evolution vs God mr comfort

by unstopableravens 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • bohm

    Unstop: ok, so if you have witnesses and dna evidence in a trial, it still require faith to arrive at a guilty verdict?

  • unstopableravens

    yes, because you have to have faith that both are accurate

  • bohm

    Unstop: suppose we had dna evidence and witnesses, and suppose we had performed the dna test many times and it seemed to work. Would you then say it was a very reasonable to believe he was guilty, no faith required? Notice i am not talking about absolute certainty

  • cofty

    Unstop - since you know zero about the evidence for evolution why do you think you are entitled to an opinion?

    If you were on a jury would you reach a verdict before you had heard the case for the defense?

  • cantleave

    Unstop - Why do we need faith in a proven methodolgy such as DNA evidence?

  • unstopableravens

    so wolf pack: if i dont observe something and yet believe it, im illogical if evoultionist dont obsevere something and believe it, is not faith its just fact. none of you have observed anything speicies evoultion.

  • bohm

    Unstop: wolf pack? Lol. see my above question. The problem is comfort confuse what is certain with what is reasonable to believe.

  • J. Hofer
    J. Hofer

    you have the bloody knife with fingerprints on it, you got blood stains in the car, you got dna tests -> high probability you accused the right person.

    on the other hand you got some spirit medium that telepathically tells you who commited the murder without any further evidence -> pretty weak, don't you think?

  • HB

    I have never been to Canada, nor have I seen it from an aeroplane. But I don't need faith to know it is real, the evidence for it's existence is overwhelming.

    Nor have I been to or seen Atlantis. From what I have read it was a fabulous place, but as there is no firm evidence for its current existence, I don't have it on my holiday wish list.

    ........ But ..... perhaps all that evidence for Canada's existence has been concocted by deluded or dishonest people with some ulterior motive?

    Perhaps they have all conspired together over many years to fool me, and actually Canada doesn't exist. Maybe all atlases have been deliberately falsified, and photos from space were cleverly photoshopped to add a large landmass above the USA. Maybe people who say they live in Canada are deliberately lying, and the photos taken by my friends who said they went on holiday there are really of somewhere else. All news items about Canada are invented by journalists, and the country's existence is just a big conspiracy theory.

    Perhaps to be certain, I should take the trouble to actually book a flight and go there myself and check it out.

    There again, maybe Atlantis is a real place in the Atlantic Ocean, a huge empire and wonderful paradise as desribed by none other than Plato, and if ONLY my faith was strong enough and I believed, I could go there myself too. When I go to book my trip to Canada, I'll ask at the travel agents how much a flight to Atlantis costs.

  • adamah

    USR, please stop with the fallacious use of the word 'faith, creating the false equivalency by using the same word to apply to both situations.

    Belief with NO perceptible evidence to support it is called 'faith'; believing based ON perceptible evidence is called 'conviction'.

    It's hard to keep those two words straight, so here's an easy way to remember so you don't abuse the words ever again:

    Criminal courts don't convict people to the death penalty without perceptible evidence, i.e. they don't convict suspects based only on the juries 'faith', where they just 'know' in their hearts that the guy did it.

    Faith ≠ Conviction.

    You also seem to believe in the fallacy of absolute certainties: there are NONE. That's exactly why criminal courts don't demand ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, and even realize that such convictions just aren't attainable (despite those individuals who may believe in the concept), and hence why the judicial system relies on convicting with different threshold, based on the severity of the charge, eg "certain beyond a reasonable doubt", or based on "the preponderance of the evidence", etc.

    If we required ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY in order to convict someone of a crime, jails would be empty: eg all the defense would need to do is demand proof that the video evidence wasn't faked in some postulated vast conspiracy to frame the accused, or to demand proof that the incriminating DNA evidence wasn't planted by a criminal mastermind, etc. The judicial system, like science, relies on PROBABILITIES, looking at the most-probable, and doesn't require absolute certainty in order to convict of crimes (unlike believers, who may be absolutely convinced of something, but who use faith to patch up the gaping holes in the visible evidence, or in the absense of evidence).


Share this