Objective Evidence.

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:10 pm

SEG wrote:What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist. It can't get any simpler than that. What is your definition?
Claire wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:33 am
Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined.
Incorrect! Name me one thing that exists and can't be defined. Once you do that, prove that it exists.
Claire wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:33 am
If you're fond of science as much as you'd like people to think you do, then you would realize that science is not a static source of information where nothing new is ever learned, discovered, or defined.
That is a straw man argument. I have never stated anything of the sort.
Claire wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:33 am
And, whether or not you can personally understand or describe something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing you can't describe exists.
Rubbish. I'm not saying that if you haven't any capabilities to understand or describe something that it doesn't exist, I'm asking you to prove it exists.
Claire wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:33 am
For example, say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of the internet, and you're trying to tell them what a GIF is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.
Let's say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of Your Lord, and you're trying to tell them what a Christian god is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.

They would be right. You can't even prove it to a primitive tribe. They would then agree that you are crazy and Your Lord doesn't exist. To make it even worse for you, they would say that their Tree God has been known to exist for generations, and if you don't acknowledge it, you will be on the menu for tomorrow night's BBQ sacrifice.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Claire
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:30 am

SEG wrote:Rubbish. I'm not saying that if you haven't any capabilities to understand or describe something that it doesn't exist...
Ah-ah-ah. Your words:
What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist. It can't get any simpler than that.
My response:
Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined. If you're fond of science as much as you'd like people to think you do, then you would realize that science is not a static source of information where nothing new is ever learned, discovered, or defined. And, whether or not you can personally understand or describe something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing you can't describe exists. For example, say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of the internet, and you're trying to tell them what a GIF is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.
To which you said again:
Show me anything that can't be defined or having a clear outline. If gods can't be clearly defined, their existence should be doubted.
And, my response to that was:
I provided an example of why definition does not precede existence. If you want more examples of things that aren't clearly defined, and sometimes not even objectively proven, go bury yourself in some quantum physics articles for awhile. And, see how scientists at times have to follow the clues that are left by some principal or particle that have not yet been defined or discovered, yet they can see the affect that it has on reality.
Then, you went and broke down my first response:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined.
Incorrect! Name me one thing that exists and can't be defined. Once you do that, prove that it exists.
Again, I provided an example of why definition does not precede existence. And, again, if you want more examples of things that aren't clearly defined, and sometimes not even objectively proven, go bury yourself in some quantum physics articles for awhile. And, see how scientists at times have to follow the clues that are left by some principal or particle that have not yet been defined or discovered, yet they can see the affect that it has on reality.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:If you're fond of science as much as you'd like people to think you do, then you would realize that science is not a static source of information where nothing new is ever learned, discovered, or defined.
That is a straw man argument. I have never stated anything of the sort.
That's basically what you said when you asserted the existence of something depends on whether or not it can be defined.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:And, whether or not you can personally understand or describe something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing you can't describe exists.
Rubbish. I'm not saying that if you haven't any capabilities to understand or describe something that it doesn't exist, I'm asking you to prove it exists.
This is the first thing I addressed in this post. See above.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:For example, say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of the internet, and you're trying to tell them what a GIF is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.
Let's say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of Your Lord, and you're trying to tell them what a Christian god is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.

They would be right. You can't even prove it to a primitive tribe. They would then agree that you are crazy and Your Lord doesn't exist. To make it even worse for you, they would say that their Tree God has been known to exist for generations, and if you don't acknowledge it, you will be on the menu for tomorrow night's BBQ sacrifice.
My example is based off your premise that existence depends on whether or not something can be defined or described and I proved you wrong. You replacing the word "internet" with "The Lord" doesn't change that.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:05 am

Claire wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:30 am
Ah-ah-ah. Your words:
What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist. It can't get any simpler than that.
You left out the key word, "capabilities"
Your response:
Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined. If you're fond of science as much as you'd like people to think you do, then you would realize that science is not a static source of information where nothing new is ever learned, discovered, or defined. And, whether or not you can personally understand or describe something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing you can't describe exists. For example, say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of the internet, and you're trying to tell them what a GIF is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.
"Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined." Bullshit, if it can't be defined it can't exist.
Show me anything that can't be defined or having a clear outline. If gods can't be clearly defined, their existence should be doubted.
Claire wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:30 am
I provided an example of why definition does not precede existence. If you want more examples of things that aren't clearly defined, and sometimes not even objectively proven, go bury yourself in some quantum physics articles for awhile. And, see how scientists at times have to follow the clues that are left by some principal or particle that have not yet been defined or discovered, yet they can see the affect that it has on reality.
Scientists don't follow anything that can't be defined because anything that has no definite properties is nothing. That's why I am asking what your god is and to define it.
Claire wrote:Then, you went and broke down my first response:
Claire wrote:Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined.
SEG wrote:Incorrect! Name me one thing that exists and can't be defined. Once you do that, prove that it exists.
Again, I provided an example of why definition does not precede existence.
No you didn't!
And, again, if you want more examples of things that aren't clearly defined, and sometimes not even objectively proven, go bury yourself in some quantum physics articles for awhile.
Now what you know about quantum physics? I don't understand it and either do most people I know.
And, see how scientists at times have to follow the clues that are left by some principal or particle that have not yet been defined or discovered, yet they can see the affect that it has on reality.
Give me an example from that very vague assertion.
Claire wrote:If you're fond of science as much as you'd like people to think you do, then you would realize that science is not a static source of information where nothing new is ever learned, discovered, or defined.
I never said that!
Claire wrote:For example, say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of the internet, and you're trying to tell them what a GIF is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.
Let's say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of Your Lord, and you're trying to tell them what a Christian god is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.

They would be right. You can't even prove it to a primitive tribe. They would then agree that you are crazy and Your Lord doesn't exist. To make it even worse for you, they would say that their Tree God has been known to exist for generations, and if you don't acknowledge it, you will be on the menu for tomorrow night's BBQ sacrifice.
Claire wrote:My example is based off your premise that existence depends on whether or not something can be defined or described and I proved you wrong.
Sure you did, :roll:
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:35 am

Jesus, Claire, you can be a ripe bloody pelican!
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Claire
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:39 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined. If you're fond of science as much as you'd like people to think you do, then you would realize that science is not a static source of information where nothing new is ever learned, discovered, or defined. And, whether or not you can personally understand or describe something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing you can't describe exists. For example, say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of the internet, and you're trying to tell them what a GIF is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.
Rubbish. I'm not saying that if you haven't any capabilities to understand or describe something that it doesn't exist...
Ah-ah-ah. Your words:
What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist. It can't get any simpler than that.
SEG wrote:You left out the key word, "capabilities"
I never said you used the word "capabilities". I've been responding to what you actually said:
What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist. It can't get any simpler than that.
...if it can't be defined it can't exist.
You're saying the existence of something depends on whether or not it can be defined.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:If you're fond of science as much as you'd like people to think you do, then you would realize that science is not a static source of information where nothing new is ever learned, discovered, or defined.
That is a straw man argument. I have never stated anything of the sort.
That's basically what you're saying when you assert the existence of something depends on whether or not it can be defined.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined. If you're fond of science as much as you'd like people to think you do, then you would realize that science is not a static source of information where nothing new is ever learned, discovered, or defined. And, whether or not you can personally understand or describe something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing you can't describe exists. For example, say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of the internet, and you're trying to tell them what a GIF is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.
Let's say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of Your Lord, and you're trying to tell them what a Christian god is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.

They would be right. You can't even prove it to a primitive tribe. They would then agree that you are crazy and Your Lord doesn't exist. To make it even worse for you, they would say that their Tree God has been known to exist for generations, and if you don't acknowledge it, you will be on the menu for tomorrow night's BBQ sacrifice.
My example is based off your premise that existence depends on whether or not something can be defined or described and I proved you wrong. You replacing the word "internet" with "The Lord" doesn't change that.
wrote:Sure you did :roll:
You don't have to like it.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Show me anything that can't be defined or having a clear outline. If gods can't be clearly defined, their existence should be doubted.
I provided an example of why definition does not precede existence. If you want more examples of things that aren't clearly defined, and sometimes not even objectively proven, go bury yourself in some quantum physics articles for awhile. And, see how scientists at times have to follow the clues that are left by some principal or particle that have not yet been defined or discovered, yet they can see the affect that it has on reality.
Give me an example from that very vague assertion. Scientists don't follow anything that can't be defined because anything that has no definite properties is nothing. That's why I am asking what your god is and to define it. Now, what you know about quantum physics? I don't understand it and either do most people I know.
I used the field of Quantum Physics as an example precisely because it's difficult to understand, even for top scientists within that field. There's a reason why researchers spend their entire lives attempting to prove or disprove the mere existence of some things. And, even if they succeed in proving something exists, they haven't completely found a way to define it. For example, the hunt for the God Particle and Einstein-Rosen Bridge.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:50 am

SEG wrote:What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist. It can't get any simpler than that.
Claire wrote:I used the field of Quantum Physics as an example precisely because it's difficult to understand, even for top scientists within that field. There's a reason why researchers spend their entire lives attempting to prove or disprove the mere existence of some things. And, even if they succeed in proving something exists, they haven't completely found a way to define it. For example, the hunt for the God Particle and Einstein-Rosen Bridge.
Your problem is that you have no reasonable definition of what your gods are. The Higgs boson has an upgraded as a new elementary particle with a mass of 125 GeV. It was discovered in 2012 and later confirmed to be the Higgs boson with more precise measurements according to Wiki. The Einstein-Rosen Bridge is a worm hole that can be measured and defined.

What is your definition for your specific gods? Oh yeah, and some objective proof of their existence. This should be important to you as you base your whole life around it.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Claire
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:57 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Show me anything that can't be defined or having a clear outline. If gods can't be clearly defined, their existence should be doubted.
I provided an example of why definition does not precede existence. If you want more examples of things that aren't clearly defined, and sometimes not even objectively proven, go bury yourself in some quantum physics articles for awhile. And, see how scientists at times have to follow the clues that are left by some principal or particle that have not yet been defined or discovered, yet they can see the affect that it has on reality.
Give me an example from that very vague assertion. Scientists don't follow anything that can't be defined because anything that has no definite properties is nothing. That's why I am asking what your god is and to define it. Now, what you know about quantum physics? I don't understand it and either do most people I know.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I used the field of Quantum Physics as an example precisely because it's difficult to understand, even for top scientists within that field. There's a reason why researchers spend their entire lives attempting to prove or disprove the mere existence of some things. And, even if they succeed in proving something exists, they haven't completely found a way to define it. For example, the hunt for the God Particle and Einstein-Rosen Bridge.
Your problem is that you have no reasonable definition of what your gods are. The Higgs boson has an upgraded as a new elementary particle with a mass of 125 GeV. It was discovered in 2012 and later confirmed to be the Higgs boson with more precise measurements according to Wiki. The Einstein-Rosen Bridge is a worm hole that can be measured and defined.
The reason I used those two examples was because of their status as either theoretical and abstract or undiscovered for many years. Sadly, we can't use something that's been completely undiscovered as an example because we haven't discovered it yet. But, we can point to abstractions, and even some like the Higgs Boson that we have finally cracked down still hold many, many mysteries. And, regarding the Einstein-Rosen Bridge, did you just give up while looking for it in Google, and when you didn't find any concrete answer you just decided to say that it can be measured and defined?
SEG wrote:What is your definition for your specific gods? Oh yeah, and some objective proof of their existence. This should be important to you as you base your whole life around it.
Do you want me to somehow tell you what The Lord is composed of? Measurements? Or, are you asking for His attributes? And, before you answer keep in mind, that you still have not proven me to be wrong. So, whether I can or cannot give the description you would like is completely irrelevant.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:02 am

Claire wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:57 am

The reason I used those two examples was because of their status as either theoretical and abstract or undiscovered for many years.
Your analogy doesn't work as they can be meaningfully defined, unlike your gods.
SEG wrote:What is your definition for your specific gods? Oh yeah, and some objective proof of their existence. This should be important to you as you base your whole life around it.
Do you want me to somehow tell you what The Lord is composed of? Measurements? Or, are you asking for His attributes? And, before you answer keep in mind, that you still have not proven me to be wrong. So, whether I can or cannot give the description you would like is completely irrelevant.
What's with "The Lord" stuff? You make it sound like this mythical construct is lording it over you. Yes, measurements and definitions go hand in hand. No don't bother with the attributes, they are meaningless to me. Proven you wrong about what? Don't worry about what I like or dislike, just give me a meaningful definition of what you think is lording it over you.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Claire
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:28 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Show me anything that can't be defined or having a clear outline. If gods can't be clearly defined, their existence should be doubted.
I provided an example of why definition does not precede existence. If you want more examples of things that aren't clearly defined, and sometimes not even objectively proven, go bury yourself in some quantum physics articles for awhile. And, see how scientists at times have to follow the clues that are left by some principal or particle that have not yet been defined or discovered, yet they can see the affect that it has on reality.
Give me an example from that very vague assertion. Scientists don't follow anything that can't be defined because anything that has no definite properties is nothing. That's why I am asking what your god is and to define it. Now, what you know about quantum physics? I don't understand it and either do most people I know.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I used the field of Quantum Physics as an example precisely because it's difficult to understand, even for top scientists within that field. There's a reason why researchers spend their entire lives attempting to prove or disprove the mere existence of some things. And, even if they succeed in proving something exists, they haven't completely found a way to define it. For example, the hunt for the God Particle and Einstein-Rosen Bridge.
Your problem is that you have no reasonable definition of what your gods are. The Higgs boson has an upgraded as a new elementary particle with a mass of 125 GeV. It was discovered in 2012 and later confirmed to be the Higgs boson with more precise measurements according to Wiki. The Einstein-Rosen Bridge is a worm hole that can be measured and defined.
The reason I used those two examples was because of their status as either theoretical and abstract or undiscovered for many years. Sadly, we can't use something that's been completely undiscovered as an example because we haven't discovered it yet. But, we can point to abstractions, and even some like the Higgs Boson that we have finally cracked down still hold many, many mysteries. And, regarding the Einstein-Rosen Bridge, did you just give up while looking for it in Google, and when you didn't find any concrete answer you just decided to say that it can be measured and defined?
SEG wrote:Your analogy doesn't work as they can be meaningfully defined, unlike your gods.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:What is your definition for your specific gods? Oh yeah, and some objective proof of their existence. This should be important to you as you base your whole life around it.
Do you want me to somehow tell you what The Lord is composed of? Measurements? Or, are you asking for His attributes? And, before you answer keep in mind, that you still have not proven me to be wrong. So, whether I can or cannot give the description you would like is completely irrelevant.
What's with "The Lord" stuff? You make it sound like this mythical construct is lording it over you. Yes, measurements and definitions go hand in hand. No don't bother with the attributes, they are meaningless to me. Proven you wrong about what? Don't worry about what I like or dislike, just give me a meaningful definition of what you think is lording it over you.
Well, if you had any basic knowledge of Christianity you would know "The Lord" is a commonly used way of addressing God by Christians. Jesus Christ as a human being would've been able to be measured and weighed just as any other human being. In regards to The Lord in spirit form, I am not qualified to even guess as how to measure that. And, this goes directly back to what I've been saying which is existence is not dependent on definition, which is what you haven't proven me wrong on.

If someone approached you and said "I just had a thought", would you tell them that you do not believe that they could have had a thought, until they can prove it to you through weighing and measuring that thought? I'm not saying The Lord is on the same level as a thought rather demonstrating how existence isn't as narrow as you argue it is.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:13 pm

Claire wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:28 am

Do you want me to somehow tell you what The Lord is composed of? Measurements? Or, are you asking for His attributes? And, before you answer keep in mind, that you still have not proven me to be wrong. So, whether I can or cannot give the description you would like is completely irrelevant.
What's with "The Lord" stuff? You make it sound like this mythical construct is lording it over you. Yes, measurements and definitions go hand in hand. No don't bother with the attributes, they are meaningless to me. Proven you wrong about what? Don't worry about what I like or dislike, just give me a meaningful definition of what you think is lording it over you.
Claire wrote:Well, if you had any basic knowledge of Christianity you would know "The Lord" is a commonly used way of addressing God by Christians.
You are the only Christian that I know that uses that term. It may be an American thing.
Claire wrote: In regards to The Lord in spirit form
What is spirit form? I'm not being pedantic, I want to know what you think a spirit is made up of. Atoms? Nothing?
I am not qualified to even guess as how to measure that.
Who do you think would be qualified to measure it?
And, this goes directly back to what I've been saying which is existence is not dependent on definition, which is what you haven't proven me wrong on
Give me an example of one thing that exists and can't be measured besides your god and which you haven't yet defined.
If someone approached you and said "I just had a thought", would you tell them that you do not believe that they could have had a thought, until they can prove it to you through weighing and measuring that thought?
No, but thoughts can be measured, unlike your gods.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Post Reply