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!
Post Reply
Claire
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:21 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
SEG wrote:Could you even identify a reasonable and clear definition for God or Spirit if one was presented to you?
Yes I could.
What would a reasonable and clear definition be to you?
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Something that is logical and not clouded by vagueness.
But, you quoted vague definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", and "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and called them "well defined". So, why is a vague definition of God insufficient to you?
I suppose your definition is very vague in comparison for something that you think created the universe and communicates with humans.
You quoted vague definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", and "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and called them "well defined". Yet, vague definitions for God are insufficient to you. Why?
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I'm saying you asserted I've been quoting from Christian apologist sites during this discussion, specifically Got Questions, when I didn't.
Ok, I accept that.
Maybe you'll apologize.
SEG wrote:Maybe you will admit that you do research those sites and stop dodging questions.
Do you think you don't need to apologize?

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:53 pm

Did you apologise to me for misquoting me or dodging my questions?
“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: 910
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:30 pm

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
SEG wrote:Could you even identify a reasonable and clear definition for God or Spirit if one was presented to you?
Yes I could.
What would a reasonable and clear definition be to you?
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Something that is logical and not clouded by vagueness.
But, you quoted vague definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", and "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and called them "well defined". So, why is a vague definition of God insufficient to you?
I suppose your definition is very vague in comparison for something that you think created the universe and communicates with humans.
You quoted vague definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", and "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and called them "well defined". Yet, vague definitions for God are insufficient to you. Why?
SEG wrote:Did you apologise to me for misquoting me or dodging my questions?
Where did I misquote you? As for dodging questions, if you're talking about this,
Do you research Christian apologist sites?
I didn't say I wouldn't answer. But, we were talking about how you asserted I've been quoting from Christian apologist sites, specifically Got Questions, during our discussion when I didn't. And, after I asked if you think you should apologize, for some reason instead of answering you brought up something else. So, I haven't answered because I'm trying to keep you focused on what we were talking about first. Again,

Do you think you don't need to apologize?

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:58 am

Claire wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:30 pm

Do you think you don't need to apologize?
I'll answer that once you answer this, as was posed first:
Now for the fourth time, can you let me know whether this is a fair assessment of what you believe about your God and other gods?

1. They are "things" that have no material presence.
2. They have a magical special "force" to create material objects, even though they have no material themselves.
3. You have no idea of what this force is or how they create material objects, though you hope with faith that this is true.
4. Your god is special and true, unlike all the other false and untrue gods that only exist in the minds of heathens. You know that this is correct because it says so in your book of faith and you believe that it is true, even if you have no scientific evidence of it's existence or it's properties
“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: 910
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:54 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
SEG wrote:Could you even identify a reasonable and clear definition for God or Spirit if one was presented to you?
Yes I could.
What would a reasonable and clear definition be to you?
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Something that is logical and not clouded by vagueness.
But, you quoted vague definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", and "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and called them "well defined". So, why is a vague definition of God insufficient to you?
I suppose your definition is very vague in comparison for something that you think created the universe and communicates with humans.
You quoted vague definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", and "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and called them "well defined". Yet, vague definitions for God are insufficient to you. Why?
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Do you think you don't need to apologize?
I'll answer that once you answer this, as was posed first:

Now for the fourth time, can you let me know whether this is a fair assessment of what you believe about your God and other gods?

1. They are "things" that have no material presence.
2. They have a magical special "force" to create material objects, even though they have no material themselves.
3. You have no idea of what this force is or how they create material objects, though you hope with faith that this is true.
4. Your god is special and true, unlike all the other false and untrue gods that only exist in the minds of heathens. You know that this is correct because it says so in your book of faith and you believe that it is true, even if you have no scientific evidence of it's existence or it's properties
I never said I wouldn't answer that. And, I'm not going to be blackmailed into doing so. So, either apologize for having asserted I've been quoting from Got Questions when I didn't or don't.
Do you research Christian apologist sites?
I haven't been to one recently. So, if I have it was a while ago.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:34 am

Claire wrote: But, you quoted vague definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", and "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and called them "well defined". So, why is a vague definition of God insufficient to you?
SEG wrote:I suppose because your definition is very vague in comparison for something that you think created the universe and communicates with humans.
Claire wrote:Do you think you don't need to apologize?
I'll answer that once you answer this, as it was posed to you first:

Now for the fifth time, can you let me know whether this is a fair assessment of what you believe about your God and other gods?

1. They are "things" that have no material presence.
2. They have a magical special "force" to create material objects, even though they have no material themselves.
3. You have no idea of what this force is or how they create material objects, though you hope with faith that this is true.
4. Your god is special and true, unlike all the other false and untrue gods that only exist in the minds of heathens. You know that this is correct because it says so in your book of faith and you believe that it is true, even if you have no scientific evidence of it's existence or it's properties.
Do you research Christian apologist sites?
Clare wrote:I haven't been to one recently. So, if I have it was a while ago.
You don't know if you have or not? Just like you don't remember any scientific books that you have read? No wonder you needlessly quote previous posts, your memory is terrible!
“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
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:21 pm

Hey SEG, would this sum up your beliefs?

1. All "things" that have "material presence".
2. Matter has a magical special "force" to manifest as what appear to be non material entities, such as minds
3. You have no idea of what this force is or how matter can manifest as non-material entities, though you hope that one day science will show this to be true.
4. Your brand of materialism is special and true, unlike all the other false and untrue forms of materialism that only exist in the minds of people in earlier eras. You know that this is correct because some scientists say so and you believe that it is true, even if you have no scientific evidence to support it.

Claire
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:43 pm

SEG wrote:There you go again! Will you stop doing that FFS! I didn't ever say anything about being "properly" defined, whatever the fuck that means. I said that
What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist.
You don't have to type the words "properly defined" in order to be saying them -- who’d a thunk it? Your having stated I haven't come close to presenting a "reasonable, clear definition" means you don't find them to be satisfactory i.e. proper.

You ALSO said,
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.
Pay special attention to your words "well defined". One of the synonyms for "well" is the word "properly".

And, all those definitions you cited are equally vague, yet you say all except ''God'' are well defined -- that's hypocrisy.

If you've grasped my point regarding the English language, and your being hypocritical, then all I have to say is...

Image
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
SEG wrote:Could you even identify a reasonable and clear definition for God or Spirit if one was presented to you?
Yes I could.
What would a reasonable and clear definition be to you?
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Something that is logical and not clouded by vagueness.
But, you quoted vague definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", and "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and called them "well defined". So, why is a vague definition of God insufficient to you?
I suppose your definition is very vague in comparison for something that you think created the universe and communicates with humans.
You quoted vague definitions for "Quantum Physics", "God Particle", and "Einstein-Rosen Bridge", and called them "well defined". Yet, vague definitions for God are insufficient to you.

That makes you hypocritical.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Do you think you don't need to apologize?
I'll answer that once you answer this, as it was posed to you first:

Now for the fifth time, can you let me know whether this is a fair assessment of what you believe about your God and other gods?

1. They are "things" that have no material presence.
2. They have a magical special "force" to create material objects, even though they have no material themselves.
3. You have no idea of what this force is or how they create material objects, though you hope with faith that this is true.
4. Your god is special and true, unlike all the other false and untrue gods that only exist in the minds of heathens. You know that this is correct because it says so in your book of faith and you believe that it is true, even if you have no scientific evidence of it's existence or it's properties.
I shouldn't be blackmailed into doing so. And, I have no reason to think you would apologize even after I did what you wanted anyway.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Do you research Christian apologist sites?
I haven't been to one recently. So, if I have it was a while ago.
You don't know if you have or not? Just like you don't remember any scientific books that you have read? No wonder you needlessly quote previous posts, your memory is terrible!
I've probably been to a Christian apologist site, but as I said it hasn't been recently. And, while I don't remember the book titles and online sites where I read about dark matter/energy from over the years, I remember the content which I shared with you.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Give me an example of one thing that exists and can't be measured besides your god...
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.
So, by not knowing anything about it's characteristics or make up it's somehow defined? And, not really knowing how much of it is out there, and what its actual mass is, or its various types if any that might have various unknown amounts of mass or weight means it's been measured?

That doesn't make sense.

Keep the Reason
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:17 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Keep the Reason » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:25 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:21 pm
1. All "things" that have "material presence".
2. Matter has a magical special "force" to manifest as what appear to be non material entities, such as minds
3. You have no idea of what this force is or how matter can manifest as non-material entities, though you hope that one day science will show this to be true.
4. Your brand of materialism is special and true, unlike all the other false and untrue forms of materialism that only exist in the minds of people in earlier eras. You know that this is correct because some scientists say so and you believe that it is true, even if you have no scientific evidence to support it.
LOL, clunky and transparent attempt, Moon. But entertaining.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:36 pm

Keep the Reason wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:25 pm
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:21 pm
1. All "things" that have "material presence".
2. Matter has a magical special "force" to manifest as what appear to be non material entities, such as minds
3. You have no idea of what this force is or how matter can manifest as non-material entities, though you hope that one day science will show this to be true.
4. Your brand of materialism is special and true, unlike all the other false and untrue forms of materialism that only exist in the minds of people in earlier eras. You know that this is correct because some scientists say so and you believe that it is true, even if you have no scientific evidence to support it.
LOL, clunky and transparent attempt, Moon. But entertaining.
Yes, I kept my language too close to SEG's really. Although there are other things apart from minds that could be non-material, such as for example mathematical entities or values like justice, you can reduce these to purely mental objects once you grant that there are minds for them to exist in. I also was remembering a discussion I had with you once where I said materialism was not a modern philosophy, since although they believe in gods, people like Democritus and Lucretius were clearly materialists. You responded by saying that since they believed in gods they were completely unlike modern materialists. So I took advantage of that kind of idea and said they were different forms of materialism now rejected; they are the same in many ways, different in others.

Post Reply