In Spirit recently asked how members can return after being banned. The response was by "following the rules, and perhaps repudiating they past behavior."
I don't recall breaking forum guidelines. Instead, I was accused of sockpuppet-ing a user by the name of ProgrammingGodJordan. I was a fairly active user with a narrow topic of interest: psychology. In contrast, PGJ posted about mathematics and computer science. Topics which I know nothing about; but I suppose that if the brain can make constellations out of stars, it can easily create a connection between me and PGJ
Given that I've always followed the rules and the PGJ accusations were not substantiated, the only past behavior I can atone for is my tendancy to ignore questions that are irrelevant to a given topic. For example, being asked if I'm a YEC when the topic is Consciousness.
Thus my best attempt at redemption, if our infallible Mods will grant mercy, is an "Ask Me Anything" thread. I'll start with an often asked but rarely informative question: My denomination is SDA.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"Breezy Ask me anything"
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
There's a lot in that question you know we disagree on, for example, the functional role of evidence or the perceivability of objectivity.
Putting those essential issues aside, the most I can do is point to where I think that evidence is likely to emerge. For example, consciousness raises many issues. It seems to escape reductive explanations. It can be correlated with neural activity but such correlations fail at explaining why that activity is accompanied by experience. The apparent irreducibility of experience have made some wonder how it could have evolved, and speculate that consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter, not just brains. That there is a quality of experience to being a tree or a lightbulb just by having mass, similar to gravity.
I agree with the proposition that God exists in much the same way you might agree that we are not alone in the universe. Finding evidence for either proposition may be a matter of further advancements in our methods and tools. Until then, consciousness would be a good place to look for two reasons: Firstly, because evolution doesn't seem to give a clean explanation for how it originated or developed, opening the door to alterante explanations. Secondly, because deities are, if nothing else, conscious entities.
So none then, same old Breezy.
@Breezy. Your online name should be "Oily." One post and you are back to the same old bullshit. Evading direct questions, citing inane excuses, and doing all you can to shift topics away from anything you are uncomfortable addressing.
EVERYONE ON THE SITE NEEDS TO STOP FEEDING BREEZY SHIT THAT HE CAN TWIST AND TURN AND SIMPLY HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE ON SHELDON'S FIRST QUESTION.
"What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?"
Sheldon asks for "objective evidence" and breezy tries to slim away by saying some stupid shit like "We disagree on, for example, the functional role of evidence or the perceivability of objectivity."
No one asked if you agreed or disagreed. No one talked about perceivability of objectivity. The question is straight forward and simple. Objective evidence is clearly defined and even more clearly perceived as "Objective Evidence is all about perception."
"Objective evidence refers to information based on FACTS that can be PROVED by means of SEARCH LIKE ANALYSIS, MEASUREMENT, and OBSERVATION. One can EXAMINE and EVALUATE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. "
"Information based on FACTS that can be PROVED THROUGH ANALYSIS, MEASUREMENT, OBSERVATION, and OTHER SUCH MEANS OF RESEARCH.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/objective-evidence.html
So stop your bullshit oily slip away tactics and respond to the question. No one said anything about evidence. Sheldon specifically asked for "OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE."? AS IT IS DEFINED AND NOT AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE.
DO YOU HAVE "OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR DEITY OR NOT?" YES or NO.
Stop the squirming. Stop the evading. ANSWER THE QUESTION!
The question is only straightforward if you haven't put much thought into evidence or objectivity, so I'll explain.
Evidence is theory-dependent or theory-defined. If you are looking for evidence of a murder, then MURDER constricts what qualifies as evidence. Blood on the ground becomes evidence of murder only if we're looking for a murder. If instead I put you in a room, and ask you to find evidence of what happened, without specifying what that even was, you might conclude that this blood on the ground is evidence that a surgery took place. Far from killing someone, a person was healed.
The term used for this is underdetermination. Evidence always underdetermines theory. That creates a problem for Sheldon's question. If he's looking for evidence of a Deity, then that Deity defines what is or isn't evidence. For example, if all we know about God is that He created the world, then much like the blood on the ground, the very existence of the world is evidence for God.
However, knowing about underdetermination (and assuming Sheldon doesn't) its obvious that the existence of the world is not evidence exclusively for the existence of God. Much like the surgery, it could also be evidence for whatever other cosmological theory predicts the existence of the world.
Assuming that Sheldon wants exclusive evidence that doesn't underdetermine the existence of God (which is philosophically impossible), I pointed him to research in consciousness; for no other reason than because elements of it fail to be explained by most of our current theories. In other words, I still can't say that consciousness is proof of murder, but we can at least cross surgery off the list.
If we're all intelligent adults, then we have to accept that the world is not as straightforward as we would like.
It does not matter if evidence is "theory dependent." You were asked for "Objective Evidence" It is clearly defined and I have given you two definitions. Stop your squirming, rationalizing bullshit and answer the question.
Yes, murder quantifies what constitutes evidence for murder. What quantifies evidence for your deity? What objectively quantifies evidence for your deity.
Blood on the ground becomes evidence of murder only if we're looking for a murder. WRONG! Blood on the ground may or may not be connected to the murder. There are a million ways the blood could have gotten there. It might not even be human blood. It is only evidence for a murder if it can be directly linked to the murder. WHAT DIRECT LINKS OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE FOR YOUR DEITY? STOP SQUIRMING AND RESPOND TO THE QUESTION.
underdetermination: WTF: "Underdetermination is a thesis explaining that for any scientifically based theory there will always be at least one rival theory that is also supported by the evidence" THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR. OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR DEITY! WHAT THE FUCK THEORY DO YOU THINK I HAVE. I WILL ACCEPT ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE. DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
re: "Then that Deity defines what is or isn't evidence." NO! That makes your argument completely circular. "God exists because the bible says so. God wrote the bible so he exists." Your deity does not get to determine the evidence. The evidence is (READ THE DAMN DEFINITIONS). subject to study, measurement, and verification.
Research in consciousness gets you no place near a god. God of the Gaps. We can not explain consciousness therefore god. Are you really that dense? Why don't you just say the frigging words/
"I have no good empirical evidence for the existence of my deity/" Once in your life try being honest!.
Gaps are what have the potential to differentiate between competing theories.
@Breezy: Do you know what a "THEORY" is. IF YOU HAVE A THEORY, YOU ARE STATING YOU HAVE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. WHAT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE FOR YOUR DEITY? Or are you just going to squirm and lie some more?
Same-ol'-same-ol". It would seem some things never change... *chuckle*...
Yes I know what theories are. I'm giving you the best answers I can, with the little you're giving. For example, this was your definition of objective evidence: "Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation."
The definition may be "clear" and coherent, but it has no practical use. It only describes the way in which one might find evidence, not the relationship that evidence has to the thing being evidenced. Take the blood/murder scenario. Based on your definition, as long as blood can be analyzed, measured, or observed, then it classifies as objective evidence. Clearly, your definition is missing the most important part, which is what links blood to the murder and not something else.
Ask better questions. Get better definitions. And you'll have better answers
@ʝօɦn 6lX ɮʀeeʐy
So the answer was no then, you can't demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. Sadly you're still as dishonest as you always were, and no amount of new incantations of online personas will solve that.
Except we don't know that, unless you can demonstrate any objective evidence for the claim, but you can't John, all you ever do is try and evade giving an honest answer, and post wishy washy hokum peppered with argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies to try and reverse the burden of proof. Here is a perfect example of you using that fallacy in your post...
Not being able to explain something is not evidence for a deity, it's not evidence for anything. This is the oldest most facile canard in all of religious apologetics. No different to wild savages believing there is an evil spirit in a volcano, because they didn't understand how volcanoes are formed.
The answer isn't no; if the world didn't exist then the claim that God created it is false. The existance of the world is consistant with the claim that God created it.
The issue is that I rarely see the word evidence or proof being used professionaly in scientific circles. Much like cognistics definition, which he cited from a legal or judicial site, those words are used outside it. So you're looking for science under legal terms.
A more appropriate way to answer your question is that the existence of the world supports the theory that God created it. And the way to distinguish between the God theory and some other theory that is also supported by the existence of the world, is to look for joints where the two are disconnected. That's where consciousness comes in in my opinion. To you looking there might sound like a fallacy, but to me it's an appropriate way to get the answer you want.
How are ya Sheldon!
I'd say there is tons of evidence brother, starting with you/us and literally everything in existence, and I know ppl hate to hear things like that but it's very true in this situation, life is.. in a sense it's own literal deity. And no1 will want to openly debate wether life exists or not. Lol and we can all agree that there is different levels/ranks of life from mycelium to Humans, and none of us deny that these life forms exist, so we should be on pretty.common ground so far.
I think where the problem comes in is pride of being the highest rank of life on earth, and it's far to humbling to admit that there is a.more powerful ultimate rank within forms of life.
In science with proper practises it would be only natural to say with confidence that there is higher life than us, given the example of what we have to work with.. earth. (Also The Most High, and angels would be called E.T my science)
We are a species that understands the measurement of 6 feet tall, but 6 ft tall is based of nothing ...since we are most likely microscopic beings, and even what we think of as soo huge(earth) may to be what we call microscopic in true reality.
So we have not even a clue! how large we are at all. On the one true scale of life that is.
There is no starting point for the measurement outside of our perception, so none are accurate on a E.T scale of thinking.
Hell the only thing that makes governments world wide legit is the people's belief in them without the ppls belief, government is just some weird dudes making club house rules. Haha ownership is another created illusion of mankind.
Yet ppl really belive these things exist on a legitamte factual level, and they are truly not real.
This reveals a trend, of humans are #1. Majority Followers and do not think for them selves.
2. Humans can convince themselves of anything, and are taken in by anything that ligns up with there desires.
Bc the actual fact is there is no good legit arguments against The Most High.
And a personal note, sadly most people aren't debating with there own minds at all, most ppl... I can bet is a Google Vs Google debate.
I will never preform a Google search for my answers to anything. Bc I am of the constant realization that if a man made it, so can I.
So I'm against looking to other men's work for answers.
Im of the understanding that I've never been to China, there fore I can not say for 100% fact it even exists(of.course it does) but me personally can not say that as a fact...bc It's not a fact to me until I've experienced it, all I have is other men's words and pictures. That can not be called a fact by me in that case.
Websters dictionary is of no.higher class than myn... if I was to begin writing one. We are both men with understanding of.english, many of my definitions could in fact be more accurate/fitting than websters.
I.hope you think like this as well, bc if.not... then these men our your gods Without your full realization, if you automatically believe everything from the system and take it as the word and fact without your personal exp. Involved you.are indeed claiming the system and the men behind it as your God.
Did anyone understand any of that rambling nonsense?
I certainly see nothing approaching objective evidence.
@Sheldon "Did anyone understand any of that rambling nonsense?
I certainly see nothing approaching objective evidence."
I don't know if I would freely admit that was hard for you to understand buddy, no offence.
With IQ having to.do with your ability to figure things out, that statement would represent a low intelligence, which is tottaly different than education.
Life is real evidence. And ranks of different life forms is even more evidence.
And something that should be listed as a fact is ALL body's thier organs/bones are in reality inatimate objects.
If you have killed any animals like I have it's plain and easy to see how amazing it is that, that body EVER had any ability to move, the same goes for the brain Ever having ability to be active bc it by itself is nothing more than something similar to our intestines lol.
Your post was complete fucking gibberish, there wasn't a single cogent argument in it, let alone any objective evidence, and you'd best stop with the ad hominem right now, because trust me I have never been more in the right frame of mind to put some arrogant keyboard warrior in their place.
Evidence for what, and in what way? See what I mean, incoherent gibberish. I asked if John could demonstrate objective evidence for any deity, and he offered argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, and you offer vapid cryptic rhetoric.
Do you understand what objective means? I'll give you a clue, when you started your unevidenced claims with the precursor "I would say" you were stating definitively that you were offering personal opinion. that would suggest you don't know what objective means.
I have no idea what new insanity that is meant to communicate, but the fact you are insulting other people's intelligence, yet can not see the hilarious irony of the spelling in that sentence says it all? That possessive apostrophe alone is comedy gold.
What the hell was Alchemy's post????
I.kept thinking.I was.having an.LSD flashback.while reading.that post.by Alchemy; and.I've never.done LSD.
"I.kept thinking.I was.having an.LSD flashback.while reading.that post.by Alchemy; and.I've never.done LSD."
Lol this I consider a compliment.
@Alchemy: RE: "Lol this I consider a compliment. " And that, is the first thing you have said that makes sense. It just does not make the same sense to us as it does to you.
I stopped reading at "ppl"
If one doesn't have enough respect for oneself and the others around them to use real words and communicate in complete sentences, those around them are not obligated to give them the respect of paying attention to their communication or responding to it.
lol I remember my response being much shorter.
I am conferring with Nyar. We will provide our decision about giving you another chance soon.
How about if he answers Sheldon's question honestly without all the BS you will consider it. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ...... Else-wise we are getting the same old breezy brand of BS. Dishonesty and evasion, just like his post above.
@Cognostic Your another person who had a problem understanding another comment I had wrote.
I'm telling ya boys I wld not admit that lol looks bad on you.
But besides that I realize most people here are just kids who have been highly educated, and not a crowd of highly intelligent individuals. That's not a offensive comment, it's just true by probability alone, most ppl are not highly intelligent bc it can't be taught.
There is no evasion or dishonesty or BS in my comment friend, so Idk how you came up with those three observations, makes me think you just spurted out the first thing that came to your mind, instead of pondering and going into any type of deep thought about what was actually said.
@Alchemy: I am honestly not taking a stab at you. Frankly your posts are long and your English ...... well........ rough.
RE: " I realize most people here are just kids who have been highly educated, and not a crowd of highly intelligent individuals."
Wow. Did you miss the boat on that one. Most of the people on this site have university degrees and are professionals. We don't get a lot of kids. Well, sometimes they pop in with an assignment to talk to an atheist. (Are you aware of the fact that the majority of atheists are White, Middle class, Males.)
FROM THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER:
Atheists, in general, are more likely to be male and younger than the overall population; 68% are men, and the median age of atheist adults in the U.S. is 34 (compared with 46 for all U.S. adults). Atheists also are more likely to be white (78% are Caucasian vs. 66% for the general public) and highly educated: About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 27% of the general public.
Not much room for kids.
Well sorry for the Kid comment lol, but even in what you said tho that has to do with degres etc.. confirms the highly educated statment I made vs highly intelligent.
And That's my point of highly educated people often say that can't read paragraphs with bad grammar and etc. It seems there true intelligence lowers, I know a actual rocket scientist who swears up and down he can not change a tire. Lol.
Alchemy, please share your definition of intelligence.
Intelligence is more of a genetic trait, a human can be of extremely high intelligence and never have been to school there entire life, not one completed grade, not even knowing how to read and write.
A example of this in the animal kingdom is wolves vs dogs... I've raised high percentage wolf hybrids 90%+.... wolves are much harder to train than normal dogs, why is that?
It's bc they are of higher intelligence and even tho they fully understand the trick you are attempting to train them, they choose to not listen.. simply bc they know they can.
Another good example of higher intelligence is a lil story about my aunt, her first day of kintergarden the teacher gave her a demand, she stomped her foot to the floor and stuck her tounge out... Lol her having that understanding naturally that she don't have to listen to this other person(the teacher) while all the other kids belived it was a have to situation.
Intelligence and education are two totally different realms.
If I was going to write a actual true definition on my own.... of intelligence all fit a proper, (which I may do now lol) Id have to take time sit and ponder, to come up with the most accurate and reliable definition.
And of course as we all know alredy...intelligence has to do with your ability to figure things out all on your own.
I’m going to copy/paste this in a new string. I’ll respond there.
This string is for something else.