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: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:21 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
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.
I will surely give you my answers, but seeing I posted my questions first, I'll defer to you, lol!
“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: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:03 pm

Claire wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:43 pm

That doesn't make sense.

Arrghh! You've broken me Claire! I've been baaad! I apologise! Whose a naughty boy, then, whose a naughty boy?

I shouldn't have assumed you stooped so low as to research apologist websites. Now answer my damned 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.

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:14 am

Arrghh! You've broken me Claire! I've been baaad! I apologise! Whose a naughty boy, then, whose a naughty boy?

I shouldn't have assumed you stooped so low as to research apologist websites. Now answer my damned questions!!
Researching an apologist website isn't a big deal to begin with. But, it was your assertion I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, based on a preconceived notion that I find annoying. And, you can't even apologize maturely and with sincerity.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:23 am

Claire wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:14 am
Arrghh! You've broken me Claire! I've been baaad! I apologise! Whose a naughty boy, then, whose a naughty boy?

I shouldn't have assumed you stooped so low as to research apologist websites. Now answer my damned questions!!
Researching an apologist website isn't a big deal to begin with. But, it was your assertion I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, based on a preconceived notion that I find annoying. And, you can't even apologize maturely and with sincerity.
“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: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:27 am

It's the best you'll get under the circumstances. It's clear to everyone why you consistently dodged answering them anyways. If you answered honestly it makes you look silly. The truth hurts when you face it, huh?
“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
Claire
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:46 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Arrghh! You've broken me Claire! I've been baaad! I apologise! Whose a naughty boy, then, whose a naughty boy?

I shouldn't have assumed you stooped so low as to research apologist websites. Now answer my damned questions!!
Researching an apologist website isn't a big deal to begin with. But, it was your assertion I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, based on a preconceived notion that I find annoying. And, you can't even apologize maturely and with sincerity.
It's the best you'll get under the circumstances.
You acknowledged you asserted I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, when I didn't. And, you refuse to apologize for that. Shameful.
Last edited by Claire on Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:46 pm

Claire wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:46 am
You acknowledged you asserted I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, when I didn't. And, you refuse to apologize for that. Shameful.
How do we know that for sure? I did apologise (sheesh short memory!), but what was a lot more shameful was you pretending to read scientific books and dodging questions because you are too scared to support your own beliefs.
“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
Claire
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:05 pm

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Arrghh! You've broken me Claire! I've been baaad! I apologise! Whose a naughty boy, then, whose a naughty boy?

I shouldn't have assumed you stooped so low as to research apologist websites. Now answer my damned questions!!
Researching an apologist website isn't a big deal to begin with. But, it was your assertion I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, based on a preconceived notion that I find annoying. And, you can't even apologize maturely and with sincerity.
It's the best you'll get under the circumstances.
SEG wrote:
SEG wrote:You acknowledged you asserted I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, when I didn't. And, you refuse to apologize for that. Shameful.
How do we know that for sure? I did apologise...
Your "apology" was obviously not sincere.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm

Claire wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:05 pm
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
Researching an apologist website isn't a big deal to begin with. But, it was your assertion I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, based on a preconceived notion that I find annoying. And, you can't even apologize maturely and with sincerity.
It's the best you'll get under the circumstances.
SEG wrote:
SEG wrote:You acknowledged you asserted I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, when I didn't. And, you refuse to apologize for that. Shameful.
How do we know that for sure? I did apologise...
Your "apology" was obviously not sincere.
What makes you think that? Yours was absent.
“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
Claire
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:43 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Arrghh! You've broken me Claire! I've been baaad! I apologise! Whose a naughty boy, then, whose a naughty boy?

I shouldn't have assumed you stooped so low as to research apologist websites. Now answer my damned questions!!
Researching an apologist website isn't a big deal to begin with. But, it was your assertion I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, based on a preconceived notion that I find annoying. And, you can't even apologize maturely and with sincerity.
It's the best you'll get under the circumstances.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
SEG wrote:You acknowledged you asserted I've been quoting from a Christian apologist site, specifically Got Questions, when I didn't. And, you refuse to apologize for that. Shameful.
How do we know that for sure? I did apologise...
Your "apology" was obviously not sincere.
SEG wrote:What makes you think that?
The obvious sarcastic tone behind your "apology''.
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. But, apparently it makes sense to you so you're welcome to explain why you think it does.
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.

Post Reply