(December 23, 2018 at 3:26 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: 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?

Quite plausibly, the doctor might ask questions and receive additional "subjective statements" from the patient. The composite of statements could lead the doctor to warrant a conclusion. Then again, the composite of statements could result in the doctor ordering objective medical tests. The doctor would withhold any conclusion until the test results were reviewed. Even then, the conclusion might be, "I do not know what is causing your headaches."

(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?

The prophecies are accurate in the Bible.  The Bible is not a science book.

The devil thought he was equal and rebelled but was cast out of heaven and is spiritually here on Earth.

(December 23, 2018 at 3:04 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:

(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.

---

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.

Why is your definition better than the next person's?  You either need to validate yourself as an authority or use a source that has already been validated (encyclopedia, dictionary, journal, etc...).  If not, then it would be just as easy to accept a random definition of someone else over yours. 

Although I agree with you that the flat earther claims are nonsense, your argument doesn't refute them because of the nature of their claims.  It allows for mountains, but assumes a foundation that is "flat" rather than spherical.  You can put a mountain on that flatness, and it doesn't change the assumption.

The rest of what you've stated doesn't hold any weight beyond yourself.  I don't know what you believe, so no point in trying to validate or invalidate it.   You can't speak for those who believe in God (or gods) and you aren't a determining factor for what evidence they might have viewed.  In other words, your view in nothing more than an opinion, which may or may not be accepted by others, but it's not a testable conclusion.

Quote: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.

Atheism is not a religion ... IF you say it is, you have no respect for your own, comparing atheism to your own religion.
The stats are not arguable, and your argument is circular and you DEFEAT your own point. IF scientists reject your crap, than you have to STOP using the scientist argument.

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

You have not one shred of evidence for any reality other than the one we know when things were "perfect".
If man does something, it's irrelevant to creation.

(December 23, 2018 at 3:26 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

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


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?

---

 Uhm... no.

The patient is definately NOT making a subjective statement.

That they are stating that they feel pain can be demonstrated.

The feeling of pain is definately NOT subjective.

It can be measured. It can be detectied. It can be quantified.

Your analogy would seem to show that you do not understand.

Not at work.

---

(December 23, 2018 at 3:26 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

---

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

 I think CDFD47 can engage in converstaion quite well on their own.

I haven't shifted anything. How about you just concentrate on our conversation, hmmm?

Not at work.

---

(December 23, 2018 at 3:35 pm)CDF47 Wrote: The prophecies are accurate in the Bible.  The Bible is not a science book.

The devil thought he was equal and rebelled but was cast out of heaven and is spiritually here on Earth.

I'm not talking about anything 'Prophetic'.

I'm pointing out that your 'Three Onmi' deity created everything.

One of its creations was another entity which had the capacity to succesfully rebel against said omnipotence etc.

Think about that.

If your diety is the absolute 'Top of the heap' then how could anything possibly equal it?

How could anything else be strong enough to ignore your diety's dictates?

Not at work.

And the weird seeming ablity of the forum to combine posts of its own violition is another, new and slightly distrubing quality I've just noticed/discovered.

Sorry dude, but there is no way to prove his statement. You can only assume the person is telling the truth. He may just be someone trying to get pain pills. It would be objective if you could verify is as being factual, which you can't. If you don't understand the difference between something being subjective and objective, then there's no point in having this conversation.

Yah... the whole 'Quote'/'Reply' function takes some getting used to.

Not at work.

(December 23, 2018 at 5:53 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Yah... the whole 'Quote'/'Reply' function takes some getting used to.

Not at work.

Anything else you would like to fuss about?  I accidentally hit the post.  No big deal.  Nothing to overreact about.  I went back in fixed it.  There, the universe can be at peace again.

(December 23, 2018 at 5:51 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sorry dude, but there is no way to prove his statement.  You can only assume the person is telling the truth.  He may just be someone trying to get pain pills.  It would be objective if you could verify is as being factual, which you can't.  If you don't understand the difference between something being subjective and objective, then there's no point in having this conversation.

*Blinks incredulously*

No, really?

You are saying that.... If a person walks into a Doctor's office/surgery and indicates where they are experiencing pain.
That there is no way for the Doctor to know whether said person is;
 
Being honest.
Being dishonest.
Being incorrect.
Being delusional?

The Doctor has no way of telling any of these states apart?

Not at work.

(December 23, 2018 at 6:06 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 5:51 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sorry dude, but there is no way to prove his statement.  You can only assume the person is telling the truth.  He may just be someone trying to get pain pills.  It would be objective if you could verify is as being factual, which you can't.  If you don't understand the difference between something being subjective and objective, then there's no point in having this conversation.

*Blinks incredulously*

No, really?

You are saying that.... If a person walks into a Doctor's office/surgery and indicates where they are experiencing pain.
That there is no way for the Doctor to know whether said person is;
 
Being honest.
Being dishonest.
Being incorrect.
Being delusional?

The Doctor has no way of telling any of these states apart?

Not at work.

You do not know based on their statement that the patient has had headaches since yesterday.  The statement could be true, but it is not validated on its own.  It's simply what a single person is claiming.  Maybe it's true or maybe they just want some pain pills.  If you went a told someone, "They've had headaches since yesterday" and you stated it objectively, another person could easily report that the individual is known for trying to dupe doctors to get pain medication.  More correctly, you would state "The patient indicated they were experiencing headaches."  That puts it on the patient.  Why?  Because he stated it subjectively and bears the responsibility of the statement independently.