.

[Hayabusa Rider]

Quoting Dr Samuel Johnson--"I have found you a reason, I am not obliged to find you an understanding"

PS Elleden. Remember, you never know who you are speaking to as far as background and education. Please explain in the most technical and precise terms, the basis for your statement. I assure you they will not be above me. Please do not cite vague speculative hypothetical references from Scientific American, but rather Science or Nature. I would prefer a dedicated Physics journal citing experiments, means and methods. Also analysis of statistical methods would be nice.

I am not trying to knock you down here, but understand that science is one of the things I DO. And as someone involved with research, I say again, show me your data.

 

[Elledan]

<< Quoting Dr Samuel Johnson--"I have found you a reason, I am not obliged to find you an understanding"

PS Elleden. Remember, you never know who you are speaking to as far as background and education. Please explain in the most technical and precise terms, the basis for your statement. I assure you they will not be above me. Please do not cite vague speculative hypothetical references from Scientific American, but rather Science or Nature. I would prefer a dedicated Physics journal citing experiments, means and methods. Also analysis of statistical methods would be nice.

I am not trying to knock you down here, but understand that science is one of the things I DO. And as someone involved with research, I say again, show me your data. >>


Which part of my posts are you referring to?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Guys, don't bother arguing with Elledan about this. No one other than God Himself can change his mind.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Two things, how science has disproved the existance of a god ANY god. Not reduced in likelyhood, but in fact.

I really don't expect to see a scientific paper devoted to research of the above, so let's stick with the 1% value for other universes with life. FYI I am familiar with the concept of DeSitter space, and various hypothetical self-perpetuating universe models. Also Many world theories. What I have a problem with is that you generated a value for a probabality. I am not aware of any experimental evidence to back up any value. Therefore I would say you BELIEVE your estimate to be true. If you presented a paper with this conclusion to even a first year grad student in physics, be prepared for a grueling examination of your means and methods, and how you reached your conclusions. Science is like sausage and law. Making an accepted theory can be nasty business.

 

[JohnnyReb]

If person A "talks with God", but there is no way to verify this in any way, then there is NO shred of evidence created. This is how science works. By the same token, "Intelligent Design Theory" is NOT a theory, because it cannot be tested. Even if there are people A through ZZZZZ, there is still no evidence created. I'm sorry, but there is no reason for me to believe that you talk with God. Would you believe me if I told you I was a prophet and God wanted you to give me all of your money? How do you even know you talk with God? Does he tell you about future events? Give you lotto numbers? Do you think that there is no chance that your brain is in fact "tricking" you into thinking that you are conversing with God? Haven't you ever been positive that you put your keys RIGHT HERE and spent 10 minutes looking for them, eventually finding them somewhere else?

If it was just me, then you would be right. But the numbers of people who talk with God qualifies as a "shred" of evidence. You need to realize that one "shred" of evidence isn't conclusive proof, and I am not saying it is.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Finally, tell me why exactly I should assume that gods exist. Only because of a lack of understanding of certain things?

All that I am saying is that a "shred" of evidence exist. You are making absolute statements that are not founded on a solid basis.

 

[AlastorX82]

Jerboy est un queer.

 

[Elledan]

<< Two things, how science has disproved the existance of a god ANY god. Not reduced in likelyhood, but in fact. >>


I actually prefer to look at the issue from the other side: what reason(s) do we have to come up with 'gods'? From a purely scientific point of view, it just doesn't make any sense.



<< I really don't expect to see a scientific paper devoted to research of the above, so let's stick with the 1% value for other universes with life. FYI I am familiar with the concept of DeSitter space, and various hypothetical self-perpetuating universe models. Also Many world theories. What I have a problem with is that you generated a value for a probabality. I am not aware of any experimental evidence to back up any value. Therefore I would say you BELIEVE your estimate to be true. If you presented a paper with this conclusion to even a first year grad student in physics, be prepared for a grueling examination of your means and methods, and how you reached your conclusions. Science is like sausage and law. Making an accepted theory can be nasty business. >>


I'm sorry. The 1%-value was merely the result of me poorly explaining my reasoning. Let me clarify:

Since we can not rule out the possibility that there are indeed mutliple universes, which might be accessible from another universe, we can not say that the chance on this being the case is zero percent. Neither can we make any reliable prediction on whether it's the case.

However, the fact remains that at least when dealing with multiple universes we've theories, evidence etc., while gods etc. are only metaphysical elements, and therefore unsupported by any evidence, only by lack of evidence, which is obviously the wrong way to create or find 'evidence' for a 'theory'.

 

[Elledan]

<< Finally, tell me why exactly I should assume that gods exist. Only because of a lack of understanding of certain things?

All that I am saying is that a "shred" of evidence exist. >>

Without saying what kind of evidence, or providing references. Uh uh.


<< You are making absolute statements that are not founded on a solid basis. >>

LOL... talking about absolute statements.

Oh, and excuse me for assuming that you had actually enjoyed some education.

 

[JohnnyReb]

However, the fact remains that at least when dealing with multiple universes we've theories, evidence etc., while gods etc. are only metaphysical elements, and therefore unsupported by any evidence, only by lack of evidence, which is obviously the wrong way to create or find 'evidence' for a 'theory'.

Elledan,
In browsing past threads I seem to remember you advocating theories based on lack of evidence. It was Stephen Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium nonsense (I think). Whether or not it was you, it set the precendence of valid "scientific" theory based on lack of evidence. PE's evidence is the holes in the fossil record.

John

 

[Elledan]

<< However, the fact remains that at least when dealing with multiple universes we've theories, evidence etc., while gods etc. are only metaphysical elements, and therefore unsupported by any evidence, only by lack of evidence, which is obviously the wrong way to create or find 'evidence' for a 'theory'.

Elledan,
In browsing past threads I seem to remember you advocating theories based on lack of evidence. It was Stephen Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium nonsense (I think). >>

Nope, that wasn't me.


<< Whether or not it was you, it set the precendence of valid "scientific" theory based on lack of evidence. PE's evidence is the holes in the fossil record.

John >>

But even PE is based on some evidence. That's one basic rule with scientific theories: if there's no evidence, there is no theory.

 

[JohnnyReb]

<<<< Finally, tell me why exactly I should assume that gods exist. Only because of a lack of understanding of certain things?

All that I am saying is that a "shred" of evidence exist. >>

Without saying what kind of evidence, or providing references. Uh uh.>>

Um... actually, I referred to the kind of evidence just a little while ago. See above.


<<<< You are making absolute statements that are not founded on a solid basis. >>

LOL... talking about absolute statements.

Oh, and excuse me for assuming that you had actually enjoyed some education. >>

Hey, I don't claim objectivity on anything, nor do I claim that logic is my sole basis for forming opinions. You have, so you need to be prepared to walk in those shoes.

You seem to feel that by stating something in absolute terms make your argument more compelling. That is a poor basis for argument.

I have debunked your "not a shred" argument.

Oh ... I would reprimand you about the personal attack being a poor debate tactic, but I seem to have started it. I apologize. But just to satisfy my personal curiosity, how old are you?

 

[Elledan]

<< <<<< Finally, tell me why exactly I should assume that gods exist. Only because of a lack of understanding of certain things?

All that I am saying is that a "shred" of evidence exist. >>

Without saying what kind of evidence, or providing references. Uh uh.>>

Um... actually, I referred to the kind of evidence just a little while ago. See above. >>


And I refuted your 'evidence' by pointing towards the fact that there have never been so many atheists in a single society in history.




<< <<<< You are making absolute statements that are not founded on a solid basis. >>

LOL... talking about absolute statements.

Oh, and excuse me for assuming that you had actually enjoyed some education. >>

Hey, I don't claim objectivity on anything, nor do I claim that logic is my sole basis for forming opinions. You have, so you need to be prepared to walk in those shoes. >>

Logic is the only way one can be objective.



<< You seem to feel that by stating something in absolute terms make your argument more compelling. That is a poor basis for argument. >>

That's a personal flaw, I guess. I'm not used to writing down whole reasonings, because I assume that those who read it have at least some of the knowledge I have, have come to conclusions I have come to.



<< I have debunked your "not a shred" argument. >>

And I 'debunked' your argument. We're back where we started, I guess.



<< Oh ... I would reprimand you about the personal attack being a poor debate tactic, but I seem to have started it. I apologize. >>

Your apology is accepted

I usually try to refrain from using personal attacks, but if the other person starts, I tend to get drawn into the name-calling.


<< But just to satisfy my personal curiosity, how old are you? >>

18.

 

[JohnnyReb]

And I refuted your 'evidence' by pointing towards the fact that there have never been so many atheists in a single society in history.

This really isn't solid. Not to say that my "I talked to Him this morning" argument is, but remember we are debating shreds. How thin can a shred be, and still be a shred? When an archeologist is searching for a lost tomb, are rumors considered shreds of evidence as to the location. Obviously yes.

Methinks you need to allow that a shred of evidence exist, and modify your rhetoric.

BTW, I'm 67, so how about a bit of respect for your elders, you young whippersnapper.


John

 

[Elledan]

<< And I refuted your 'evidence' by pointing towards the fact that there have never been so many atheists in a single society in history.

This really isn't solid. >>

And your 'evidence' is?


<< Not to say that my "I talked to Him this morning" argument is, >>

Damn straight.


<< but remember we are debating shreds. >>

No, we're debating evidence.


<< How thin can a shred be, and still be a shred? >>

Evidence is evidence, although one piece of evidence can point towards many different directions.


<< When an archeologist is searching for a lost tomb, are rumors considered shreds of evidence as to the location. Obviously yes. >>

Ah, but these rumors can be of things which truly exist, things which are located on the Earth's surface. This increases the chance that the rumor is true by quite a bit, don't you think?



<< Methinks you need to allow that a shred of evidence exist, and modify your rhetoric. >>

Let's just stick to the word 'evidence', shall we? When I said 'shred', I didn't mean twisted pieces of propaganda which might or might not be true.



<< BTW, I'm 67, so how about a bit of respect for your elders, you young whippersnapper. >>


*sticks out tongue, then dashes away while laughing*

 

[JohnnyReb]

Let's just stick to the word 'evidence', shall we? When I said 'shred', I didn't mean twisted pieces of propaganda which might or might not be true.

According to Webster (D@mned Yankee Dictionary)

Main Entry: 1ev?i?dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
- in evidence 1 : to be seen : CONSPICUOUS <trim lawns ... are everywhere in evidence -- Amer. Guide Series: N.C.> 2 : as evidence

Therefore, according to this the testimony of witnesses is evidence. I submit the testimony of a whole bunch of witnesses as to their various encounters with God.

Evidence, plain and simple. Now, do you intend to push the envelope to make evidence "overwhelming" to call it evidence, or are you ready to say Uncle?

John

 

[flavio]

Is there nay reason the spelling in the thread title hasn't been fixed yet?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Is there nay reason the spelling in the thread title hasn't been fixed yet?

When you correct others spelling, double check your own script.

John

 

[AdamDuritz99]

<< Guys, don't bother arguing with Elledan about this. No one other than God Himself can change his mind. >>



No wiser words have ever been spoken.


peace
sean

 

[454Casull]

God had better be sexless, or else there's some major inconsistencies going around.

 

[Elledan]

<< Therefore, according to this the testimony of witnesses is evidence. I submit the testimony of a whole bunch of witnesses as to their various encounters with God. >>


Ah... semantics.... How nice:

evidence information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid > signs, indications

(source: Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

Those witnesses of yours are of no use, since they can not give the required information.

Interesting thought: if your method of selecting 'evidence' would be more common, then those who claim to have been abducted by aliens should be recognized as witnesses and the existance of intelligent extraterrestrial life would have been confirmed.

I hope that you can see now how silly your reasoning actually is (no offence intended!).

 

[Elledan]

<< Guys, don't bother arguing with Elledan about this. No one other than God Himself can change his mind. >>

Funny you bring this up.

In fact, I am God. I'm merely enjoying myself by playing tricks on those who belief in me.

So yes, only God can change my mind

 

[JohnnyReb]

<<Ah... semantics.... How nice:

evidence information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid > signs, indications

(source: Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

Those witnesses of yours are of no use, since they can not give the required information.

Interesting thought: if your method of selecting 'evidence' would be more common, then those who claim to have been abducted by aliens should be recognized as witnesses and the existance of intelligent extraterrestrial life would have been confirmed.

I hope that you can see now how silly your reasoning actually is (no offence intended!). >>


Elledan,
This makes the third time you have changed the discussion.

1. Shred of Evidence
2. Evidence
3. Determination of Truth

A moving target is harder to hit. I said from the beginning this isn't conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.

If you want proof of God, then say that. Don't say that NO evidence exist. Criticizing semantics doesn't change the fact that words have meaning.

Goodnight.

John

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan,
This makes the third time you have changed the discussion.

1. Shred of Evidence >>

Just evidence will do fine.
2. Evidence[/i] >>

Yes.
3. Determination of Truth[/i] >>

Where?



<< A moving target is harder to hit. I said from the beginning this isn't conclusive evidence, but it is evidence. >>

If you've got a group of 200 million raving lunatics who have all tell the same story, it must be evidence?

Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.



<< If you want proof of God, then say that. >>

I've asked for, begged for and informed whether there is any evidence (gathered through observations, experiments or mathematics) which points towards the existance of supernatural life.


<< Don't say that NO evidence exist. >>

Are you suggesting there is any evidence?


<< Criticizing semantics doesn't change the fact that words have meaning. >>

Hmm... weren't you the one who started the 'semantics'-stuff?



<< Goodnight.

John >>

G'night

 

[Freejack2]

Heres a mindbender for you:

God, up until this morning was visiting the earth in the form of a cow in a pasture near London, England.
This morning god was slaughtered for McDonalds hamburgers.
God is pissed.

While this is unlikely, you never know...