Separate oven and hob on one circuit?

[EFLImpudence]

Ok.

There is a large number of people who believe that they have seen deities, and have held conversations with them, and have seen them perform 'miracles'.

..but none has any proof or evidence.
Something one would expect from such an encounter.

Even Joseph Smith had to hand back his book.

 

[stillp]

..but none has any proof or evidence.

I agree, but to them, their belief that they have seen deities is evidence.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yet they have none for anyone else.

I note you keep using the word belief.

Faith

 

[stillp]

I note you keep using the word belief.

Faith

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

 

[JohnW2]

From https://www1.udel.edu/johnmack/frec682/cholera/ "He examined water samples from various wells under a microscope, and confirmed the presence of an unknown bacterium in the Broad Street samples."

Indeed but, as I said, I don't think that the concept of bacteria as pathogens had yet been developed - so,although he had circumstantial evidence that the water supply was implicated, I'm not sure that he necessarily understood the connection between the bacteria and the disease. The Wikipedia says:

.... The germ theory of disease had not yet been developed, so Snow did not understand the mechanism by which the disease was transmitted. His observation of the evidence led him to discount the theory of foul air. .... By talking to local residents (with the help of Reverend Henry Whitehead), he identified the source of the outbreak as the public water pump on Broad Street (now Broadwick Street). .... Although Snow's chemical and microscope examination of a water sample from the Broad Street pump did not conclusively prove its danger...

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I agree, but to them, their belief that they have seen deities is evidence.

Yes, but that's in no way restricted to religion.

In all sorts of fields, there are any number of people (many of whom will commonly be described as 'cranks') who, themselves, think that they have 'evidence' for whatever it is in which they believe, even when few other people share that belief. I suppose that we should be talking about 'generally-accepted evidence', 'scientific evidence' or something like that - since, as you imply, something that is only accepted as 'evidence' by those who 'have belief' doesn't really count!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

For something to be considered evidence, it has to be repeatable by a disinterested person.

 

[JohnW2]

For something to be considered evidence, it has to be repeatable by a disinterested person.

Sort-of. The evidence certainly has to be 'accepted' by 'disinterested' people [I presume you mean unbiased/impartial people - they may well be 'interested'!], and to be taken seriously, it needs to be 'accepted' by a substantial proportion of relevant people/'experts'.

Whether it can be 'repeatable' (i.e. 'reproducible') obviously depends upon the circumstances - some things simply are not repeatable (at all, or practically), either because they literally aren't or because no-one has the ability of resources to do the 'repeating'. Someone may have strong evidence (which would be accepted by their peers), from observations they made at the time, that a flash they observed on Jupiter last night was due to the impact of a particular, know asteroid - but no-one would be able to reproduce that evidence. CERN might have very strong evidence (which would be accepted by their peers) that they had identified a hitherto unknown particle - but it's likely that no-one but CERN would have the capability of trying to reproduce their evidence.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Absence of evidence for existence can be taken as evidence for non-existence, if, and only if, the evidence for existence would be 'obvious' - or, at least, easily obtained, if the the something existed. As I said, "huge herds of flying unicorns in Europe" would be a good example.

1) That is not what stillp believes, and for which you have expressed your support.

2) I refer you to the original subject of existence, and invite you to to apply that logic to it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There could be, for some people, a perfectly logical reason why the herds of flying unicorns have not been spotted over Europe - God stops the disbelievers from seeing them (just as he/she/they/it stops us from seeing the evidence for he/she/they/it's existence).

That suggestion has no logic in it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just reminding ourselves that trying to find evidence of the existence of deities depends on what one considers to be evidence.

I'd like to remind you of your use of the term "logic".

If an atheist asks a monotheist why he does not believe in the existence of any of the multiplicity of gods believed in in the past, or now, by polytheists, and points out that he (the atheist) has merely gone one small step further and reduced from one to zero, how long do you think that logic and evidence will continue to be considered relevant by the monotheist?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is a large number of people who believe that they have seen deities, and have held conversations with them

Maybe not the seeing, but there is a significant number of people who believe that they have had conversations who are being held in secure institutions. Another term for "seeing deities" is "hallucinations".

With the disclaimer that this is not meant to be medically sound, but it is meant to be a joke:

Why is it that when I talk to God it is called praying, but when God talks to me it is called paranoid schizophrenia?​

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Religion is clearly a man made method of control.

Is it not much more a man-made creation designed to make people believe that they are more significant than they really are?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Alternatively, strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on superstition in preference to evidence.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is it not much more a man-made creation designed to make people believe that they are more significant than they really are?

Not for the masses, I wouldn't think, although that might be a consequence, especially for the leaders (controllers).