set that you would need to completely discount, but just to say 'they are all lying' isn't a valid way to discount it.
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
yeah they will, which is why in most jurisdictions people charged with serious crimes cannot be convicted on eye witness testimony alone. it requires some kind of forensic evidence that follows the rules of science in order to prove that an individual committed murder or rape. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and as of yet there is not one shred, not one ounce, not one iota of evidence that supports the existence of a higher power

trying to mully the argument by using a legal term is utterly pointless. this is about the nature of the universe, law has absolutely no impact on it. science is all that matters

I'm not mullying the argument by using a legal term. You are the one who brought up 'scientific and empirical'. And to say that 'science' is all that matters is your opinion. It really is. There is no way you can absolutely prove, or disprove that. You take that science is all that matters based on faith. Pretty interesting, that.
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,347
1,732
923
lol. So now you are taking the debate supposition we made up as some kind of factual counter? No.

Besides, to say God can't be seen would be based on, what? Stories from people you have issues believing in the first place?

we're going into a fine argument here trying to prove or disprove god, or a supreme being. Which wasn't my intent. It was simply to state that to say there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of god is not factually correct. You have a rather large data set that you would need to completely discount, but just to say 'they are all lying' isn't a valid way to discount it.

show me evidence, please. 2000 year old fairy tales don't constitute evidence
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
yeah they will, which is why in most jurisdictions people charged with serious crimes cannot be convicted on eye witness testimony alone. it requires some kind of forensic evidence that follows the rules of science in order to prove that an individual committed murder or rape. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and as of yet there is not one shred, not one ounce, not one iota of evidence that supports the existence of a higher power

trying to mully the argument by using a legal term is utterly pointless. this is about the nature of the universe, law has absolutely no impact on it. science is all that matters

You know as well as I do that we can google a crapton of cases where people have 100% been convicted of serious crimes based solely on eye witness testimony.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
I'm not mullying the argument by using a legal term. You are the one who brought up 'scientific and empirical'. And to say that 'science' is all that matters is your opinion. It really is. There is no way you can absolutely prove, or disprove that. You take that science is all that matters based on faith. Pretty interesting, that.

when discussing the nature of the universe, science is all that matters. and no, science does not require an ounce of faith to be relied on. science is the study of the physical world around us thus when discussing the core nature of that physical world - namely, how it came to be - science is the only field that has any authority on the matter. law doesn't
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
You know as well as I do that we can google a crapton of cases where people have 100% been convicted of serious crimes based solely on eye witness testimony.

which is why I said most jurisdictions and you know damn well that they all go to appeal where scientific evidence - or rather, lack thereof - is used to exonerate people. maybe in backwater jurisdictions where the judge is also the gas station attendant but such idiocy is frowned upon in the civilized world

all you're doing is showing that the legal system is far from perfect or absolute and thus trying to tie in a legal definition of evidence when the only one that matters is the scientific definition is asinine
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
lol. So now you are taking the debate supposition we made up as some kind of factual counter? No.

Besides, to say God can't be seen would be based on, what? Stories from people you have issues believing in the first place?

we're going into a fine argument here trying to prove or disprove god, or a supreme being. Which wasn't my intent. It was simply to state that to say there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of god is not factually correct. You have a rather large data set that you would need to completely discount, but just to say 'they are all lying' isn't a valid way to discount it.

The onus is on the one who makes the claim.
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
when discussing the nature of the universe, science is all that matters. and no, science does not require an ounce of faith to be relied on. science is the study of the physical world around us thus when discussing the core nature of that physical world - namely, how it came to be - science is the only field that has any authority on the matter. law doesn't

:lol:

Okay.
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
which is why I said most jurisdictions and you know damn well that they all go to appeal where scientific evidence - or rather, lack thereof - is used to exonerate people. maybe in backwater jurisdictions where the judge is also the gas station attendant but such idiocy is frowned upon in the civilized world

all you're doing is showing that the legal system is far from perfect or absolute and thus trying to tie in a legal definition of evidence when the only one that matters is the scientific definition is asinine

Actually, that is the argument you are making. If anything, I stated that a large sample of a population, across the entire cutural, geographical, and historical span of the human timeline, reporting their witness to acts of a supreme being, or their faith in a supreme being, or their interactions with a supreme being, is, scientifically speaking, a rather large data set. Since you want to follow that path, unless you have a pretty valid counter to just discount that data set, it can not be ignored as invalid until proven so.

Science doesn't actually disprove god exists. In fact, many scientists have made the argument that science, in fact, goes a long way towards proving that there is something more out there, something that 'could' be along the lines of a supreme being.