I told you before that I made up 1000 gods who wouldn’t tolerate your worshiping Yahweh. You responded that there was zero evidence for these gods.
So my question is, which way do you want it to be? Is Joseph Smith’s testimony considered “evidence”? If so, then you have to accept mine. If mine isn’t evidence, you can’t count Joseph Smith’s, or anyone else’s.
What I accept is neither here nor there. The point is that the actual evidence for black holes is not testimonial. I personally don’t have anything to do with it, so it’s not relevant whether I personally can replicate the research. The scientific community does not regard nmere claims as scientific evidence, and testimony is not part of the actual evidence for black holes.
Yes, I have some trust in the scientific process and in peer review (though not a religous faith). There is no such comparable process for religious claims.
You told abele derer that testimony does not count as evidence. He wants to know why you accept the testimony of the scientific community regarding things which your only evidence is their testimony, e.g., black holes.
And it has been explained that it is not their testimony that is being accepted-it is their research, that has been verified by others, that has been accepted.
Oh, there’s plenty of evidence for God. Problem is, 99.999% of this evidence is entirely subjective evidence. That’s not science. That’s like claiming green is a prettier color than blue, just because you feel that way.
I stopped going to church once I was no longer 100% certain that Jesus Christ existed. FTR, I fully expected to return to the flock, once my “prodigal son” period ended. It didn’t work out that way – instead, to my shock and disappointment, I discovered that everything I’d been told about Jesus Christ during my entire childhood was, in fact, a lie.
It amazes me the way you atheists (of which I am one, I should add) permit yourselves to be hijacked by this thing about there being “no evidence” for any gods.
There is truckloads of completely subjective, contradictory, unreliable, unrepeatable evidence for gods.
By all means assert that there is no objective evidence for any gods, there is no scientific evidence for any gods, there is (in short) no convincing evidence for any gods and I will be right there asserting with you.
But getting hung up in a silly argument as a consequence of a pig headed insistence on asserting that there is no evidence without qualifying precisely what you mean by “evidence” is just making yourselves your own worst enemies in the debate.
No it’s not. Because, as has been pointed out, even if completely subjective and unreliable evidence is acceptable, there is that exact same evidence for gods that negate the wager.
You say the wager is broken either way but conclude that getting hung up in a silly argument as a consequence of a pig headed insistence on asserting that there is no evidence without qualifying precisely what you mean by “evidence” isn’t just making yourselves your own worst enemies in the debate?
Reproducibility is far more important than peer review, which is a coarse filter, more or less coarse depending on the quality of the journal and how many pages they have to fill. I’ve read thousands of reviews, and I can tell you stories …
Help me with what? The kind of thing you were referring to is not scientific evidence. It can’t even be fairly characterized as “bad evidence.” It’s no evidence.
