|
|
Post by dontom on Sept 24, 2022 10:04:02 GMT -5
Once again, you said the impossible cannot happen, which is a statement of faith. No, it's fact. If it happens, it proves it was never impossible, that it was a mistake to think so. Look up the word "impossible" in a dictionary. It means it cannot happen. So you're saying what cannot happen can happen. See the problem? -Don- Reno, NV |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Sept 24, 2022 10:24:18 GMT -5
But your point was that the Miracle of the sun dancing was impossible, which is a statement of faith, as in a higher power could not have made it happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Sept 24, 2022 12:02:13 GMT -5
But your point was that the Miracle of the sun dancing was impossible, which is a statement of faith, as in a higher power could not have made it happen. It doesn't take any faith to understand what cannot happen doesn't happen, regardless of how many imagine it happened. Perhaps the entire world doesn't exist. Perhaps we only imagine it. Where do you draw the line between possible and impossible and what requires faith to believe and what doesn't? Proven scientific fact requires no faith. Faith is what we use when we do NOT want to believe the truth. Faith is a way to not believe the truth and facts when one doesn't want to, for whatever reason, such as religion or another superstition. Religion ALWAYS requires faith, never requires any truth. If a religion was proven true it would then no longer be a religion at all. It would then be either scientific or historical fact. But of course, it is possible for a religion to be a mixture of both, facts and nonsense. But always mostly nonsense. "True religion" is an oxymoron. So is "true superstition". However, that doesn't mean we understand everything. We can see a fact and assume it is nonsense until we understand it. An example would be ghosts--do they really exist? Perhaps they do. Perhaps conditions can be just right to play back an event of the pass and science just has not yet figured it out. Just because we see something we don't yet understand doesn't mean it is not possible. But the impossible doesn't happen. If it does, it proves it is possible. Many people prefer faith over truth. Truth isn't always good news, so people can be much comfier believing in nonsense with their faith. But I try to live in the real world, even as bad as it is. -Don- Reno, NV |
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Sept 24, 2022 14:49:38 GMT -5
In my family history research days I met a distant rellie who was a devout Catholic Priest.
I got the relationship off to the right start by explaining thet I was a "devout none of the above" and we accepted that situation from then on. He had his views and I had mine.
We were takling about the Tanami Track and the fact that he had returned to Victoria from WA via that 'road'. At the end of the day he set up camp and also set up a card table with all the gear for 'Communion'. I was most impressed by his faith that he did so at a place that was probably 500 kms from the nearest other human being.
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Sept 25, 2022 10:30:29 GMT -5
It doesn't take any faith to understand what cannot happen doesn't happen, regardless of how many imagine it happened. That is faith, because, if you say it cannot happen, and the witnesses imagined it, you are making a statement that cannot be falsified, so you are acting on faith. |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Sept 25, 2022 12:07:49 GMT -5
That is faith, because, if you say it cannot happen, and the witnesses imagined it, you are making a statement that cannot be falsified, so you are acting on faith. To put this in the attorney language, the burden of proof is always on the one who claimed something happened. IOW, BS detectors do not require any faith to yell "BS". -Don- Auburn, CA |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Sept 26, 2022 1:20:54 GMT -5
That is faith, because, if you say it cannot happen, and the witnesses imagined it, you are making a statement that cannot be falsified, so you are acting on faith. To put this in the attorney language, the burden of proof is always on the one who claimed something happened. IOW, BS detectors do not require any faith to yell "BS". -Don- Auburn, CA From an attorney, if the eyewitnesses are credible, and they have no reason to lie, then their evidence will be believed. All those tens of thousands of witnesses cannot be delusional or lying. And, again, as an attorney, if you say otherwise, the burden of proof shifts to you. Do you really want to go down this route with me?  |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Sept 26, 2022 13:07:35 GMT -5
From an attorney, if the eyewitnesses are credible, and they have no reason to lie, then their evidence will be believed. All those tens of thousands of witnesses cannot be delusional or lying. And, again, as an attorney, if you say otherwise, the burden of proof shifts to you. Do you really want to go down this route with me? Yes!!! IMO, there is no such thing as a credible eyewitness. If I were on a jury, I would ignore anything said by somebody who saw who did the crime. Way too many innocent people have spent years in prisons because of several eyewitnesses. I don't want to hear anything about what people think they saw. Let me see the forensics and other such facts. -Don- Auburn, CA |
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Sept 26, 2022 22:57:25 GMT -5
Been on a jury twice, and was determined to do a good job.
We had a VERY famous case of Lindy Chamberlain charged with murdering her baby and blaming a dingo for taking it from her tent at Ayers Rock. One highly qualified 'Credible' witness said that she found "baby blood" on the floor of the car where the murder supposedly took place.
GUILTY, amd life with hard labour!
They found the torn clothes a few years later, and the retrial found her not guilty.
About 3 Million dollars I think she got.
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Sept 26, 2022 23:17:09 GMT -5
Been on a jury twice, and was determined to do a good job. We had a VERY famous case of Lindy Chamberlain charged with murdering her baby and blaming a dingo for taking it from her tent at Ayers Rock. One highly qualified 'Credible' witness said that she found "baby blood" on the floor of the car where the murder supposedly took place. GUILTY, amd life with hard labour! They found the torn clothes a few years later, and the retrial found her not guilty. About 3 Million dollars I think she got. SJ Did she have to sue to get that 3 million bucks, or do they have some type of system there for when innocent people have been sent to prisons for years? I enjoy watching real-life crime stuff on TV. I saw a case last week where a guy was seen robbing a liquor store on camera!!! But the same guy was seen by a good 25 other people 75 KM away at the exact same time, which includes many people who didn't even know him. He was the exact same build as in the camera, wearing the exact same clothes. But he as very clearly shown to be at two different places at the exact same time! Sometimes even cameras cannot get it right! -Don- Auburn, CA |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Sept 29, 2022 21:21:28 GMT -5
Been on a jury twice, and was determined to do a good job. We had a VERY famous case of Lindy Chamberlain charged with murdering her baby and blaming a dingo for taking it from her tent at Ayers Rock. One highly qualified 'Credible' witness said that she found "baby blood" on the floor of the car where the murder supposedly took place. GUILTY, amd life with hard labour! They found the torn clothes a few years later, and the retrial found her not guilty. About 3 Million dollars I think she got. SJ 1.3Mil. See here.-Don- Reno, NV |
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Oct 21, 2022 15:41:16 GMT -5
Anyway, end of debate,
"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED"
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Oct 22, 2022 19:39:01 GMT -5
Well, eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but, if that's all you got, then that's all you got. At the Miracle of Fatima, tens of thousands of witnesses saw the sun dance, which is an impossible event happening, meeting the definition of miracle. If you don't accept that, you will have to explain - and prove - that they were wrong or delusional.
Also, if you don't accept eye witness testimony, feel free to tell your Supreme Court that.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 22, 2022 22:01:10 GMT -5
Also, if you don't accept eye witness testimony, feel free to tell your Supreme Court that. If we try to pass an amendment that eyewitnesses cannot be used as evidence to a crime, I would STRONGLY support it. I can tell you stories about that all day long. Even people who say they have seen me at a place where I was nowhere near. That includes my best friend at the time, who wondered why I didn't wave back at him. At the Miracle of Fatima, tens of thousands of witnesses saw the sun dance, which is an impossible event happening, meeting the definition of miracle. If you don't accept that, you will have to explain - and prove - that they were wrong or delusional. At best, they saw what is called a Sundog, see the three sundogs in this photo.In fact, see here." Their tale grew in popularity, culminating with an estimated 70,000 people showing up at the site on October 13th, waiting for a miracle. On that day, the Virgin Mary "appeared", but only to the children – very suspicious. However, the other onlookers witnessed what has been called a "sun miracle". As investigator Joe Nickell recounted:" "If anything did happen, it was likely an atmospheric event called a "sundog," in which light refracts off ice crystals, creating a wondrous halo of light." So there you have it. And logical person (like myself) will see way, way past "reasonable doubt" that it is all just religious nonsense. Ever wonder why there are so many different religions and other superstitions in this world? I often wonder why so many humans believe in so much obvious nonsense. -Don- Reno, NV |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Oct 23, 2022 1:53:05 GMT -5
The event was not a sundog, because they saw the sun moving around. Again, you can always come up with an explanation, but you then have the burden of proving your version and saying the eyewitnesses, who corroborated each other and had no reason to lie, were watching sun dogs.
And good luck getting the US Supreme Court to rejecting eye witness testimony.
|
|
