At work.

(December 23, 2018 at 2:01 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 1:47 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Uhm.... T0 th3 M4X?

By the definition of 'Evidence', as well as its use in general parlance, it is 'Objective' of/to the people referring to it. (What ever 'It' is that is being reffered as 'Evidence')

We're on thd same wavelength with this, right?

If terms of forming a conclusion, it can be subjective (speaking with credentials, testimony, interpretation) or objective.  In application, there would be more focus on objective because we're looking for a specific result (following a recipe for a cake).

So.... that's a 'No' then?

So... if I use the word 'Evidence' in a sentence, structured in such a way as to be effectively a noun, it is describing something else. This something else to which the extra label of 'Evidence' has been applied is objective.

Yes?

(December 23, 2018 at 1:18 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 1:02 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: We tend to care if our beliefs are true or not.
In the words of Matt Dillahunty "I want to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible."

We can do that by having justifications for our beliefs..
And that justification comes in the form of evidence.

I think that is a fair statement, but how can you be the determining factor of someone else's evidence?  Furthermore, wondering how you can generalize that notion to a whole group without somehow invalidating their position, or even the group as a whole.  What makes your interpretation better than theirs?  In which case you just end up with an infinite round-n-round.

A: My information is correct and yours isn't.
B: No you are wrong, my information is correct.
A: No, you are wrong about me. My evidence is better.
B. Wrong again, and everybody who thinks like you is wrong.

Infinite nonsense because nothing to qualify or disqualify.

If you believe I don't understand what "words" mean, them maybe specify those words, in addition to what you believe they mean or some source.  This not only helps your case, but it gives me a chance to respond.  Thus we have good dialogue and it's easier to reach a logical conclusion.

I personally am not the determining factor for someone else's evidence. I and others however are the determining factor for what can be called evidence.
I'll start with the word evidence. I don't think you understand what this word means because you use it as if it means opinion. It does not.

Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
From that definition, we are using facts about the world we live in. We all share a common reality. It is this fact that I can use to invalidate someone's position or an entire group who hold a particular position. There are those who believe the earth is flat. I can use facts about the world we live in to invalidate their position.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something. If it's wrong, it's wrong. And that can be demonstrated through the use of facts about this common reality we share.

So it's not a case of me interpreting the evidence a certain way. It's the facts of the evidence and the ability to demonstrate those facts.

If a murder weapon is found with blood on it. We can test that blood and through DNA analysis, determine if it matches, with some degree of certainty, of that of the person who was killed with that weapon. There are many other forensic tests to back up this initial finding.

If an ordinary citizen claims that he discovered another murder weapon, other officers will attempt to gather that weapon and get it tested for blood samples.
When questioned about the weapon, the citizen says the weapon is invisible, intangible and it's everywhere he looks.

There is no evidence to be gathered. All we have is an irrational claim of something that cannot be verified.

(December 23, 2018 at 2:06 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(December 23, 2018 at 2:01 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: If terms of forming a conclusion, it can be subjective (speaking with credentials, testimony, interpretation) or objective.  In application, there would be more focus on objective because we're looking for a specific result (following a recipe for a cake).

So.... that's a 'No' then?

So... if I use the word 'Evidence' in a sentence, structured in such a way as to be effectively a noun, it is describing something else. This something else to which the extra label of 'Evidence' has been applied is objective.

Yes?

But that doesn't change the nature of the evidence.  It just changes the nature of how you are describing it.  But for the sake of friendly discussion, can you provide a simple example?  I think it may be better to go that route to put it into perspective.  Feel free to disagree, but it would still be appreciated. Thanks.

---

(December 23, 2018 at 2:08 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 1:18 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I think that is a fair statement, but how can you be the determining factor of someone else's evidence?  Furthermore, wondering how you can generalize that notion to a whole group without somehow invalidating their position, or even the group as a whole.  What makes your interpretation better than theirs?  In which case you just end up with an infinite round-n-round.

A: My information is correct and yours isn't.
B: No you are wrong, my information is correct.
A: No, you are wrong about me. My evidence is better.
B. Wrong again, and everybody who thinks like you is wrong.

Infinite nonsense because nothing to qualify or disqualify.

If you believe I don't understand what "words" mean, them maybe specify those words, in addition to what you believe they mean or some source.  This not only helps your case, but it gives me a chance to respond.  Thus we have good dialogue and it's easier to reach a logical conclusion.

I personally am not the determining factor for someone else's evidence. I and others however are the determining factor for what can be called evidence.
I'll start with the word evidence. I don't think you understand what this word means because you use it as if it means opinion. It does not.

Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
From that definition, we are using facts about the world we live in. We all share a common reality. It is this fact that I can use to invalidate someone's position or an entire group who hold a particular position. There are those who believe the earth is flat. I can use facts about the world we live in to invalidate their position.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something. If it's wrong, it's wrong. And that can be demonstrated through the use of facts about this common reality we share.

So it's not a case of me interpreting the evidence a certain way. It's the facts of the evidence and the ability to demonstrate those facts.

If a murder weapon is found with blood on it. We can test that blood and through DNA analysis, determine if it matches, with some degree of certainty, of that of the person who was killed with that weapon. There are many other forensic tests to back up this initial finding.

If an ordinary citizen claims that he discovered another murder weapon, other officers will attempt to gather that weapon and get it tested for blood samples.
When questioned about the weapon, the citizen says the weapon is invisible, intangible and it's everywhere he looks.

There is no evidence to be gathered. All we have is an irrational claim of something that cannot be verified.

In part, but not in whole.

First, by what authority/credentials are you defining something (evidence)?  That's as bad as accepting people saying the "earth is flat."  It's how they are describing something.  In their mind, somehow they may have come to that conclusion based on their definition that it is flat.  Yet you are doing the same thing with the word "evidence."  You are using your interpretation to validate yourself as a determining factor who can not only define "evidence", but determine it as well.

Forensic tests are fallible.  If someone was there and claimed they witnessed something else and that the crime scene was altered, would you consider their account as evidence towards the case?  Maybe there are ten witnesses.  They say the same thing.  Maybe they made it up and are part of the crime.  Maybe they witnessed a cover up.  All would need to be weighed on their own merit.  If you were on a jury, what would you conclude?  Evidence based on personal testimony of ten people or a forensic test?  If there were 20 people on a jury, do you think there would be potential for any of them to come to a different conclusion?  If so, why?

Although true in part, your statement is self-defeating because it does exactly what you are trying to invalidate.

At work.

(December 23, 2018 at 2:18 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 2:06 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: So.... that's a 'No' then?

So... if I use the word 'Evidence' in a sentence, structured in such a way as to be effectively a noun, it is describing something else. This something else to which the extra label of 'Evidence' has been applied is objective.

Yes?

But that doesn't change the nature of the evidence.  It just changes the nature of how you are describing it.  But for the sake of friendly discussion, can you provide a simple example?  I think it may be better to go that route to put it into perspective.  Feel free to disagree, but it would still be appreciated. Thanks.

I am discussing the 'How' of us/we are using the language.

(December 23, 2018 at 2:30 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(December 23, 2018 at 2:18 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: But that doesn't change the nature of the evidence.  It just changes the nature of how you are describing it.  But for the sake of friendly discussion, can you provide a simple example?  I think it may be better to go that route to put it into perspective.  Feel free to disagree, but it would still be appreciated. Thanks.

I am discussing the 'How' of us/we are using the language.

I would still appreciate an example.  I don't agree with you, but as to not be insulting, I would like to delve further into what you mean.  Subjective evidence is commonly used, just like objective evidence.

At work.

(December 23, 2018 at 2:38 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 2:30 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: I am discussing the 'How' of us/we are using the language.

I would still appreciate an example.  I don't agree with you, but as to not be insulting, I would like to delve further into what you mean.  Subjective evidence is commonly used, just like objective evidence.

Our conversation is currently about the 'How' of using our language.

You understand, yes?

(December 23, 2018 at 2:18 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 2:06 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.


So.... that's a 'No' then?

So... if I use the word 'Evidence' in a sentence, structured in such a way as to be effectively a noun, it is describing something else. This something else to which the extra label of 'Evidence' has been applied is objective.

Yes?

But that doesn't change the nature of the evidence.  It just changes the nature of how you are describing it.  But for the sake of friendly discussion, can you provide a simple example?  I think it may be better to go that route to put it into perspective.  Feel free to disagree, but it would still be appreciated. Thanks.

---

(December 23, 2018 at 2:08 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: I personally am not the determining factor for someone else's evidence. I and others however are the determining factor for what can be called evidence.
I'll start with the word evidence. I don't think you understand what this word means because you use it as if it means opinion. It does not.

Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
From that definition, we are using facts about the world we live in. We all share a common reality. It is this fact that I can use to invalidate someone's position or an entire group who hold a particular position. There are those who believe the earth is flat. I can use facts about the world we live in to invalidate their position.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something. If it's wrong, it's wrong. And that can be demonstrated through the use of facts about this common reality we share.

So it's not a case of me interpreting the evidence a certain way. It's the facts of the evidence and the ability to demonstrate those facts.

If a murder weapon is found with blood on it. We can test that blood and through DNA analysis, determine if it matches, with some degree of certainty, of that of the person who was killed with that weapon. There are many other forensic tests to back up this initial finding.

If an ordinary citizen claims that he discovered another murder weapon, other officers will attempt to gather that weapon and get it tested for blood samples.
When questioned about the weapon, the citizen says the weapon is invisible, intangible and it's everywhere he looks.

There is no evidence to be gathered. All we have is an irrational claim of something that cannot be verified.

In part, but not in whole.

First, by what authority/credentials are you defining something (evidence)?  That's as bad as accepting people saying the "earth is flat."  It's how they are describing something.  In their mind, somehow they may have come to that conclusion based on their definition that it is flat.  Yet you are doing the same thing with the word "evidence."  You are using your interpretation to validate yourself as a determining factor who can not only define "evidence", but determine it as well.

Forensic tests are fallible.  If someone was there and claimed they witnessed something else and that the crime scene was altered, would you consider their account as evidence towards the case?  Maybe there are ten witnesses.  They say the same thing.  Maybe they made it up and are part of the crime.  Maybe they witnessed a cover up.  All would need to be weighed on their own merit.  If you were on a jury, what would you conclude?  Evidence based on personal testimony of ten people or a forensic test?  If there were 20 people on a jury, do you think there would be potential for any of them to come to a different conclusion?  If so, why?

Although true in part, your statement is self-defeating because it does exactly what you are trying to invalidate.

Yes, we define what the word evidence means.
We have the authority to do this because we all live in and share a common reality.

A flat earther can attempt to provide evidence that the earth is flat. We already have actual mountains of evidence to prove otherwise. They would need to demonstrate what they claim is true. So far, they cannot.

Through science we have already demonstrated that it is sphere like and exists in three dimensions. And it is not flat.

I can define what an apple is and determine if something is an apple or not.
I can do this through testing, observation and the gathering of evidence. My tests and methods can be repeated for accuracy and truth.

In other words I can demonstrate what I believe to be true.

Those who believe a god exists cannot or have not been able to do this.

(December 23, 2018 at 10:50 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:For as many atheists scientists you name, there are scientists that believe in a Creator, starting with Newton.

Prove it.
The overwhelming majority of the National Academy of Science is atheist.
https://strangenotions.com/tag/national-...-sciences/

No the stats are arguable.  See the stats I provided earlier in this thread.  Plus, it is almost the nature of that business to have an atheist religion almost following Darwin.

---

(December 23, 2018 at 11:19 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(December 23, 2018 at 10:17 am)CDF47 Wrote: I didn't say "Binary," I said digital, which it is digital.  A code can be digital but not binary.  

That is the way the Creator designed.  Perfection was not the intent of the design.  We were designed to live and die in this life.

 So 'Digital' when used to describe holding 'Information' refers to using a sytem of TWO symbols to do so.

Genetic 'Information' (Human's terms, not reality) Uses FOUR different amino acids which combine in THREE different ways.

So, absolutely nothing 'Digital' about the chemisty of genetics.

How about some of those other perplexing questions being addressed , hey?

What does the great book of inspiration give hints as to the 'Why' of the shape and structure of DNA?

Am kind of betting the Bronze age scribes kind of missed those details.

God was waiting to reveal this information to us until 1953 and 1957 when it was discovered that genetic information is functional as a code.

---

(December 23, 2018 at 11:42 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: A perfect being can only create perfect things.

Wrong.  There was the fall of man.  We are designed to live, decay, and die and be reborn into perfect bodies.

---

(December 23, 2018 at 12:05 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: As Stephen King never said "I can write horrible, grotesque stories in which the characters are killed off in very bizarre ways, but if I were to do that in real life, I would be a monster."

A good god with any moral clarity at all would never put people through hell on Earth and then torture them for an eternity in hell for the crime of not believing.

And yet that is what many theists expect their god will do. Those who are born into extremely poor circumstances live a life filled with misery and hardship. And then upon death, which should be their last moment of pain in this world, theists believe that their god will now torture them for eternity.

And they're ok with that.

In my opinion, those theists who believe that are sadistic.

We pray for mercy on those struggling.  There are spiritual reasons for the suffering temporarily here on Earth.  There was a war in heaven and Satan and his followers were cast out.  This is part of that same story.  Satan is evil and the Lord has wrath and hates evil and punishes it.  Man rebelled and there sins are punished.  After this life, it is possible that those who are spiritually lost may be destroyed.  It is known as annihilation and it is what I pray for.  I pray for mercy on the lost and the wicked.  The Bible does say hell and death are cast in the lake of fire (near the end of the Bible in the Book of Revelation).

---

(December 23, 2018 at 12:18 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 11:19 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:  So 'Digital' when used to describe holding 'Information' refers to using a sytem of TWO symbols to do so.

I thought that digital meant that you use numbers, digits, to encode information.
Binary is a digital system that uses only two states, 1 and 0, but there are others, as is patent in quantum computing and fuzzy logic.

Yes, this is a better description of digital information.

---

"Even though digital signals are generally associated with the binary electronic digital systems used in modern electronics and computing, digital systems are actually ancient, and need not be binary or electronic.

DNA genetic code is a naturally occurring form of digital data storage."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_data

(December 23, 2018 at 3:05 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 11:19 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.


 So 'Digital' when used to describe holding 'Information' refers to using a sytem of TWO symbols to do so.

Genetic 'Information' (Human's terms, not reality) Uses FOUR different amino acids which combine in THREE different ways.

So, absolutely nothing 'Digital' about the chemisty of genetics.

How about some of those other perplexing questions being addressed , hey?

What does the great book of inspiration give hints as to the 'Why' of the shape and structure of DNA?

Am kind of betting the Bronze age scribes kind of missed those details.

God was waiting to reveal this information to us until 1953 and 1957 when it was discovered that genetic information is functional as a code.

---

 You keep posting these assertions. Each one becoming more disconnected from reality than the next/

Also... If your diety is pwerless to explain things to people when it's gettig them to write things down but, instead, has to wait another few centureis for people to discover things on their own.... Which those discoveries fly in the face of the very things said deity has previously told people to write down.

Makes your diety look completely inompetent, doesn't it?

Also... how' your squaring away your diety MAKING the evil which rebeled against its some how omnipotent, all powerful self?

Y'know, for the devil to be able to rebel against your diety... It has to be at least as powerful as said deity to succesfully rebel, right?

(December 23, 2018 at 2:46 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(December 23, 2018 at 2:38 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I would still appreciate an example.  I don't agree with you, but as to not be insulting, I would like to delve further into what you mean.  Subjective evidence is commonly used, just like objective evidence.

Our conversation is currently about the 'How' of using our language.

You understand, yes?

Consider the statement:

"Doctor, I have been experiencing headaches since yesterday."

The patient just made a subjective statement.  How do you proceed?   Is their subjective evidence that warrants a conclusion?

---

(December 23, 2018 at 3:26 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 3:05 pm)CDF47 Wrote: God was waiting to reveal this information to us until 1953 and 1957 when it was discovered that genetic information is functional as a code.

---

 You keep posting these assertions. Each one becoming more disconnected from reality than the next/

Also... If your diety is pwerless to explain things to people when it's gettig them to write things down but, instead, has to wait another few centureis for people to discover things on their own.... Which those discoveries fly in the face of the very things said deity has previously told people to write down.

Makes your diety look completely inompetent, doesn't it?

Also... how' your squaring away your diety MAKING the evil which rebeled against its some how omnipotent, all powerful self?

Y'know, for the devil to be able to rebel against your diety... It has to be at least as powerful as said deity to succesfully rebel, right?

 Now you are making subjective statements.

What deity?  What explanations?  You're not even following the conversation.  That doesn't make any "deity" look incompetent.  It makes you look incompetent, but who cares, right?  It's just friendly conversation, so why elevate it to that.  No need for logical fallacies.  Just explain your position.  I asked for an example, but didn't get one.  I provided one, so you can either agree, disagree, assert a rebuttal, or do nothing.  What else is there?  If you have a rebuttal, then I'll consider it and form my own position "yay" or "nay" based on it.  It can be simple and doesn't have to turn into an argument.

Once you start shifting to other things, it doesn't serve a purpose.  "Deity" has nothing to do with this.  What you're doing is known as  the tu quoque fallacy, or whataboutism.