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!
Claire
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote: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.
SEG wrote:What is spirit form? I'm not being pedantic, I want to know what you think a spirit is made up of. Atoms? Nothing? Who do you think would be qualified to measure it? Give me an example of one thing that exists and can't be measured besides your god and which you haven't yet defined.
I've given you examples of something that exists and can't be defined. Now, you want something that not only exists and can't be defined but also can't be measured. Well, dark matter and dark energy are the probably the two most obvious examples I can mention to you. All that we really know about dark matter is that it probably accounts for the most of the mass in the known universe. What it's made of i.e. what particles it can be made up of, or it's characteristics are unknown. And, even the amount of dark matter believed to exist is only really inferred through deduction and by observing it's affects on other objects within the universe.

In regards to spirit, you already know that it's not something described in terms of its constituent elements or what particles it's made up of. But, it's something that can be known to exist if you know how the spirit affects humanity and the physical world. To tie that back into dark matter and specifically dark energy, we know that there is a force that has an affect in this universe. So, in terms of what we call dark energy we can detect how it changes observable objects around it, and causes otherwise uncountable ripples through magnetic fields. But, we still have no idea what it is. So, it's something extremely mysterious and yet extremely important to our understanding of modern physics.

God as a human being would've been in a measurable and definable state, but still wouldn't have been completely definable and measurable because He wouldn't have been completely human. When one attempts to define God in a completely non-human state i.e. spirit, then it becomes about trying to define and measure someone that's infinite and bound to nothing. What God can be or do is limitless. So, there's an unlimited number of ways He can be seen, heard, felt, etc, and being limited ourselves we are probably incapable of becoming aware of all the ways. So, I don't think any human would succeed in fully defining or measuring God while in a physical and limited state. We'd probably have to be in a non-physical and unlimited state just as He is in order to see and understand more about Him and our surroundings. But, even once we experience physical death and transition, thereby leaving our physical and limited state, we would still have to be limited to a degree, even if only in terms of what we can know/do, otherwise we'd be God. But, this is limited human reasoning, so there's probably more to this than I'm able to realize and communicate.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote: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.
No, but thoughts can be measured, unlike your gods.
But, even the article is quick to point out that it can only give a narrow picture of en masse neuron activation. And, I find it difficult to believe that even you think that a thought is fully "measured" by only counting the neural activity and patterns.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1490
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:17 am

Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
I've given you examples of something that exists and can't be defined.
Except you haven't.
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
Now, you want something that not only exists and can't be defined but also can't be measured.

That was from your assertion not mine.
Well, dark matter and dark energy are the probably the two most obvious examples I can mention to you. All that we really know about dark matter is that it probably accounts for the most of the mass in the known universe.
...which destroys the fine tuning argument. How was the universe created for us and "finely tuned" when over 95% is dark matter/energy and what is left, only a minute fraction is sustainable for life as we know it? That's a pretty fucked design!
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
What it's made of i.e. what particles it can be made up of, or it's characteristics are unknown. And, even the amount of dark matter believed to exist is only really inferred through deduction and by observing it's affects on other objects within the universe.
Correct, which means it can be defined, observed and measured. The direct opposite of your particular god concept. Which is exactly the same concept of millions of other gods throughout man's history. They all share the same qualities, no evidence or proof of their existence.
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
In regards to spirit, you already know that it's not something described in terms of its constituent elements or what particles it's made up of. But, it's something that can be known to exist if you know how the spirit affects humanity and the physical world.

So now you admit that there is not made up of anything. Now we are finally getting somewhere. Now demonstrate how "it's something that can be known to exist if you know how the spirit affects humanity and the physical world."
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
To tie that back into dark matter and specifically dark energy, we know that there is a force that has an affect in this universe. So, in terms of what we call dark energy we can detect how it changes observable objects around it, and causes otherwise uncountable ripples through magnetic fields. But, we still have no idea what it is. So, it's something extremely mysterious and yet extremely important to our understanding of modern physics.
To make your analogy valid, you need to show your god (you still haven't defined what a god is btw) is a force that has an affect in this universe.
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
God as a human being would've been in a measurable and definable state, but still wouldn't have been completely definable and measurable because He wouldn't have been completely human.
Hold everything! Are you saying that Jesus wasn't completely human??! What was he then?
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
When one attempts to define God in a completely non-human state i.e. spirit,
You still haven't defined what a spirit is!
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
then it becomes about trying to define and measure someone that's infinite and bound to nothing. What God can be or do is limitless.
Now how do you know that?
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
So, there's an unlimited number of ways He can be seen, heard, felt, etc, and being limited ourselves we are probably incapable of becoming aware of all the ways.
That's a non-sequitur! How do you know that?
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
So, I don't think any human would succeed in fully defining or measuring God while in a physical and limited state. We'd probably have to be in a non-physical and unlimited state just as He is in order to see and understand more about Him and our surroundings.

...and how do you know that?

Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
But, even once we experience physical death and transition, thereby leaving our physical and limited state, we would still have to be limited to a degree, even if only in terms of what we can know/do, otherwise we'd be God.
I hate to be tiresome, BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT!
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:04 am
But, this is limited human reasoning, so there's probably more to this than I'm able to realize and communicate.
Well sorry but you haven't really communicated anything worthwhile at all. Come back to me once you have a reasonable definition of what your own particular god is and how he is different from all the other non-existent gods (whatever they are)
“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: 975
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:48 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I've given you examples of something that exists and can't be defined.
Except you haven't.
My examples were Quantum Physics, God Particle, and Einstein-Rosen Bridge.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Now, you want something that not only exists and can't be defined but also can't be measured.
That was from your assertion not mine.
My assertion? Have you had too much to drink tonight? You said,
SEG wrote:Give me an example of one thing that exists and can't be measured besides your god and which you haven't yet defined.
So, I did. See below:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Well, dark matter and dark energy are the probably the two most obvious examples I can mention to you. All that we really know about dark matter is that it probably accounts for the most of the mass in the known universe.
...which destroys the fine tuning argument. How was the universe created for us and "finely tuned" when over 95% is dark matter/energy and what is left, only a minute fraction is sustainable for life as we know it? That's a pretty fucked design!
How does that possibly destroy the "Fine-Tuned Argument"? We don't even know what all of the effects of matter are on the universe, but we are at least pretty sure that all of that mass is helping to keep the universe in tact. Just because it isn't something that humanity inhabit or see does not mean that it isn't benefiting us or making our existence possible in the first place.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:What it's made of i.e. what particles it can be made up of, or it's characteristics are unknown. And, even the amount of dark matter believed to exist is only really inferred through deduction and by observing it's affects on other objects within the universe.
Correct, which means it can be defined, observed and measured. The direct opposite of your particular god concept. Which is exactly the same concept of millions of other gods throughout man's history. They all share the same qualities, no evidence or proof of their existence.
So, by not knowing anything about it's characteristics or it's make up, it's somehow defined? And, not knowing really how much of it is out there and what its actual mass, or its various types if any that might have various unknown amounts of mass or weight it's been measured? That makes no sense. A religious person could give you a definition of God that you can dismiss as being too vague and not precise enough in detailing God's qualities, measurements, etc. But, when it comes to dark matter a vague definition that can't really give any of those same details you consider to be a sufficient definition.

In regards to spirit, you already know that it's not something described in terms of its constituent elements or what particles it's made up of. But, it's something that can be known to exist if you know how the spirit affects humanity and the physical world.

So now you admit that there is not made up of anything. Now we are finally getting somewhere. Now demonstrate how "it's something that can be known to exist if you know how the spirit affects humanity and the physical world."

I've never not admitted that the spirit is not made up of anything materially. Even what I had said that you quoted was really just me stating something that should be pretty obvious. That's the idea behind the spirit -- it's immaterial. Without even going back into the possibilities behind dark matter and dark energy, there are many things that do not have any material or physical presence in reality, yet they can have profound effects. We have thoughts and feelings that can be transmitted to other or affect our will to do or not do something. You can say that a thought or feeling is just some biochemical process in the brain, but that does really cover how a political system for instance can be implemented all over the world, leading people to do various actions, good or bad, through their will.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:To tie that back into dark matter and specifically dark energy, we know that there is a force that has an affect in this universe. So, in terms of what we call dark energy we can detect how it changes observable objects around it, and causes otherwise uncountable ripples through magnetic fields. But, we still have no idea what it is. So, it's something extremely mysterious and yet extremely important to our understanding of modern physics.
To make your analogy valid, you need to show your god (you still haven't defined what a god is btw) is a force that has an affect in this universe.
Well, there's many people who are still unconvinced that dark energy have any affect on this universe. And, they might think there is no dark energy at all. Or, that what we see as the result of dark energy manipulating the universe could just be something else and we are miss identifying what is causing that effect. To bring this back to God, obviously there are people who do not believe in Him at all, but I think your question has more to do with the second scenario where God is affecting reality and the universe but people may be misapplying God's effects to something else. It's hard to prove that human morality is something created by God or that the universe itself was created by and put into motion by God.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:God as a human being would've been in a measurable and definable state, but still wouldn't have been completely definable and measurable because He wouldn't have been completely human.
Hold everything! Are you saying that Jesus wasn't completely human??! What was he then?
He was completely human physically, but was also divine.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:When one attempts to define God in a completely non-human state i.e. spirit then it becomes about trying to define and measure someone that's infinite and bound to nothing. What God can be or do is limitless.
Now how do you know that?
It's called reasoning.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:So, there's an unlimited number of ways He can be seen, heard, felt, etc, and being limited ourselves we are probably incapable of becoming aware of all the ways.
That's a non-sequitur! How do you know that?
It's called reasoning.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:So, I don't think any human would succeed in fully defining or measuring God while in a physical and limited state. We'd probably have to be in a non-physical and unlimited state just as He is in order to see and understand more about Him and our surroundings.
...and how do you know that?
It's called reasoning.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:But, even once we experience physical death and transition, thereby leaving our physical and limited state, we would still have to be limited to a degree, even if only in terms of what we can know/do, otherwise we'd be God.
I hate to be tiresome, BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT!
I hate to be tiresome, but it's called reasoning.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:But, this is limited human reasoning, so there's probably more to this than I'm able to realize and communicate.
Well sorry but you haven't really communicated anything worthwhile at all. Come back to me once you have a reasonable definition of what your own particular god is and how he is different from all the other non-existent gods (whatever they are)
Well, I'll have to go get myself a non-existent God before I can do that, so I guess you'll have to settle for my already existing God...

But, what you really meant to say is "Nothing you say to me is worthwhile because I made my mind up that your God doesn't exist, so anything you tell me about Him can't possibly make sense." Isn't that what you meant? It's hard to be convinced otherwise when you wear your bias so openly and instead of trying to connect concepts and look for similarities you just say, "No, you're wrong and I don't care to explain how." If I truly thought I could be more clear and explain it to someone who wanted to actively engage with what I was saying, I'd try, even if they decide that I'm wrong. But you're obviously not actively engaged.
Last edited by Claire on Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1490
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:33 pm

Claire wrote:I've given you examples of something that exists and can't be defined.
SEG wrote:Except you haven't.
Claire wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:48 am
My examples were Quantum Physics, God Particle, and Einstein-Rosen Bridge.
All well defined below. They are known to exist and react in the natural world
quantum physics
noun
the branch of physics concerned with quantum theory.
"quantum physics allows for particles to be in two states at the same time"

God particle
noun
an informal name for the Higgs boson or particle (see Higgs boson).

Noun. Einstein-Rosen bridge (plural Einstein-Rosen bridges) (physics) A type of wormhole that is inherently unstable and collapses before any information or matter can pass through.
Gods are not well defined. They are not known to exist and react in the natural world
God
ɡɒd/Submit
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
1. What's "a creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority"?

2. What's "the supreme being"?

3. What's a "superhuman being"?

4. What's a "deity"?
Claire wrote:Now, you want something that not only exists and can't be defined but also can't be measured.
SEG wrote:That was from your assertion not mine.
My assertion?
Yes, your assertion! You keep paraphrasing me incorrectly! I never said that, YOU did!

I said,
SEG wrote:Give me an example of one thing that exists and can't be measured besides your god and which you haven't yet defined.
You didn't give anything that exists and can't be measured and you still haven't given a logical definition of what a spirit or a god is.
SEG wrote:...which destroys the fine tuning argument. How was the universe created for us and "finely tuned" when over 95% is dark matter/energy and what is left, only a minute fraction is sustainable for life as we know it? That's a pretty fucked design!
Claire wrote:How does that possibly destroy the "Fine-Tuned Argument"? We don't even know what all of the effects of matter are on the universe, but we are at least pretty sure that all of that mass is helping to keep the universe in tact. Just because it isn't something that humanity inhabit or see does not mean that it isn't benefiting us or making our existence possible in the first place.
The universe is not tailor-made for man, it is the opposite. If you don't believe this then you would have to explain how all the emptiness and life denying space is benefiting us or making our existence possible in the first place
Claire wrote:What it's made of i.e. what particles it can be made up of, or it's characteristics are unknown. And, even the amount of dark matter believed to exist is only really inferred through deduction and by observing it's affects on other objects within the universe.
Correct, which means it can be defined, observed and measured. The direct opposite of your particular god concept. Which is exactly the same concept of millions of other gods throughout man's history. They all share the same qualities, no evidence or proof of their existence.
Claire wrote: A religious person could give you a definition of God that you can dismiss as being too vague and not precise enough in detailing God's qualities, measurements, etc. But, when it comes to dark matter a vague definition that can't really give any of those same details you consider to be a sufficient definition.
Nearly everything in the known universe can be explained, measured and falsified by science. Gods cannot. You can't even give me a definition of what the other gods are, let alone your own version.
Claire wrote:In regards to spirit, you already know that it's not something described in terms of its constituent elements or what particles it's made up of.
Correct.
Claire wrote:But, it's something that can be known to exist if you know how the spirit affects humanity and the physical world.
How can you say that when you haven't defined what a spirit is, let alone how it affects humanity and the physical world? A spirit (whatever that is) is supposed to be able to pass through walls and float up into the clouds, just like your Jesus. How can it possibly do anything if it hasn't any material body?
SEG wrote:So now you admit that there is not made up of anything. Now we are finally getting somewhere. Now demonstrate how "it's something that can be known to exist if you know how the spirit affects humanity and the physical world."
Claire wrote:I've never not admitted that the spirit is not made up of anything materially.
That means you have! Or is that a typo?
SEG wrote:To make your analogy valid, you need to show your god (you still haven't defined what a god is btw) is a force that has an affect in this universe.
Claire wrote:God as a human being would've been in a measurable and definable state, but still wouldn't have been completely definable and measurable because He wouldn't have been completely human.
SEG wrote:Hold everything! Are you saying that Jesus wasn't completely human??! What was he then?
Claire wrote:He was completely human physically, but was more than His humanity because He was also fully divine.
That's impossible. How can someone be "completely human physically, but was more than His humanity because He was also fully divine".
Claire wrote:When one attempts to define God in a completely non-human state i.e. spirit then it becomes about trying to define and measure someone that's infinite and bound to nothing. What God can be or do is limitless.
SEG wrote:Now how do you know that?
Claire wrote:It's called reasoning.
Claire wrote:So, there's an unlimited number of ways He can be seen, heard, felt, etc, and being limited ourselves we are probably incapable of becoming aware of all the ways.
SEG wrote:That's a non-sequitur! How do you know that?
Claire wrote:It's called reasoning.
I'd go further, it's bad reasoning
Claire wrote:So, I don't think any human would succeed in fully defining or measuring God while in a physical and limited state. We'd probably have to be in a non-physical and unlimited state just as He is in order to see and understand more about Him and our surroundings.
...and how do you know that?
Claire wrote:It's called reasoning.
I'd go further, it's bad reasoning
Claire wrote:But, even once we experience physical death and transition, thereby leaving our physical and limited state, we would still have to be limited to a degree, even if only in terms of what we can know/do, otherwise we'd be God.
SEG wrote:I hate to be tiresome, BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT!
I hate to be tiresome, but it's called reasoning.
I'd go further, it's bad reasoning
Claire wrote:But, this is limited human reasoning, so there's probably more to this than I'm able to realize and communicate.
Correct.
Well sorry but you haven't really communicated anything worthwhile at all. Come back to me once you have a reasonable definition of what your own particular god is and how he is different from all the other non-existent gods (whatever they are)
Claire wrote:Well, I'll have to go get myself a non-existent God before I can do that, so I guess you'll have to settle for my already existing God...
Incorrect and fail.
“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: 975
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:27 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I've given you examples of something that exists and can't be defined.
Except you haven't.
My examples were Quantum Physics, God Particle, and Einstein-Rosen Bridge.
SEG wrote:All well defined below. They are known to exist and react in the natural world

quantum physics
noun
the branch of physics concerned with quantum theory.
"quantum physics allows for particles to be in two states at the same time"

God particle
noun
an informal name for the Higgs boson or particle (see Higgs boson).

Noun. Einstein-Rosen bridge (plural Einstein-Rosen bridges) (physics) A type of wormhole that is inherently unstable and collapses before any information or matter can pass through.

Gods are not well defined. They are not known to exist and react in the natural world

God
ɡɒd/Submit
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Oh, so all your pontificating about something having to be properly defined and measured didn't really matter from the beginning since none of those definitions should be able to live up to your own requirements for something that exists. Those definitions are ridiculously vague. And, describing Quantum Physics is pointless anyway because it's just a scientific field and my bringing it up was to mention within the field of Quantum Physics that are not easily defined or proven to be real according to your own requirement. If you wanted I could've just put the dictionary definition of God and called it good. The fact that you can point to the dictionary definition of an Einstein-Rosen Bridge and pretend that isn't somehow just as vague as the dictionary definition of God is hypocrisy.
SEG wrote:1. What's "a creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority"?

2. What's "the supreme being"?

3. What's a "superhuman being"?

4. What's a "deity"?
Why don't you pull out a dictionary?
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Now, you want something that not only exists and can't be defined but also can't be measured.
That was from your assertion not mine.
My assertion? Have you had too much to drink tonight? You said,
Give me an example of one thing that exists and can't be measured besides your god and which you haven't yet defined.
So, I did. See below:
Well, dark matter and dark energy are the probably the two most obvious examples I can mention to you. All that we really know about dark matter is that it probably accounts for the most of the mass in the known universe.
Claire wrote:Yes, your assertion! You keep paraphrasing me incorrectly! I never said that, YOU did!

I said,
Give me an example of one thing that exists and can't be measured besides your god and which you haven't yet defined.
I said you said you wanted something that not only exists and can't be defined but also can't be measured, then quoted the post of yours where you asked that of me. After I quoted you told me that was my assertion not yours. What did you mean by that? How did I paraphrase you incorrectly?
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Well, dark matter and dark energy are the probably the two most obvious examples I can mention to you. All that we really know about dark matter is that it probably accounts for the most of the mass in the known universe.
...which destroys the fine tuning argument. How was the universe created for us and "finely tuned" when over 95% is dark matter/energy and what is left, only a minute fraction is sustainable for life as we know it? That's a pretty fucked design!
How does that possibly destroy the "Fine-Tuned Argument"? We don't even know what all of the effects of matter are on the universe, but we are at least pretty sure that all of that mass is helping to keep the universe in tact. Just because it isn't something that humanity inhabit or see does not mean that it isn't benefiting us or making our existence possible in the first place.
SEG wrote:The universe is not tailor-made for man, it is the opposite. If you don't believe this then you would have to explain how all the emptiness and life denying space is benefiting us or making our existence possible in the first place.
I just gave you an example.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Well, dark matter and dark energy are the probably the two most obvious examples I can mention to you. All that we really know about dark matter is that it probably accounts for the most of the mass in the known universe. What it's made of i.e. what particles it can be made up of, or it's characteristics are unknown. And, even the amount of dark matter believed to exist is only really inferred through deduction and by observing it's affects on other objects within the universe.
Correct, which means it can be defined, observed and measured. The direct opposite of your particular god concept. Which is exactly the same concept of millions of other gods throughout man's history. They all share the same qualities, no evidence or proof of their existence.
So, by not knowing anything about it's characteristics or it's make up, it's somehow defined? And, not knowing really how much of it is out there and what its actual mass, or its various types if any that might have various unknown amounts of mass or weight it's been measured? You're not making sense.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:A religious person could give you a definition of God that you can dismiss as being too vague and not precise enough in detailing God's qualities, measurements, etc. But, when it comes to dark matter a vague definition that can't really give any of those same details you consider to be a sufficient definition.A religious person could give you a definition of God that you can dismiss as being too vague and not precise enough in detailing God's qualities, measurements, etc. But, when it comes to dark matter a vague definition that can't really give any of those same details you consider to be a sufficient definition.
Nearly everything in the known universe can be explained, measured and falsified by science. Gods cannot. You can't even give me a definition of what the other gods are, let alone your own version.
Seeing as how you think "nearly everything" in the known universe can be explained, measured and falsified by science, and quoted the dictionary definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and "God" -- but consider all except the ones for "God" sufficient -- then I have to say that's the straw that broke the camels back. There's literally nothing for me to gain only more to lose.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:It's called reasoning.
I'd go further, it's bad reasoning
Don't knock it until you've tried it.

Edited: Added ", measured and falsified by science" in one of my responses.
Last edited by Claire on Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

Rian
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Rian » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:48 am

Clare wrote:
SEG wrote:
Nearly everything in the known universe can be explained, measured and falsified by science. Gods cannot. You can't even give me a definition of what the other gods are, let alone your own version.
Seeing as how you think "nearly everything" in the known universe can be explained, and quoted the dictionary definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and "God" -- but consider all except the ones for "God" sufficient -- then I have to say that's the straw that broke the camels back.
He said "explained, measured and falsified by science", not merely "explained". You misquoted him, so your conclusion is irrelevant.

But I do disagree with some of the things he's said.

Claire
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:00 am

Rian wrote:
Clare wrote:
SEG wrote:Nearly everything in the known universe can be explained, measured and falsified by science. Gods cannot. You can't even give me a definition of what the other gods are, let alone your own version.
Seeing as how you think "nearly everything" in the known universe can be explained, and quoted the dictionary definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and "God" -- but consider all except the ones for "God" sufficient -- then I have to say that's the straw that broke the camels back.
He said "explained, measured and falsified by science", not merely "explained". You misquoted him, so your conclusion is irrelevant.

But I do disagree with some of the things he's said.
Posts are recorded on this forum for all to see, so I'd be rather stupid to intentionally try and misquote him. And, he did say "Nearly everything in our known universe is explained, measured and falsified by science", which is still incorrect and far worse than if he'd said only "explained". So, my conclusion is still 100% relevant.

Rian
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Rian » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:02 am

Referencing his statement, including a partial quote of it, you then said only "explained", when he actually said "explained, measured and falsified by science", which is VASTLY different.

So your conclusion is irrelevant.

Claire
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:12 am

Rian wrote:
Clare wrote:
SEG wrote:Nearly everything in the known universe can be explained, measured and falsified by science. Gods cannot. You can't even give me a definition of what the other gods are, let alone your own version.
Seeing as how you think "nearly everything" in the known universe can be explained, and quoted the dictionary definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and "God" -- but consider all except the ones for "God" sufficient -- then I have to say that's the straw that broke the camels back.
He said "explained, measured and falsified by science", not merely "explained". You misquoted him, so your conclusion is irrelevant.

But I do disagree with some of the things he's said.
Rian wrote:
Claire wrote:Posts are recorded on this forum for all to see, so I'd be rather stupid to intentionally try and misquote him. And, he did say "Nearly everything in our known universe is explained, measured and falsified by science", which is still incorrect and far worse than if he'd said only "explained". So, my conclusion is still 100% relevant.
Referencing his statement, including a partial quote of it, you then said only "explained", when he actually said "explained, measured and falsified by science", which is VASTLY different.

So your conclusion is irrelevant.
I forgot to add the rest of what he said and I appreciate that you brought this to my attention. But, my mistake doesn't change that what he said isn't true.

Rian
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Rian » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:59 am

I appreciate that you admitted this. And "irrelevant" and "not true" are two different things. Since you were NOT actually dealing with what he actually said, as you now admit, therefore your conclusion was irrelevant (to what he said - because "relevant" is in reference to something). That was my point.

Post Reply