by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
AuldSoul:
If a Creator exists, then the Creator is real and there is always evidence of real existence.
Please provide proof for that statement, i.e. prove the non-existence of something for which no evidence exists.
[Edited because the above doesn't go far enough]
Please prove that nothing exists for which there is no evidence.
Oh, and also, please prove the non-existence of evidence for something non-existent (anything at all will do).
"If a Creator exists, then the Creator is real and there is always evidence of real existence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
In others words, all real things have evidence, there is evidence for the creator, therefore the creator is true.
I hope I'm getting this right.
ackack
Even I'm getting lost in the diatribe, and I'm a real tenacious b*gger! Sorry guys, but I'm backing away from the keyboard...
What a silly thread
Hi all, Just wanted to come out of my lurking mode and say HI
Hey Ri, hello. We should really shut down this thread and start a new one of ID, and another one about the logic existence (or non-existence) of God. :)
ackack
ack? How are WE going to shut down this thread? Tell me and I will help you.
Easy. Just start two others threads on the subject! :) I'll start one on ID, you can start one saying hello and lets talk about the existence of God. :)
ackack
Oh NO ackack, I've seen what happens went threads talk about the exsitence of God. The Atheist come crawl out of the woodwork.
Is that a good or bad thing?
ackack
AuldSoul
Actuality without perception is moot. A perceiver without opinion is moot. Perception is always, at some level, influenced by emotions and prejudices. Objectivity is impossible for any human.
ALL human perception is subjective. Without exception. And that includes human perception with regard to data collected by unbiased perceivers, such as cameras, radio telescopes, devices for monitoring particle states. All human perception, without any exception, is subjective. Even if my perceptions agree with your perceptions, and even if the whole world agrees with our perceptions, it is still subjective.
Please show me where people have said a single human is capable of subjectivity! I am fascinated why you argue what no one has argued against. Do you have an imaginary interlocutor? I make it clear objectivity is a GOAL; I say "strive to attain". If you want to have a discussion based on a wilful misinterpretation of what I think, go right ahead; as you have been misrepresenting what I have said for several posts now the fact you are so wrapped up in what you think I have said or want me to say to actually pay attention to what I do say comes as no surprise.
You've even re-worded statements of mine to fit in with your argument better, and somehow conceive such dishonest argumentation doesn't negate the value of whatever it is you think you're doing. You certainly don't respond to me pointing it out so I take it as you don't refute my claim in this area.
I hope you see what I mean by defining the terms, "labeling," being the mechanism that which determines what can and cannot be considered. I think most posters here get what I am driving at with that point.
If reality includes more than what is physically observable, but science (like you)...
Hey everyone, I am science! Cool, you heard it first here!
... considers any consideration of that which falls outside that boundary as lacking objectivity, then any evidence put forward indicating reality includes more than what is physically observable will immediately be ruled biased and prejudiced. In other words, according to your definition of objective, if reality includes more than what is physical and material, then the definition for objective is an oxymoronic definition.
By the by, if reality includes more than what is physical and material that does not make "reality" expand to include the supernatural. It makes "natural" expand to include more than just the physical and material.
Reality always exists, we are just very slow to discover its existence.
Or accept that what was thought real never was?
Again, you are making an argument that supports the possibility of the existence of a creator which I clearly concede exists. More responses to your imaginary interlocutor? And I thought I liked the sound of my own keyboard...
Would you like precedent for testimony regarding a Creator that was ruled as admissable in a court of law? There is LOTS of precedent.
If, as per dictionary definition evidence is 'Something that furnishes proof', then testimony that does not furnish proof cannot be evidence.
Abaddon: Something that furnishes proofSo if my sofa furnishes my apartment, my sofa is an apartment? Evidence furnishes evidence? Is that what you are suggesting?
Why do you think distorting what I posted makes your argument impressive? I said;
...one major definiton of evidence is;
Something that furnishes proof (Mirriam-webster)
It's not even what I said, it's a dictionary definition. Is it one you don't like?
You have something mixed up if you are trying to define a word by itself
You are the one that is seriously mixed up mate. If this was the first time you had done this kind of thing I could believe it was a mistake... but on this thread it is your modus operandi. As is trying to define a word by yourself to suit your ends...
All testimony is evidence. You have not put forth anything to demonstrate otherwise, you have just stated otherwise.
If, as per dictionary definition evidence is 'Something that furnishes proof', then testimony that does not furnish proof cannot be evidence.
Get over it. Or misrepresent what I said again and make more statements of the obvious no one has disagreed with.
The merits of any evidence are weighed by those who review the evidence put before them. A thing is proved when the evidence is sufficient to compel an opinion or belief.
So if one has evidence "sufficient to compel an opinion or belief" in something they have proof of something? Remember your definition AuldSoul...
I haven't made a lot of claims beyond pointing out your errors of statement.
Abaddon: Because there is no evidence for a Creator.This would include personal experience. Meaning, if LittleToe has had personal experiences, LittleToe has evidence (for himself, to inform his own opinions and beliefs) that cannot be proven scientifically and are not privy to your examination. Therefore, since you adhere to the scientific method, to reasonably assert that there is no evidence, you would be required to falsify his claim.
Just a side note; this oft quoted (at least by you) statement of mine was made in responding to the question (by Spectrum);
Something I don't understand is why evolutionist go apeshit when Creationists bring a Creator into the mix when all they are doing is exactly what evolutionists are doing which is observing facts and theorising around those facts.
So I was speaking of my opinion about why a group of people reacted in a way based on my opinion of whether a certain group accepted there was evidence of god. My opinion is they don't accept there is evidence of god. I am sorry the context of the statement and the groups it was referring to were so misunderstood by you. Side note over
I don't have to falsify such claims. I believe such testimony is probably a fair representation of a person's experience. That doesn't mean it is "sufficient to compel an opinion or belief" in the external reality of the event.
If, as per dictionary definition evidence is 'Something that furnishes proof', then testimony that does not furnish proof cannot be evidence. By your own definition of proof and the dictionary definition of evidence, something is NOT evidence unless it is "sufficient to compel an opinion or belief".
As subjectivity is such a main plank of the narrative space you need to sustain the possibility your beliefs are true, you cannot logically assert that evidence is evidence unless someone accepts themselves it is evidence, as it is the individual's assessment of whether something is "sufficient to compel an opinion or belief" that determines if they accept something as proof. MY statement was correct for ME. Is the concept that I was giving an opinion so difficult to understand? I know that there are people who believe they have evidence of god (unless you're willing to assert otherwise). My statement obviously implies I don't accept such evidence.
This whole thing started because I told you you MUST allow for the possibility that evidence for a Creator exists.
And I Clary do as I accept that a creator might exist, which implies there might be evidence discovered that supports its existence. This whole thing is caused by wrong-headed semantic pedantry on your part. You class all testimony as evidence. You are wrong; QED.
Even if evidence ONLY exists in LittleToe's brain, evidence exists, thereby falsifying your statement. But that is because you used an absolute when there is a possibility you are wrong.
As I said early on, if the Creator is a reality there is obviously some evidence of that reality. But while you allow for the possibility of a Creator, you are unwilling to allow for the possibility of evidence of a Creator.
More misrepresentation. I accept there may be a creator. How can I accept there may be a creator unless I accept there may be data yet unknown which might prove that there is one? You force upon me a logical absurdity of your own devising. You are accusing me of the impossible; how COULD I concede there might be a god unless I implicitly accepted there MIGHT one day or somewhere be such evidence?!
Now whilst you may swallow down logical absurdities, in this case, I don't; you've had this entire argument with yourself, effectively.
Your pedantry applied to a court of law would have them say 'there is no evidence of this man's guilt although there may be unknown or mislabelled evidence of this man's guilt' instead of 'not guilty'. Everyone understands such a statement as 'not guilty' implies the expanded statement above.
You have dredged up all sorts of side issues, and I have responded and allowed myself to be pulled into side arguments,
Don't forget the distortion of what I said! Oh, no, that's not a side issue... but then that's me being subjective again, LOL
...but the fact remains: Evidence for a Creator exists, in the form of testimony. And the fact remains that you said, "There is no evidence for a Creator."
Evidence is 'Something that furnishes proof', thus testimony that does not furnish proof cannot be evidence. This is by definition a subjective statement, so further verbiage essentially pointing this out wold only be of interest to yourself and your imaginary interlocutor.
I am holding you to your standards. Feel free to hold me to mine.
Well, how about standards of honest conduct? I've always assumed you've had those but you don't seem to hold to them. I never expected you to distort things I said or accuse me of logical absurdities I never subscribed to.
I insist on all possible evidence being considered as covered by your blanket statement.
And you can darling sweetie-pie! Stamp your little footsies! Immerse yourself in your little subjective opinion, as we all do. I'll stick with a dictionary to tell me what words mean. I might be 'science' (cool, I've been anthropomorphasized; does this mean I get to hang out with Death and the Muses?), but you are NOT 'dictionary'. You can make it up as you go along if it floats your boat or creates a narrative space you think is conducive to your wish that belief in god based on testimony is as valid as belief in gravity based on evidence.
Including testimony, personal experience (which would only be externalized in the form of testimony, but serves undeniably as evidence for the experiencer), as well as potentially unknown or mislabelled evidence
All of which is NOT evidence as evidence is 'Something that furnishes proof'. Something you do not know exists does not furnish proof. Something that is mislabelled does not furnish proof; anything that does not furnish proof cannot be evidence. Someone might WANT it to be evidence, but that's besides the point.
I also said that anyone who claims objectivity is lying, and that I could prove anyone is not objective in very short order. You have never made the claim (to my knowledge), and I am perfectly willing to categorize you as one who is not objective, if you are willing to wear the label. As long as you make a pretense otherwise, or continue to write as though objectivity is possible for a human, well, I will continue stripping away the facade.
LOL. Ooooo... scary. And what about your facade... ooh, no, the pedantry, semantic error and straw man arguments aren't exactly hidden behind a facade, are they?
Do you think I care about the threats of someone when they are demonstrably wrong in their understanding of the very words they build their argument around? When they ignore the context of the question the statement "Because there is no evidence for a Creator" was made in (answering a question about evolutionists by giving the reason why evolutionists who hold that belief have that belief and thus obviously stating what their response would be)? When they re-phrase what I have said to suit their argument? Accuse me of belief in logical absurdities of their own devising and when they don't admit to using such fallacious argumentation? As I have never claimed I could achieve true objectivity, or that any group could achieve true objectivity, I don't think you need to flatter yourself as performing a public service.
I'd sort your own act out before you try and sort out mine.
Now, although I doubt you are interested in what I think and may well tell me what I was saying or change the wording to suit what you want me to say, I think the following;
I see arguing for unknowability/undeterminability as an irrelevant 'truth'. Philosophically it is 'true' but we do not act as though it were 'true' in everyday life. Almost our every action is predicated upon knowability and determinability.
We know that there MAY be fairies at the bottom of the garden, but we don't believe it as although there COULD be we know the nature of the 'evidence' FOR it is of a different order to that for the the existence of cheese, even if it is possible that we are wrong about the cheese AND the fairies.
We know that there MAY be a creator. Some of us don't believe it as although there COULD be we know the nature of the 'evidence' FOR it is of a different order to that for the existence of cheese, even if it is possible that we are wrong about the cheese AND the creator.
Others choose to believe there IS a creator despite the fact such 'evidence' is of a different nature to that for things almost everyone agrees exists, like cheese.
One grouping of the creator believers doesn't mind this. They accept it. Good for them.
Another grouping of the creator believers feel that because the nature of the 'evidence' for a creator is of a different order to that for 'cheese', and that this very difference in order of 'evidence' is the basis of others disbelief in the creator, they need to argue that the two different orders of 'evidence' for cheese and a creator are in fact of equal worth.
Because of the nature of the order of 'evidence' they choose to accept, this is difficult; even the most fervent believer in a creator has to accept that a creator is not demonstrable to the satisfaction of almost everyone in the same way as cheese.
As they cannot show the two orders of 'evidence' are equal in value to the satisfaction of those who only accept the same order of 'evidence' that applies to cheese, one technique is to essentially attack all orders of 'evidence' and the ability of any individual to determine anything with accuracy.
There may be elements of 'truth' in such techniques, but the technique fails to take into account that those using it will use the same order of 'evidence' used for cheese in everyday life, and if someone tries to convince them something (say some money making scheme) is real in everyday life, they will not believe that someone unless they can use the same order of 'evidence' as that applied to cheese above. Many who use such techniques will ALSO insist that the same orders of 'evidence' they accept for the existence of their creator do not apply to other similar entities.
I'm amazed people engage in such double standards and expect to be take seriously, especially amazed at those who engage in partisan double standards and expect to be taken seriously, but that's just my subjective opinion.
Funky
Please prove that nothing exists for which there is no evidence.
Oh, and also, please prove the non-existence of evidence for something non-existent (anything at all
will do).
Hehehe
