Re: political

In article <Xns99A476EFD42DCgoddardbenetscapenet@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"btorvik2" <btorvik2@xxxxxxx> wrote in
news:5kdap1F35pu3U3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Exactly. The same can be said of the bible.

Since you can not directly observe events which happened before you
existed, your only source of evidence is secondary evidence in the
form of the accounts of others who either observed the events directly
or are relaying someone else's account.

We're not talking about firsthand vs. secondhand vs. thirdhand
accounts, but about objective vs. subjective evidence.

So, just to make sure I'm on-board, here...

* Actual burning bush: objective event. YOu can believe that it
happened or not, see it 1st hand or hear about it through the grapevine,
but "that bush is burning" is a measurable event. Regardless of whether
or not anyone is there to see it, a burning bush CAN BE SEEN and, so, is
objective.

* "I felt as if a bush was burning inside me, but I was not consumed":
subjective event. No one can look at you and see your sensation,
therefore it is subjective.

* "I saw Hutch make a decision as to which cigar to smoke" -- I'm still
unclear on this one. I mean, we ALL saw him reach into his travel-dor,
rummage a bit, then finally select one -- and that *IS* what we mean by
the words "make a decision" -- so, even though the decision, itself, is
not physical, "Hutch made a decision" seems like objective, measurable,
observable fact.

I understand you be saying that this is not the case. Can you offer a
test to help me differentiate cases like these?

Thanks!

--
Please remove your pants if you want to send me e-mail.
Lots of good cigar info, the ASC Birthday page, FAQs, vendors and more at
<http://www.ManyFriends.com/Cigars/>
A "great" review is one with the name of the cigar before the review text
in the body of the post. :)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Supporting false beliefs and modeling God in our image
    ... "Fossil evidence for evolution!" ... cry the Darwinists. ... We also accept that the laws of physics held true on Earth a million years ago, long before there was Homo Sapiens to observe them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... It was one of the idea put forward, but there was no evidence for it. ... did you observe BB at ground zero? ... I assume you are agreeing then that the BB&co is not science. ... Only religion deals with that fairy story. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Abiogenisis
    ... > the time, and you can directly observe this, if you're paying ... Find some evidence for this along with a cite. ... we could prove that God is just a myth. ... > to say about humanity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking: God is an unnecessary hypothesis
    ... evidence supporting a theory is evidence the theory is wrong? ... >Which part of a 2-4 billion year old process did you observe to unfold ... You were claiming absolutely no evolution. ... Do you claim instead that God just happened to plonk down a plant in Kew Gardens that looked like an intermediate between two plants that botanists were growing there? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... around the world to observe the transit of Mercury. ... Try and grapple with the evidence. ... and the Theory of Evolution. ... They did their math, made predictions, then observed to see if the ...
    (talk.origins)