Fla, you might come to learn this in time, but posting on a message board isn't going to win any souls. Also, Pascal's wager and the idea of "nobody could make such a thing up" are easily refuted. The bottom line is this: Nobody comes to Christ without being convicted in the Spirit.
LSUDeek: I'm not trying to win any souls, I promise you that. I am under no such illusion. I am trying to point out that the mindset which labels believers "kooks" and "whackjobs" for believing that the natural world is not the only one in existence....that this secular mindset is unreasonable. Otherwise they are forced to reject the principles this country was founded on and most of the decision in the western legal system. (I have no idea how courtrooms really work, it seems like they are able to come to binding decisions though, decision which are not just "personal beliefs" but statements that testify to the facts as best understood by the evidence at hand. They are reasonable decisions....however often they are in fact correct.) Lastly, the person who goes through life relying soley on the scientific method for his ability to draw conclusions is operating under an extraordinarily impoverished mindset. One that I suggest is unncessary and unhelpful and does not lead one to a proper understanding of the truth. martin: Yes, you got that one exactly right. I would like to know. I think I would win that case.
a "proper understanding of the truth" isnt something that humans are necessarily entitled to. we are working on it. we should be mature enough to accept that we know some things and not others. so we just chill out, drink some cold ones and relax. you must be an amazing lawyer if you could convince a jury that the laws of physics are not really laws but mere suggestions. and all because a witness could never possibly have any information but the exact truth.
It is not intended as such. Let me rephrase, why do you think that the logic of science challenges your faith, which is not a scientific concept but a religious one? I can accept all of this except the bold part. This is an acceptable concept of God. But it is not a logical conclusion by the principles of logical analysis. It's a reasonable assumption by the principles of faith. I don't know, but it certainly could have. But you are taking a single case based on subjective testimony and making broad assumptions from it. Preponderance of evidence is something that juries do consider and it really doesn't exist here. As I have suggested, courts of Law must reach a reasonable decision. A settlement must be reached. Scientific logic demands a far more rigorous substantiation. Truth does not have to be found by any deadline, but all methods to discover and refine the search for truth must adhere to confirmed evidence and deductive reason. I do indeed. Confirmed hoaxes are far more common and likely than confirmed supernatural events which do not seem to exist. If we can agree that it is a reasonable conclusion on the basis of faith and not a logical conclusion on the basis of evidence, then . . . we may be done here. Sainthood does give that air of authority, though . . . :hihi:
. Actually, that is my point exactly...I don't think you would have to an amazing lawyer. Just moderately competent and you would win that case. I would bet every penny I own on it.
I actually disagree with this assertion. The world will not ever accept you and love you, neither will they understand your relationship with Jesus. It is pointless to wonder or speculate about why it is that the world mocks, ridicules, and has a general lack of understanding about what it means to be a Christian. It is further fruitless to debate such on internet message boards, which contain some of the most ardent heathens out there. I would agree with you, BUT they will never.
and to be fair, faith requires no logic or evidence or anything, so all assumptions about anything are just fine by the principles of faith. the very definition of faith is that the idea offered needs no support and should be believed based on nothing.
Red: I am more than willing to conclude the discussion. I think the points of both sides are well understood. I would request, if I may, that if you are aware of a resident attorney on the board, please have them post a likely verdict in the admittedly hypothetical case, if they have the time. I would be curious to know..... opcorn:
