Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In general use, for **virtually** 
> everyone, the term "proven" implies that you have the right answer, and 
> its impossible for further evidence, discussion or data to change the 
> result.

Funny thing is, this isn't even true in math. All I have to do is point 
out where your proof has a mistake in it, and something that was proven 
is no longer proven.

> That said, I bloody well hope Darren isn't looking for "proof", just 
> evidence.

To me, "convincing evidence with no other explanation" and "proof" are 
pretty much the same.  It's only people trying to win an argument who 
say things like evolution isn't proven because it *might* be wrong, and 
there *might* be another explanation. Otherwise, the word "proof" loses 
all meaning.

Of course, that's really difficult for something like God. :-) 
Especially when you wonder "hey, could someone with a time machine have 
accomplished the same thing?"

> ***Any*** evidence, that doesn't add unneeded complications, 
> isn't arbitrarily central to the person making the claim, instead of the 
> claim itself, can't be better explained by far more well known things, 
> or isn't so vague and unspecific that its impossible to discount 10,000 
> other possibilities in favor of the one some believer insists has to be 
> the answer.

Yep. Basically.

> Put simply, the evidence has to meet *at least* the standards used to 
> imply that Big Foot exists, which despite how unlikely, unbelievable and 
> probably hoax based, never the less contains enough points of 
> contention, enough unknowns and enough uncertainty that it *might* be 
> true, unlike pretty much **every** claim made about miracles, or other 
> 'evidence' ascribed to the God hypothesis. And if you can't even beat 
> out Big Foot, with respect to the evidence available and likelihood of 
> your existence, there is a serious problem. lol

There is that. Or, alternately, what evidence have you that JHVH is more 
likely that Zeus? The greeks have plenty of stories about their gods 
producing miracles. I'd be happy to hear why a Madonna statue speaking 
to someone 1000 years ago is more likely than a Dioneses statue doing 
the same thing.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message