David Nicholls, the president of the AFA has made a reappearance. I’m not here to make a substantive post (as would be necessary to respond to AJ) rather I only want to cut and paste some previous discussion:

David said this in response to grateful:

<An alleged god did not influence the Koran; it is the work of humans. Unless you have some universally accepted evidence proving conclusively that, I’m wrong about this.>

Previously in this thread, whilst responding to me, David described his view of “universally accepted evidence”:

<BTW, universally accepted evidence is somewhat similar to the law of gravity where every one on the planet who understands it has the same view.>

My response was as follows:

{But there is very little evidence about anything that everyone interprets in exactly the same way. If you chose to base your life on “universally accepted evidence”, using your definition then your life would become unliveable. There is no universally accepted evidence for which insurance policy you take out, there’s no universally accepted evidence for where you should take a holiday and there’s no universally accepted evidence which makes it clear who you should marry. Everyone on the planet who understands the evidences on these issues do not always agree about these things. Someone might see the same evidence and get a different insurance policy, or visit a different place, or someone might be in an almost identical relationship and choose not to get married because they are less willing to commit. So if most things in life come without universally accepted evidence, then why should worldviews and religious beliefs be any different?

In other words, it sounds to me like you want certainty, but uncertainty is an inevitable part of being human}

There is no “universally accepted evidence” which proves conclusively that suicide bombers caused the events of 9/11.

There is no “universally accepted evidence” which proves conclusively that the first moon landing occurred in 1969.

There is no “universally accepted evidence” which proves conclusively that the holocaust actually happened.

Why? Because there are people “on the planet” who “understand the evidence” but who hold to different views about these issues.

If we hold to David’s view of requiring “universally accepted evidence” then we wouldn’t be justified in believing anything.

Furthermore if we turned the tables and asked David for “universally accepted evidence” of many of the statements that he makes, we would see the absurdity in his request and we would see that it would no longer be possible to actually have a discussion on OLO because no one would be able to provide “universally accepted evidence” for any of their views.

Trav,

Why do you have to include sneakily the word “conclusively” into what I have stated? The highest probability is all that can be expected.

You can have your own opinion on the universally accepted evidence about gravity but it won’t allow you to float off the planet.

David

I threw the word "conclusively" in because you asked grateful for conclusive proof about the Koran.

Your demands for "universally accepted evidence" are absurd, David. I think that's "certainly" been established ;-). Your backpedalling is evidence enough of that.

Trav,

Sorry, my mistake, I apologise for not giving a better explanation. AFA head office is having computer problems and I wrote in haste. Allow me to expand.

The sneaky part is that you have emphasised the word “conclusively” by using a set of examples as though it has greater meaning than is attributed to it. It means ‘decisive’ or ‘convincing’.

The casual reader from your cunning phraseology could see it as an absolutist word, which it is not.

Asking for universally accepted evidence is only absurd in the eyes of those whose case crumbles without it. This is not someone’s love life or an insurance policy; this is how humans looks at reality. Either there is a supernatural realm or there is not. Preference by various ‘believers’ doesn’t mean a hoot. You can prefer not to accept gravity but it won’t help as I have explained.

If you or grateful wish to impose your religious views on humanity or just have others accept they have some kind of validity, then you must each demonstrate respectively that, your particular god exists with conclusive (Convincing) evidence, which will have universal acceptance. As you can see, this is impossible as they both can’t be accepted universally as existing and therefore the highest probability is that neither one does.

Gravity is not beset with the same intractable problem. There are not two or many thousands of competing theories about gravity. With religions, there have been about 4,000 competing gods.

Do you see the difference now or are the blinkers still blocking your view of reality?

David

Trav,

There’s absolutely no need to apologise. I offend people all the time on OLO. Even those who often agree with me, yet don’t understand the importance of what I do, are offended by me.

Your reaction was perfectly understandable. So much so, that I was not only already prepared for it, but expecting it.

I mean, hey, it’s not every day you come to realise that one of the key rationalisations of your entire belief system was fatally flawed all along. Not to mention the fact that you also came to the realisation that someone you admired and looked up to was capable of acting like such an uneducated doofus - and all this on the very same day at that!

It really sucks, I know because - at the risk of sounding patronising - I’ve been through it all before.

<<I was happy for you to have the last word; I only responded again to point out my view that you didn’t do justice to the arguments that I’d made.>>

Actually, I did,

I had already demonstrably debunked your claims, yet here you are, asserting that I didn’t without any examples, reasoning or evidence for your assertions.

Not a good look.

<<Perhaps it is telling that we have both accused each other of similar things>>

Well, it would be “telling” had I not substantiated my claims like you didn’t.

But since I did, it isn’t.