Non-existing objects

[Brian37]

The first thing you need to learn is what the word "object" means.

ob·ject
noun
noun: object; plural noun: objects
ˈäbjekt/
1.
a material thing that can be seen and touched.

He's not alone. Theists worldwide get sold something they find neat, then swallow elaborate apology to attempt to justify a cosmic sky wizard.

Having said that, scientific method can also detect the unseen. It is why while we cannot see directly into a black hole, we have a very decent foundation telling us what goes on to a great degree inside the black hole. But we also see the effects of what a black hole does to the objects we can see.

Same principle with detecting particles like the Higgs Boson. You cannot see it with the naked eye. But, build a giant collider, smash two atoms together, and just like two cars slamming head on at high speed, you can create things that detect the smaller bits that fly off.

His problem to me seems he is confusing abstract language as being part of the object language describes. 

He's trying to mix woo with science and scientific method doesn't support woo by any label.

[KerimF]

Thank you for your care about me.
And I am glad you were able to pick up science textbooks and learn real and factual things more than I did.

I cant do a fraction to save my life. But, just like I can drive a car, even though I cant build one from scratch, if you told me cars run on pixy dust, I could safely say "bullshit".

I know nonsense when I see it. 

Language is used to describe objects and or the behavior of objects. 

"1" is an abstract word. But it can be assigned to denote the number of that object. IE "1 apple" "1 car" "1 mouse". 

Nothing you said in your OP made sense. 

"The car is going 55mph"....... 55mph is not the object itself, but the language we use to describe the speed of the car in motion. THAT MAKES SENSE.

Try making sense, people will understand you better.

Now tell me please. I heard a lot the expression 'God doesn't exist'. Is the word 'god', in this expression, an abstract word or a word that describes something?

If it is an abstract word. I am afraid it is non-sense saying/repeating 'God' doesn't exist' because all things defined by abstract words are not supposed to exist in the first place.

If it describes something, I wish someone could tell me to which thing the word 'god' refers (as he sees in the least). I ask this because, on the world's table, there are many different images of what is known as God or the Creator. For instance, any god's image that shows there is a heavenly ruling system is, to me in the least, another man-made image and therefore the god of this system has no place in my reality (though other people may accept it in their reality, for one reason or another; there are many possible personal benefits in doing this).

Anyway, please don't hesitate to keep telling me I am talking non-sense anytime this lets you be happier.

[Cyberman]

The first thing you need to learn is what the word "object" means.

ob·ject
noun
noun: object; plural noun: objects
ˈäbjekt/
1.
a material thing that can be seen and touched.

There's a brick joke in an episode of Yes, Minister along these lines. A particular document is causing trouble, so the Minister's personal secretary, Bernard, suggests marking it with the Civil Service code "CGSM" (Consignment of Geriatric Shoe Menders = A load of old cobblers). Not being a Civil Servant, the Minister uses his own code and writes "Round Objects" on it.

Later, the paper comes back from Sir Humphrey, with a note: "Who is Round; and to what does he object?"

[chimp3]

Please don't make us guess what your "Will/Power" means. Your original post alluded to a supreme power or deity. Please clarify what you believe in. Or are you taking refuge in ambiguity?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Apologies in advance if I'm wrong, but it smells like socks in here.

Boru

[KerimF]

You raised an interesting point.
I became a professional designer (in electronics) by experimenting, not by imagining things. In fact, I seldom take for grant what I may read on books, said scientific or else.

It happens that, in my life, the most important Device Under Test is my being. So the various aspects (characteristics) that I have discovered gradually about my being are facts to me. Should they be facts to everyone else? Should I deny them just because they are not facts to many people on earth, if not to all of them?

Even as an engineer in electronics I had the chance to find out, as an MS thesis (about 40 years ago), a solution in signal communication which is claimed non-existing (impossible to exist) in all universities in the world, till these days. I personally used its technic to secure, in the 80's, my private short range RF link (between home and office). Should I deny its existence just because it is a fact that no one is interested to check it seriously?

Although you may not believe me; all what I know is based on reason (scientific reasoning)... not faith.
But I am afraid if someone insists that his being (his Device Under Test) has to have the same characteristics as mine, he would likely think I am just imagining things; the things he cannot perceive personally for example.

What does any of that elaborate tripe have to do with either "born of the flesh" or "will power"?

It sounds to me like you are trying to make an apology to argue that a God exists. Hate to burst your bubble but you are not the first and also not the only religion who tries this.

Nope sorry, you ARE basing it on "faith".

Neutral scientific method does not rely on faith. If a scientist has a hypothesis and solid method to plug their data into, it can be replicated by independent peers in the same field.

You are totally right if we, you and I, are supposed being made of the same nature and looking, therefore, to live, as possible, the same priorities in life that have obviously the same paths to be followed.

Naturally, you likely know your nature much better than I do.

On my side, I couldn't have a stable and balanced life till I discovered all what I liked to know about the end purpose of my existence. This took me about 30 years (besides another 35 years in which I updated continuously the set of my knowledge).

By the way, would you tell me...  I am basing 'what' on faith?!

I guess you already know that too many people around the world tend to believe stories (as being true and real), also based on faith, that are not necessary religious (thanks to the very advanced technologies in editing videos).

---

And if not, the errors will be found and corrected by those same peers.

That too.

There are followers of every single religion, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists have individuals, even with degrees, who try to either debunk science, or when they cant do that, try to incorporate their religion into science to falsely try to get it to point to their club. 

The problem for every religion is that scientific method is neutral and does not point to any religion. Far too many humans, like the OP fail to see this. Scientific method is completely independent of religion. It is why a plane will fly in Iran and Mexico and Japan. It is why a flu vaccine will work in Saudi Arabia and France. It is why a computer will work in China and Florida.

Hi Brian,

It seems you are in a hurry to know things about me that I didn't present yet.

It happens that I had the chance to live as an independent rational man since many decades.

So, if someone is a follower in any community, said social, sportive, political or else, I am afraid it would be rather hard for him to imagine how an independent free person could exist, live and work in this world.

By the way, I agree with you about any religion that has certain rules, claimed being of a god, which are imposed on its believers (not on the top representatives of its god since they are above these rules, speaking practically). As you know, all religions you mentioned above have each its god's rules and justice. To me in the least, religions and politics are the two faces of the same penny... by which the masses around the world (men on bottom) could be controlled by some Elite (men on top)... legitimately.

[Brian37]

Please don't make us guess what your "Will/Power" means. Your original post alluded to a supreme power or deity. Please clarify what you believe in. Or are you taking refuge in ambiguity?

Ambiguity is how every religion survives. It is why even within the same label on any religion all of them have sub sects that cannot agree as to it's interpretation or how to follow.

---

No Kerm, I am not presuming anything about you personally.

You may have missed the post where I said I have been at this since 01. Your mistake was assuming this was our first rodeo. 

A used car lot can have lots of different models of vehicles but they are all still vehicles. 

How about you try debating not just atheists, but Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists, and do that almost every single day for 16 years. See, you debate enough and diverse labels for that period and you see the same patterns. It all boils down to "I got it right". Yep, everyone thinks they got it right. 

Point is you came in here thinking you had something unique, but it is not.

[brewer]

Please don't make us guess what your "Will/Power" means. Your original post alluded to a supreme power or deity. Please clarify what you believe in. Or are you taking refuge in ambiguity?

I asked and was ignored. What makes you think you're better than ME???

[KerimF]

Another one of these religious Socratic goose chases I think.  Kerim, is there a point you are trying to get to?  I think you want to argue that God exists even though He cannot actually be found in the Universe.  Am I correct?

By just accepting there is a Creator, it doesn't reflect any useful information in one's life.

In my case and when I was teen (many decades ago), I felt the need to discover the real image of the Will/Power (God if you like) which forced me to exist in the time/space realm for a certain period of time and on certain places (actually on a planet we call Earth) in a huge universe.

But I also noticed that most people, I had the chance to know or live with, didn't have such a need. They are atheists or followers of a religion which they are used to or brings them services/benefits they are looking for and are not provided by other systems.

So I am just passing by and I will be around here as long I am allowed to (I am just a guest here after all).
So I have no intention to convince anyone about anything. I know in advance that every one is right the way he sees things. In fact, I didn't meet yet a mature sane person who thinks that any of his beliefs (or disbeliefs) is wrong.

[Brian37]

Another one of these religious Socratic goose chases I think.  Kerim, is there a point you are trying to get to?  I think you want to argue that God exists even though He cannot actually be found in the Universe.  Am I correct?

By just accepting there is a Creator, it doesn't reflect any useful information in one's life.

In my case and when I was teen (many decades ago), I felt the need to discover the real image of the Will/Power (God if you like) which forced me to exist in the time/space realm for a certain period of time and on certain places (actually on a planet we call Earth) in a huge universe.

But I also noticed that most people, I had the chance to know or live with, didn't have such a need. They are atheists or followers of a religion which they are used to or brings them services/benefits they are looking for and are not provided by other systems.

So I am just passing by and I will be around here as long I am allowed to (I am just a guest here after all).
So I have no intention to convince anyone about anything. I know in advance that every one is right the way he sees things. In fact, I didn't meet yet a mature sane person who thinks that any of his beliefs (or disbeliefs) is wrong.

None of this post is evidence for anything and yet another mere act where you pontificate.

 In fact, I didn't meet yet a mature sane person who thinks that any of his beliefs (or disbeliefs) is wrong.

No, plenty of both theists and atheists can think they are right but admit they don't know absolutely for certain. That is possible too.

But that is not the point in any case.

WHEN you have something credible, WHEN you have something testable and falsifiable, and WHEN you can turn all that over to someone else who can repeat it and come to the same conclusions REPEATEDLY, that is when you have evidence. 

You are dodging again. Your post was not evidence it was mere commentary.

---

Here is how determining evidence works.

1. Collect data on prior established method of data collection.

2. Form hypothesis based on that data.

3. Plug that data into established formula with control groups.

4. Repeat the tests over and over to establish a decent sample rate.

5. Write down your conclusions explaining your data collection and methodology and formula.

6. Hand your findings over for independent peer review to people in the same field.

 If the vast majority who independently review it come to the same conclusions, then you are onto something. If they don't then you go back and find where the errors are and fix them, or even scrap it if you are that way off.


Nothing in your OP Kerm is doing that. It is simply making naked assertions and trying to sound sciencey.