Why don't you have a discussion about the fact that sure evidence for one individual may not serve as any evidence for another, and the forever subjectivity of that matter. It might illuminate the futility of these puerile yakking matches.
Evidence supports a claim that all can agree concurs with reality - it's not subjective. Belief in a god has no evidence and is divorced from reality, and is entirely subjective - thousands of Christian denominations are evidence of this fact and reality. Here endeth this lesson.
Please cite a claim about God on which ALL agree.
Bingo, my point exactly. No evidence therefore anything goes. My god is better than your god...yadda, yadda, yadda... Reality not required, LOL!!!
You put the BINGO squarely on yourself and highlight the usual disingenuous behavior by deliberately omitting the part of the post that you apparently wish ignored. Here is the whole thing - again:
"Your first statement there is quite faulty. Your use of "all" is a gross assumption based on zero evidence of that factor. What is evidence to you may not be evidence to another, etc.. Please cite a claim about God on which ALL agree. Further, there need not be any such "claim" in order for one to experience evidence. Claims seem to be the action of those who wish to prove some point of view or secure a corner on some claimed reality. Objectivity is not created by such claims, or by your sentence."
Your befuddlement with the idea of what evidence is, is quite disappointing and I feel bad for you. The Dunning Kruger effect has settled deep within your brain I'm afraid. Think about this - evidence cannot support multiple explanations, it can only be evidence for one true reality. The word you are thinking about is "observations" and from which any old crap can be made up as explanation in lieu of the actual explanation ie all religions claim observations as evidence. However, the observation becomes evidence once the true reality-based explanation is uncovered. Religion is not a true reality and therefore can be discounted. Here endith this lesson - amen.
Here you are - embarrassed by the exposure of your emptiness. Your falsity and disingenuous efforts there are almost laughable. No thinking person in this entire thread is "befuddled" about the nature of evidence. The joke is that you have a personal need to be able to identify someone as befuddled so you can then try to wax eloquent on the matter of evidence - a commodity greatly lacking in your case. You are fooling no one with those tactics - except maybe yourself. Save your grief for your own sad case. And, the OZ schools did a poor job with your spelling.
Uh what? Chocolate or vanilla is a matter of opinion not an objective truth. I shall ask again, is truth subjective or objective?
Nope. I like chocolate better than vanilla is a true statement. But it's subject to my personal tastes and preferences, so it's a subjective, not an objective truth.
You may not like the fact that all truths are not objective, but it doesn't change that fact.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I like chocolate better than vanilla is a true statement. But it's subject to my personal tastes and preferences, so it's a subjective, not an objective truth. You may not like the fact that all truths are not objective, but it doesn't change that fact.
Uh what? Chocolate or vanilla is a matter of opinion not an objective truth. I shall ask again, is truth subjective or objective?
Nope. I like chocolate better than vanilla is a true statement. But it's subject to my personal tastes and preferences, so it's a subjective, not an objective truth.
You may not like the fact that all truths are not objective, but it doesn't change that fact.
Yes your opinion may be a true statement of opinion but the question stands; is truth subjective or objective? Put another way, is truth not a universal, objective fact unlike one’s personally held opinion? I hold that truth is objectively so. If not then truth has no meaning and there is only relativism and subjectivity. I direct you to Plato’s forms. The point being what is the source of objective truth? It is not man made therefore it is other than man made. Man measures his experience against objective truth. Objective truth can thus only come from the source which is God.
Uh what? Chocolate or vanilla is a matter of opinion not an objective truth. I shall ask again, is truth subjective or objective?
Nope. I like chocolate better than vanilla is a true statement. But it's subject to my personal tastes and preferences, so it's a subjective, not an objective truth.
You may not like the fact that all truths are not objective, but it doesn't change that fact.
Yes your opinion may be a true statement of opinion but the question stands; is truth subjective or objective? Put another way, is truth not a universal, objective fact unlike one’s personally held opinion? I hold that truth is objectively so. If not then truth has no meaning and there is only relativism and subjectivity. I direct you to Plato’s forms. The point being what is the source of objective truth? It is not man made therefore it is other than man made. Man measures his experience against objective truth. Objective truth can thus only come from the source which is God.
Nope.
A rock is a rock. A rock is not a potato. In this question god(s) is completely irrelevant.
If god(s) exist, a rock is still a rock.
If god(s) does not exist, a rock is still a rock.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Why don't you have a discussion about the fact that sure evidence for one individual may not serve as any evidence for another, and the forever subjectivity of that matter. It might illuminate the futility of these puerile yakking matches.
Evidence supports a claim that all can agree concurs with reality - it's not subjective. Belief in a god has no evidence and is divorced from reality, and is entirely subjective - thousands of Christian denominations are evidence of this fact and reality. Here endeth this lesson.
Please cite a claim about God on which ALL agree.
Bingo, my point exactly. No evidence therefore anything goes. My god is better than your god...yadda, yadda, yadda... Reality not required, LOL!!!
You put the BINGO squarely on yourself and highlight the usual disingenuous behavior by deliberately omitting the part of the post that you apparently wish ignored. Here is the whole thing - again:
"Your first statement there is quite faulty. Your use of "all" is a gross assumption based on zero evidence of that factor. What is evidence to you may not be evidence to another, etc.. Please cite a claim about God on which ALL agree. Further, there need not be any such "claim" in order for one to experience evidence. Claims seem to be the action of those who wish to prove some point of view or secure a corner on some claimed reality. Objectivity is not created by such claims, or by your sentence."
Your befuddlement with the idea of what evidence is, is quite disappointing and I feel bad for you. The Dunning Kruger effect has settled deep within your brain I'm afraid. Think about this - evidence cannot support multiple explanations, it can only be evidence for one true reality. The word you are thinking about is "observations" and from which any old crap can be made up as explanation in lieu of the actual explanation ie all religions claim observations as evidence. However, the observation becomes evidence once the true reality-based explanation is uncovered. Religion is not a true reality and therefore can be discounted. Here endith this lesson - amen.
Here you are - embarrassed by the exposure of your emptiness. Your falsity and disingenuous efforts there are almost laughable. No thinking person in this entire thread is "befuddled" about the nature of evidence. The joke is that you have a personal need to be able to identify someone as befuddled so you can then try to wax eloquent on the matter of evidence - a commodity greatly lacking in your case. You are fooling no one with those tactics - except maybe yourself. Save your grief for your own sad case. And, the OZ schools did a poor job with your spelling.
LOL!!! There there...I laugh as you remind me a lot of Raspy, who was also profoundly afflicted with the inability to understand what evidence is - you two should get together and do some consolidated research to try to achieve some glimmer of enlightenment on the topic. Maybe then you won't feel the need to be a blithering moron - just saying...it's worth a shot...
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
Here’s the world’s most prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins…admitting to Intelligent Design…just as long as the Designer isn't God.
Only if you misconstrue his intent. He said he didn't know, he said that we don't know, then went on to speculate. Which he should not have done. The answer to how life first formed is: we don't know. But we do know that once life did get a foothold it went on to adapt and evolve.
Nor does 'we don't know' lead to 'therefore God did it.'
Why don't you have a discussion about the fact that sure evidence for one individual may not serve as any evidence for another, and the forever subjectivity of that matter. It might illuminate the futility of these puerile yakking matches.
Evidence supports a claim that all can agree concurs with reality - it's not subjective. Belief in a god has no evidence and is divorced from reality, and is entirely subjective - thousands of Christian denominations are evidence of this fact and reality. Here endeth this lesson.
Please cite a claim about God on which ALL agree.
Bingo, my point exactly. No evidence therefore anything goes. My god is better than your god...yadda, yadda, yadda... Reality not required, LOL!!!
You put the BINGO squarely on yourself and highlight the usual disingenuous behavior by deliberately omitting the part of the post that you apparently wish ignored. Here is the whole thing - again:
"Your first statement there is quite faulty. Your use of "all" is a gross assumption based on zero evidence of that factor. What is evidence to you may not be evidence to another, etc.. Please cite a claim about God on which ALL agree. Further, there need not be any such "claim" in order for one to experience evidence. Claims seem to be the action of those who wish to prove some point of view or secure a corner on some claimed reality. Objectivity is not created by such claims, or by your sentence."
Your befuddlement with the idea of what evidence is, is quite disappointing and I feel bad for you. The Dunning Kruger effect has settled deep within your brain I'm afraid. Think about this - evidence cannot support multiple explanations, it can only be evidence for one true reality. The word you are thinking about is "observations" and from which any old crap can be made up as explanation in lieu of the actual explanation ie all religions claim observations as evidence. However, the observation becomes evidence once the true reality-based explanation is uncovered. Religion is not a true reality and therefore can be discounted. Here endith this lesson - amen.
Here you are - embarrassed by the exposure of your emptiness. Your falsity and disingenuous efforts there are almost laughable. No thinking person in this entire thread is "befuddled" about the nature of evidence. The joke is that you have a personal need to be able to identify someone as befuddled so you can then try to wax eloquent on the matter of evidence - a commodity greatly lacking in your case. You are fooling no one with those tactics - except maybe yourself. Save your grief for your own sad case. And, the OZ schools did a poor job with your spelling.
LOL!!! There there...I laugh as you remind me a lot of Raspy, who was also profoundly afflicted with the inability to understand what evidence is - you two should get together and do some consolidated research to try to achieve some glimmer of enlightenment on the topic. Maybe then you won't feel the need to be a blithering moron - just saying...it's worth a shot...
So, you went to hide for a while after your bad exposure due to evidence failure, and now try to sneak back in for some "last word" nonsense. Nice try. After that embarrassment, there is no recovery. Falsity is falsity. Fail is fail. You can't undo the damage now by proposing some ludicrous activity and reverting to basic name-calling. Who on earth would need advice on learning and ethics from your phony type?
