Subjective Evidence of Gods

Actions speak louder than words.Long winded multi-referencing posts are acts of evasion not methods of answering. You were asked to answer the following questions honestly and explicitly:1) Is the Earth billions of years old or only a few days old?
2) Is your answer to the above a mere opinion or an evidenced fact?Why not just try and do that?I'll tell you why you can't answer the above. It's because in the absence of any test for Last Thursdayism any conclusion about the age of the Earth being billions of years old is, by the terms of your dimwitted argument, merely an opinion. And you won't admit that because you know how silly it makes you look.Prove me wrong. Answer the questions honestly and explicitly.But if you can't answer them then I urge anyone reading this to think about the conequences for any scientifically evidenced conclusion competing with an unfalsifiable alternative possibility. Did evolution actually occur? Who can say if you haven't tested for the claim that Satan undetectably planted all of the evidence for evolution in order to lead us to ungodly conclusions?RAZ has created a world in which there are no conclusions. Only opinions. Because there is an unevidenced and unfalsifiable alterative to every scientific fact you can name.

I have answered these questions. Repeating them just shows you do not understand\comprehend the answers, so repeating them would serve no purpose.Badgering serves no purpose. Trolling serves no purpose.Have you proposed a means to test for supernatural effects yet? If you don't have a means to test for this, then how can you claim to eliminate it from consideration?Why can't you answer this simple question once and for all and clear this issue up?abe: Curiously this is what your "evidence" of human imagination amounts to ... This is your "intuitive thinking" at work, not an evidence based argument.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added abe sectionEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Can anyone tell me how old RAZD thinks the Earth is? He is obvioulsy unwilling to say...........I wonder why. Yes - Empirically. Dude - Give me a specific example of a supernatural entity that you want tested and I'll talk you through it.Or explain to you (again) why it is that things which cannot be empirically detected are necessarily sourced from human imagination and not very likely to actually exist.

Straggles struggles again What are you testing empirically? Be specific. You started with Thor, and have thus far absolutely failed to substantiate your claim in any way.http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism

quote:

---

* Kaviraj2: RT @postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
* Talirman: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (6) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence - http://t.co/96WjaKH

---

While you continue to evade the fact that you have a false dichotomy here. Detectable phenomena may not be empirically testable (variable results that cannot be repeated) and still not be products of human imagination. This means your logic is absolutely false, as has been pointed out many times.http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism

quote:

---

... In their arguments, pseudoskeptics will freely employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth, i.e. than to pursue science. Because it promotes a falsely scientific facade, Pathological Skepticism is a class of pseudoscience.

---

It amuses me no end how completely this describes you and your pattern of behavior.From Message 274

quote:

---

Message 94: If the thing is question is not empirically detectable then any conception of it must be derived from the internal workings of the human mind. How could it possibly be otherwise?

​

Here we have another false dichotomy by Straggles, who seems to dearly love living in a black and white world. The simple answer is that there are many possible sources that (as yet) are not "empirically detectable." One is the well known and documented religious experience.

​

If you met a supernatural being, would that not de facto be classed as a religious experience?

​

Are there documents of religious experiences where people claim to have met supernatural beings?

​

Can you detect when religious experiences occur (ie changes in brain activity)?

​

Can you empirically test religious experiences to see if they actually are experiences of supernatural beings etc?

​

Can religious experiences be broadly or narrowly classed as consistent?

---

These questions remain unanswered. The evidence of a false dichotomy is ignored (cognitive dissonance?) while he repeats his unsubstantiated assertions.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added Message 274 section

Subjective Evidence of Gods.Once, this universe never existed - there was no nature, environment, light, energy forces, science, laws - not even nothingness existed. Pre- Multi- and parallel universes violate this universe's finite factor, and only pushes the goal poster further: we still end up with the same brick wall. Thus:There is no scientific alternative to Creationism: a universe maker for the universe. The sound premise wins the arguement.

quote:

---

You didn't answer the question.
The factory owner is the factory owner says nothing.
Give me a name.

---

I did answer the question and you are running away from it. It has nothing to do with a name [this appeared only after humans emerged!]. The metaphoric example I gave says if a factory must have a factory owner, the universe must have a universe maker; to disprove the latter you must disprove the former.The sound premise wins.

Show me any evidence of a Universe maker. Why is it always the comparison of a man made object, when he universe is a natural phenomenon.

quote:

---

Show me any evidence of a Universe maker. Why is it always the comparison of a man made object, when he universe is a natural phenomenon.

---

Showing a universe maker is easy: produce a container which is size friendly! The proof factor is neutralized because both premises cannot do thisL you have no merit in assuming you have proof of any kind.There is also no such thing as 'nature': show your evidence of this? I offered examples of proof and logic we see before us, which is called 'EVIDENCE AND PROOF' - the man made factor does not negate this; it is the most scientific premise of all we have. When you can prove a factor can subsist without a factory owner - then you may have a case. Of course you do not, and of course you want to reject this check mate response.

You are making the claim that there is a universe maker, it is up to you to show evidence, not me to show there isn't. Where is any evidence, real evidence not ridiculous analogies.

What you call ridiculous, I call manifest before your eyes example of proof, and well as the most scientific premise we have: cause & effect.It is your premise which has no proof whatsoever of the premise you debate. The correct protocol of this issue is seen in the document which introduced the creation premise; the greatest philosophers and scientists, like Spinoza and Einstein, all agreed there has to be an X factor aplying [read, not nature] for the universe's emergence; and such a premise is only another form of subscribing to creationism! Step by step:Is the universe you inhabit infinite?

We agree that intelligence is part of our existence. We also agree that there is some kind of intelligence, whether it is just information or anything else you want to call it that exists whether or not our universe exists.There either is an intelligent agent or there isn't. Your subjective belief based on what you know objectively is that that our Earthly intelligence evolved from a non-intelligent source. My subjective belief based on what I objectively know is that it is from an intelligent source. I suggest that my conclusion is more intuitive because frankly it makes more sense. As I have said before that just because we have a human tendency to explain things not understood tells us nothing about whether or not a non-specific intelligent agent is behind our existence. It just isn't relevant. That would be your conclusion based on your intuition. Isn't truth something? That is based on the circular reasoning that God doesn't exist. Once again that is based on the same circular reasoning. In your mind there is no god(s) so that becomes the only possible conclusion.

Where is the premise of creation? That is the evidence I am asking for.
The so called X factor does not mean creation. Where is any evidence of creation, rather than natural causation. GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE.

IamJoseph,You are being willfully ignorant.I have explained the definition of the word nature and natural causes extensively to you in order to assist you in making sense. By using terms incorrectly, in a way that you know does not make sense to most readers is not helping your arguments. You are actively, intentionally not making sense when you use words in the incorrect manner when you actually know it is wrong.Here it is again for you - Message 177I have also covered the reasons why it is difficult to rest a premise on an unwarranted assumption. You assumption is that God exists.I have covered this here - Message 200You are also making use of the false dichotomy logical fallacy.This fallacy involves a situation where only two possible alternatives are given when there are actually many.You supply two options only.Intelligent designer (you particular version of God outlined in the Hebrew Bible) and natural causes for the creation of the universe.There are many other possibilities.I notice you are about to derail this thread.Let me answer your first question though. No one can prove this one way or another. The universe being finite or infinite has not been proven by anyone. The only way this would ever be proven is if we find the edge of the universe. As this has not yet happened, no one knows with any certainty if the universe is infinite or not. You cannot answer this question either. Your bible saying the words "In the beginning" does not prove that the universe is finite. It could be argued that the words 'In the beginning' does not mean finite or infinite. I am aware that you believe that these words do mean the universe is finite. But in order for this to be correct, you would have to believe that God is unable to create an infinite universe. As your God is all powerful, then he could create an infinite universe. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Then present the other possibilites that are different than the only two or not a combination of those two.You do realize that that premise has been around for thousands of years and now you purport to solve the mystery? Butterfly do you even understand what you are talking about?Dawn Bertot

Don't you think that a person claiming to have actually been the one to have seen the resurrected Jesus, would know if he or she was telling the truth or lying? Suppose I told you I had a "Bigfoot" sighting 3 years ago while I was camping in Yellow Stone National Park. Do you think I would know if I were telling the truth or not? Unless I was completely schizophrenic I would know the truth beyond all doubt. People are often confusing your "normal run of the mill martyrs," with actual first hand eye witnesses. There is a very big difference. Those people were not just dying for what they "believed," but for what they were claiming they actually saw.