Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[JimBowie1958]

thanks for proving my point for me!

Oh, and thank YOU for proving MY point for me!

roflmao. you really are a stupid ****.

you mean the one you comb your hair around?
no problem.

Heheh, now you are fantasizing about me combing your hair?

This is your preferred level of discussion; school yard bullshit because you do not know what the **** you are talking about, loser.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit !
we'll do this one more time.
the above is a refuting of your obsession with your own education about every 100 pages in the creationist thread you bring it up ,almost always when you're getting your ass handed to you.
it was in response to one of "those" post where I said I'd been taught a larger volume and verity of science the you had.
as always your hubris read it misshapen head.
that's when you decided to test me with molecule question. the rest is you being pissed off at the fact you'd failed find fault with my answer.
this is your second attempt to rewrite the facts.
I can only conclude it's because you're wrong.

Yes you made that claim and I tested you with a question and I knew you got your answer from a google then made the claim you learned it in high school then went on to say you took a genetics class in high school and compared it to micro biology not understanding what those fields taught. I pointed it out to you the question I asked can best be answered through molecular biology which is a fact.

You really can't be this stupid can you ?

wrong I stated a fact...I never compared it to microbiology..... you did.
as always you made a false assumption "you got it from Google" ..
so again you're attempting to misrepresent the facts.

Time to plant this fruit once and for all you moron.

I forgot this little gem. Daws "I post this slapdick to show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me..."

This had nothing to do with the question dummy. Now look up gene theory.

The question would not be a genetics question lol.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7344796-post16536.html

Now for the big lie You did do what you said you didn't.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7345652-post16545.html

Seriously daws you don't know shit concerning science and you claimed you have more of a science background plus you had 6 years of science not by what I read. Please continue

More bullshit

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7346025-post16557.html

Twice you did

Now for the original question.

Quote of my question.

"You make an awful lot of your science background. I will ask you one simple college question and see if you can answer it.

According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?"

Geez, it is fun showing what a stupid dick and liar you're.

 

[Youwerecreated]

still attempting to evade ..

Show me where I stated the earth and universe are 6,000 years old.

you've always maintained that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years to say you have not, is a lie .

I have said 6,000 to 10,000 and I have also said 6,000 to 14,000 and I have also stated I just don't know and nobody knows.

 

[Youwerecreated]

One being held as seriously as another when both are appeals to ignorance and superstition is hardly an endorsement for one or the other, particularly your gawds.

Who the **** is appealing to ignorance? Have you axed me what my evidence is? No, so dont give me this appeal to ignorance shit.



**** you.



Beliefs dont have to 'over' other beliefs to be true. Some Truths are exactly subjective.



I walked down to the lake and the water was 60 degrees Farenheit. Is that repeatable? Of course not, as any other measurement would be a different measurement at another time and place.

I was at the store when it got robbed. I saw that one of the robbers was a guy I knew from my Spanish class. Doesnt fit into any of your overly narrow and dogmatic categories of what is knowlege.

I love my wife. Prove that. Prove that it is not true either, I dont care. Most truths we live by day to day have absolutely zip, nada, nothing whatsoever to do with science or math.



Bullshit. Why would anyone assert such when any evidence of the existance of God is immediately capable of being redefined as not God, much as the Big Bang has now become a secularized concept of NOT being God's act of creation to you blinded fools, but because science has learned the Truth that the whole ******* universe came into existence in a split second and now that science can measure some evidence of the event, well, now it has nothing to do with God at all! lol

You live in the midst of a ecreated by God, immersed in God Himself as He transcends His Creation, and you cant see Him becasue you wont open up your ******* eyes. Everything you touch, hear, see and smell or taste is a partial manifestation of God's Will, His Imagination.

But you cant see that because you dont want to see it. lol



I am not going to defend what amounts to one tenth or less of the Christian world. Let the fundamentalists and other YEC defend themselves, if you want that.



Oh nose! I twemnble in my bootsies! lol

The dimsissal of fools is to the credit of the wise. When dumbasses cant grasp a simple distinction as the difference between a Creator that created space and time as opposed to some 'god' who is the creature of space and time, then that person is a dumbass.



Yeah because Marxists have never done that, or hunted each other down and murdered them or slaughtering hundreds of millions of people for not agreeing with them...oops, wait, the Stalinst atheists, Maoist atheists... ah nm. lololol



What, there are other religions? Well whod a thunk dat?

lol, you embicile. thanks for the chuckle.

Yes, there is a huge difference between the Abrahamic faiths and the nonAbrahamic faiths. One of which is that the Abrahamic faiths cover the globe, have millions of adherents in every country, out number other types of religions in almost all countries, and all claim to have valid evidence based on historical facts and reason and all came from the relationship one man had with God a long time ago. There is no other religion like it at all in that respect.

That you dont bother to even try to learn any of this and you suppose that I am as ignorant as you are is simply insane.

You are a demonstrable ignoramus and anti-Christian bigot.

At least to me, that puts you squarely on the pinnacle of ignorance and (self) contempt. You should seek help for that ailment.

And you should pull your head out of your ass, shit-for-brains.

axed me?

Didn't you use the term Typo the other day to excuse yourself

 

[Youwerecreated]

OK. I dare GOD to show up here. Right here, right now. Here and NOW. On the USMB or anywhere to show his/her undeniable existence, here and now. Bring it! Do we have to wait another couple of thousand years? Oh man. I thought that might work. People drink purple Kool-Aid and find out the same thing. They must have been really disappointed. Lies , delusions and myths aren’t far apart.

One of these days Alice.

 

[newpolitics]

As I pointed out in the OP, "proof" is subjective, it relies on our perception of what is and isn't "evidence" of something.

Evidence is not subjective, by definition.

NO, grasshopper, you are simply WRONG! Nothing in the definition of "evidence" says it is not subjective or is objective. That is an evaluation of the evidence based on perception. What you find to be "evidence" may not be considered valid as "evidence" to me. You may consider your "evidence" strong, and I may disagree that it is even "evidence" at all.

Once again, you contradict yourself. You are saying evidence is subjective, and it is not subjective. Make up your ******* mind. I pointed this out, and you responded to me as if I didn't. When I said "evidence is not subjective," that is true, yet here you are trying to pass it off as such. Again, you can't claim evidence is neither subjective or objective, and then talk about how "proof" is subjective, and evidence is whatever one makes it. You are IMPLYING that evidence is subjective with your usage of the term, while denying that it is defined as subjective. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Evidence is not necessarily subjective because it is neither objective or subjective, until you specify what KIND of evidence: anecdotal or empirical. Empirical evidence IS objective. Anecdotal is subjective. The kind of evidence you are positing is anecdotal evidence, and is hence, subjective and categorically unreliable.

Anecdotal Evidence (wiki):

"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population."


Subjective Validation: (wiki)

"Subjective validation, sometimes called personal validation effect, is a cognitive bias by which a person will consider a statement or another piece of information to be correct if it has any personal meaning or significance to them.[1] In other words, a person whose opinion is affected by subjective validation will perceive two unrelated events (i.e., a coincidence) to be related because their personal belief demands that they be related. Closely related to the Forer effect, subjective validation is an important element in cold reading. It is considered to be the main reason behind most reports of paranormal phenomena.[2] According to Bob Carroll, psychologist Ray Hyman is considered to be the foremost expert on subjective validation and cold reading."

 

[newpolitics]

This entire thread is premised on a causal fallacy. In specific, correlation does not imply causation, and more specifically, the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy ("with this, therefore because of this). (wiki)

Questionable cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The questionable cause – also known as causal fallacy, false cause, or non causa pro causa ("non-cause for cause" in Latin) – is a category of informal fallacies in which a cause is incorrectly identified.

Fallacies of questionable cause include:
Circular cause and consequence
Correlation implies causation (cum hoc, ergo propter hoc)
Fallacy of the single cause
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Regression fallacy
Spurious relationship
Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Third-cause fallacy
Wrong direction"





Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation: (one of the causal fallacies above)

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

The counter assumption, that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this")...


"For any two correlated events A and B, the following relationships are possible:
A causes B;
B causes A;
A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is coincidental."

"The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows: (one of the two fallacies under "correlation implies causation")

A occurs in correlation with B.
Therefore, A causes B.

In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B, even when no evidence supports it. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:

A may be the cause of B.

B may be the cause of A.

some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.

there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.

the "relationship" is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.

In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained."

So, to tie this in, the fact that human existence is correlated with belief in a spiritual realm, this by itself does not imply that this correlation is caused by a spiritual realm.

 

[Boss]

Evidence is not subjective, by definition.

NO, grasshopper, you are simply WRONG! Nothing in the definition of "evidence" says it is not subjective or is objective. That is an evaluation of the evidence based on perception. What you find to be "evidence" may not be considered valid as "evidence" to me. You may consider your "evidence" strong, and I may disagree that it is even "evidence" at all.

Once again, you contradict yourself. You are saying evidence is subjective, and it is not subjective. Make up your ******* mind. I pointed this out, and you responded to me as if I didn't. When I said "evidence is not subjective," that is true, yet here you are trying to pass it off as such. Again, you can't claim evidence is neither subjective or objective, and then talk about how "proof" is subjective, and evidence is whatever one makes it. You are IMPLYING that evidence is subjective with your usage of the term, while denying that it is defined as subjective. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Evidence is not necessarily subjective because it is neither objective or subjective, until you specify what KIND of evidence: anecdotal or empirical. Empirical evidence IS objective. Anecdotal is subjective. The kind of evidence you are positing is anecdotal evidence, and is hence, subjective and categorically unreliable.

Anecdotal Evidence (wiki):

"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population."


Subjective Validation: (wiki)

"Subjective validation, sometimes called personal validation effect, is a cognitive bias by which a person will consider a statement or another piece of information to be correct if it has any personal meaning or significance to them.[1] In other words, a person whose opinion is affected by subjective validation will perceive two unrelated events (i.e., a coincidence) to be related because their personal belief demands that they be related. Closely related to the Forer effect, subjective validation is an important element in cold reading. It is considered to be the main reason behind most reports of paranormal phenomena.[2] According to Bob Carroll, psychologist Ray Hyman is considered to be the foremost expert on subjective validation and cold reading."

What the hell are you trying to say, idiot?

Evidence, like "proof" is nothing BUT subjective. It all depends on perception. As I said, if evidence were not subjective, we would have no reason for trials, evidence could be presented and that would be the proof, and since it wasn't subjective, no one could ever argue against it, and the case could be decided without a jury. But evidence IS subjective, it depends on your perception of the evidence, whether you accept it as valid or not, is a subjective evaluation. I don't know why you are idiotically hung up on this.

Are you REALLY this stupid? You REALLY believe that any evidence is not subject to whether or not you consider it valid and objective? You just tried to explain it, and you couldn't get through a paragraph without contradicting your own reasoning, but that doesn't even seem to penetrate your hard head. It sounds more like you just want to argue something silly, to avoid the topic here, or to somehow establish that YOUR evidence can't be objected to, while you dismiss MY evidence. Now, if the definition of "evidence" said that it's up to newpolitics to determine whether it is valid and legitimate evidence, and no one can question it, then I would agree with you, but that's not the definition we find.

All evidence is completely subject to interpretation of the said evidence, it is subjective. There is no argument here, you are making an inane point that you cannot establish with logic or common sense. One man's "evidence" is another man's "bullshit" and this has been illustrated in this very thread.

 

[Boss]

This entire thread is premised on a causal fallacy.

You've not proven one thing in the OP to be a fallacy, causal or otherwise. This is your OPINION and it is not supported by anything but your OPINION.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Show me where I stated the earth and universe are 6,000 years old.

you've always maintained that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years to say you have not, is a lie .

I have said 6,000 to 10,000 and I have also said 6,000 to 14,000 and I have also stated I just don't know and nobody knows.

Nonsense.

That information is common knowledge, and is available with a quick search:

4.54 billion years.

 

[newpolitics]

This entire thread is premised on a causal fallacy.

You've not proven one thing in the OP to be a fallacy, causal or otherwise. This is your OPINION and it is not supported by anything but your OPINION.

The OP is an opinion.

 

[Boss]

This entire thread is premised on a causal fallacy.

You've not proven one thing in the OP to be a fallacy, causal or otherwise. This is your OPINION and it is not supported by anything but your OPINION.

The OP is an opinion.

Again, shit stain, you have not proven the OP to be a fallacy, casual or otherwise. You've also not proven that evidence is not subjective. You continue to prove you are an obtuse jackass.

 

[Boss]

you've always maintained that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years to say you have not, is a lie .

I have said 6,000 to 10,000 and I have also said 6,000 to 14,000 and I have also stated I just don't know and nobody knows.

Nonsense.

That information is common knowledge, and is available with a quick search:

4.54 billion years.

Nonsense.

Everything I find, says "it is believed to be" 4.54 billion years old.

 

[newpolitics]

NO, grasshopper, you are simply WRONG! Nothing in the definition of "evidence" says it is not subjective or is objective. That is an evaluation of the evidence based on perception. What you find to be "evidence" may not be considered valid as "evidence" to me. You may consider your "evidence" strong, and I may disagree that it is even "evidence" at all.

Once again, you contradict yourself. You are saying evidence is subjective, and it is not subjective. Make up your ******* mind. I pointed this out, and you responded to me as if I didn't. When I said "evidence is not subjective," that is true, yet here you are trying to pass it off as such. Again, you can't claim evidence is neither subjective or objective, and then talk about how "proof" is subjective, and evidence is whatever one makes it. You are IMPLYING that evidence is subjective with your usage of the term, while denying that it is defined as subjective. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Evidence is not necessarily subjective because it is neither objective or subjective, until you specify what KIND of evidence: anecdotal or empirical. Empirical evidence IS objective. Anecdotal is subjective. The kind of evidence you are positing is anecdotal evidence, and is hence, subjective and categorically unreliable.

Anecdotal Evidence (wiki):

"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population."


Subjective Validation: (wiki)

"Subjective validation, sometimes called personal validation effect, is a cognitive bias by which a person will consider a statement or another piece of information to be correct if it has any personal meaning or significance to them.[1] In other words, a person whose opinion is affected by subjective validation will perceive two unrelated events (i.e., a coincidence) to be related because their personal belief demands that they be related. Closely related to the Forer effect, subjective validation is an important element in cold reading. It is considered to be the main reason behind most reports of paranormal phenomena.[2] According to Bob Carroll, psychologist Ray Hyman is considered to be the foremost expert on subjective validation and cold reading."

What the hell are you trying to say, idiot?

Evidence, like "proof" is nothing BUT subjective. It all depends on perception. As I said, if evidence were not subjective, we would have no reason for trials, evidence could be presented and that would be the proof, and since it wasn't subjective, no one could ever argue against it, and the case could be decided without a jury. But evidence IS subjective, it depends on your perception of the evidence, whether you accept it as valid or not, is a subjective evaluation. I don't know why you are idiotically hung up on this.

Are you REALLY this stupid? You REALLY believe that any evidence is not subject to whether or not you consider it valid and objective? You just tried to explain it, and you couldn't get through a paragraph without contradicting your own reasoning, but that doesn't even seem to penetrate your hard head. It sounds more like you just want to argue something silly, to avoid the topic here, or to somehow establish that YOUR evidence can't be objected to, while you dismiss MY evidence. Now, if the definition of "evidence" said that it's up to newpolitics to determine whether it is valid and legitimate evidence, and no one can question it, then I would agree with you, but that's not the definition we find.

All evidence is completely subject to interpretation of the said evidence, it is subjective. There is no argument here, you are making an inane point that you cannot establish with logic or common sense. One man's "evidence" is another man's "bullshit" and this has been illustrated in this very thread.

You can't be this dumb. It's just not possible. I think you are faking all of this just to get attention! Also, funny that you chide others for name-calling when you call me stupid and an idiot. You're an asshole.

What you are claiming is that everything is relative and subjective, and it isn't, because objective reality exists, and certain things are true and certain things are false. We experience objective reality subjectively, which means there is an objective reality that exists independently from our minds, with a truth that we do not decide, only arrive at if we are able to. We don't get to choose what is true and what is false about objective reality, yet this is what you are attempting to imply. All we can do, is discover the truth about objective reality as best as possible using our five sense, the scientific method (since it has proven highly reliable), and each other to verify our findings and eliminate bias (peer review). It then comes down to what you can demonstrate to be true about OBJECTIVE reality (IF you admit that objective reality exists, which I'm not sure you do). If you do not, then you are a solipsist (good luck with that).

The scientific method has been the most successful method at ascertaining truths about reality. In the last few hundred since its inception, humanity's knowledge about the universe has grown exponentially, evidenced by the vast progress in technology and our understanding of the universe. This should be evidence to anyone that scientific epistemology is effective at getting at truth of reality (unless you want to claim we are consistently getting lucky, which I will gladly laugh at). Before science, humans relied on religious epistemologies, which got them no where. Humans thought disease were caused by demons, that thunder was caused by the gods, and that if they prayed, good things would happen. In other words, we were simply wrong, and suffered for it. Now, here you are trying to vindicate this ineffective epistemology. This is laughable. The simplest explanation about spiritual belief, is that humans were and continue to be SIMPLY WRONG.

The definition of evidence does not indicate whether it is intrinsically objective or subjective. You said this yourself. Now you are saying it is necessarily subjective. Sort yourself out dude. You are confused and really frustrating to deal with, but this hasn't changed. You call me stupid? That's ridiculous. You're the complete idiot here who is the one contradicting himself within a single paragraph. It's hilarious to watch you insult me for things I don't do, but that you do! It's ******* mind-numbing. I've never met anyone as dumb and blind to their own idiocy, as you. You need to bend evidential standards to allow your "evidence" to be admitted. You are bastardizing epistemology, and this discussion does come down to epistemology, as it always does between theists/deists/spiritualists and atheists. What you call evidence is not what I call evidence, and this is always the case between theists and atheists. I don't care what you call yourself, you're not an atheist. However, we have developed categories of evidence, some of which are less prone to subjective alternation. Anecdotal is the LEAST reliable, which is what you have. Empirical evidence, especially since it can be verified by other observers, is far more reliable. You do not have empirical evidence. Without empirical evidence, or a syllogistic argument that is valid and sound, your claim falls flat. BELIEF IS NOT EVIDENCE.

The major dishonesty with you, is that you claimed proof of god, which implies empirical, objectively existing, demonstrable evidence. Your evidence is anecdotal, and doesn't actually exist, yet you try to pass it off as objective and spiritual when these attributes can not go together, by your own admission when you said the spiritual can not exist in the physical (objectively), because then it would cease to be spiritual. You have gone back on yourself with this multiple times, so I'll just cite one side of your contradictory stance. Anyway, This is a category error. "Spiritual evidence" is necessarily subjective, and hence, anecdotal, and hence, NOT objective and not "proof." Proof is not subjective, because proof is a mathematical term that denotes CERTAINTY. You can not grant certainty, therefore, you don't have proof. Empirical means it can be observed by someone else, and hence, is objective. A fossil exists in objective reality. It still exists whether you want it to or not. Whether you think this is evidence of evolution, is based on your presuppositions about the universe. Of course, but this has to do with reasoning around the evidence, and your evidential standards. Theists simply deny that any inferences are possible within certain scientific disciplines, such as evolutionary biology, but are okay with inference within other disciplines, which itself is special pleading. The hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or from the phenomenon of human spiritual belief itself. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. You will simply insult, condescend, and re-assert your OP like it is a ******* revelation from a god. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you. This is why anecdotal "evidence" is hardly evidence at all, and alone is not sufficient to establish the veracity of a claim, unless corroborated by empirical evidence.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Show me where I stated the earth and universe are 6,000 years old.

you've always maintained that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years to say you have not, is a lie .

I have said 6,000 to 10,000 and I have also said 6,000 to 14,000 and I have also stated I just don't know and nobody knows.

And daws couldn't care less what you said or didn't say. He does not want to understand what you are trying to share with him. He is only trolling and being a dick.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Once again, you contradict yourself. You are saying evidence is subjective, and it is not subjective. Make up your ******* mind. I pointed this out, and you responded to me as if I didn't. When I said "evidence is not subjective," that is true, yet here you are trying to pass it off as such. Again, you can't claim evidence is neither subjective or objective, and then talk about how "proof" is subjective, and evidence is whatever one makes it. You are IMPLYING that evidence is subjective with your usage of the term, while denying that it is defined as subjective. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Evidence is not necessarily subjective because it is neither objective or subjective, until you specify what KIND of evidence: anecdotal or empirical. Empirical evidence IS objective. Anecdotal is subjective. The kind of evidence you are positing is anecdotal evidence, and is hence, subjective and categorically unreliable.

Anecdotal Evidence (wiki):

"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population."


Subjective Validation: (wiki)

"Subjective validation, sometimes called personal validation effect, is a cognitive bias by which a person will consider a statement or another piece of information to be correct if it has any personal meaning or significance to them.[1] In other words, a person whose opinion is affected by subjective validation will perceive two unrelated events (i.e., a coincidence) to be related because their personal belief demands that they be related. Closely related to the Forer effect, subjective validation is an important element in cold reading. It is considered to be the main reason behind most reports of paranormal phenomena.[2] According to Bob Carroll, psychologist Ray Hyman is considered to be the foremost expert on subjective validation and cold reading."

What the hell are you trying to say, idiot?

Evidence, like "proof" is nothing BUT subjective. It all depends on perception. As I said, if evidence were not subjective, we would have no reason for trials, evidence could be presented and that would be the proof, and since it wasn't subjective, no one could ever argue against it, and the case could be decided without a jury. But evidence IS subjective, it depends on your perception of the evidence, whether you accept it as valid or not, is a subjective evaluation. I don't know why you are idiotically hung up on this.

Are you REALLY this stupid? You REALLY believe that any evidence is not subject to whether or not you consider it valid and objective? You just tried to explain it, and you couldn't get through a paragraph without contradicting your own reasoning, but that doesn't even seem to penetrate your hard head. It sounds more like you just want to argue something silly, to avoid the topic here, or to somehow establish that YOUR evidence can't be objected to, while you dismiss MY evidence. Now, if the definition of "evidence" said that it's up to newpolitics to determine whether it is valid and legitimate evidence, and no one can question it, then I would agree with you, but that's not the definition we find.

All evidence is completely subject to interpretation of the said evidence, it is subjective. There is no argument here, you are making an inane point that you cannot establish with logic or common sense. One man's "evidence" is another man's "bullshit" and this has been illustrated in this very thread.

You can't be this dumb. It's just not possible. I think you are faking all of this just to get attention! Also, funny that you chide others for name-calling when you call me stupid and an idiot. You're an asshole.

What you are claiming is that everything is relative and subjective, and is isn't, because objective reality exists, and certain things are true and certain things are false. We don't get to choose which is which. All we can do, is discover the truth. It then comes down to what you can demonstrate to be true about OBJECTIVE reality (IF you admit that objective reality exists, which I'm not sure you do). If you do not, then you are a solipsist (good luck with that).

The scientific method has been the most successful method at ascertaining truths about reality. In the last few hundred since its inception, humanity's knowledge about the universe has grown exponentially, evidenced by the vast progress in technology and our understanding of the universe. This should be evidence to anyone that scientific epistemology is effective at getting at truth of reality. Before science, humans relied on religious epistemologies, which got them no where. Humans thought disease were caused by demons, that thunder was caused by the gods, and that if they prayed, good things would happen. In other words, we were simply wrong, and suffered for it. Now, here you are trying to vindicate this ineffective epistemology. This is laughable. The simplest explanation about spiritual belief, is that humans were and continue to be SIMPLY WRONG.

The definition of evidence does not indicate whether it is intrinsically objective or subjective. You said this yourself. Now you are saying it is necessarily subjective. Sort yourself out dude. You are confused and really frustrating to deal with, but this hasn't changed. You call me stupid? That's ridiculous. You're the complete idiot here who is the one contradicting himself within a single paragraph. It's hilarious to watch you insult me for things I don't do, but that you do! It's ******* mind-numbing. I've never met anyone as dumb and blind to their own idiocy, as you. You need to bend evidential standards to allow your "evidence" to be admitted. You are bastardizing epistemology, and this discussion does come down to epistemology, as it always does between theists/deists/spiritualists and atheists. What you call evidence is not what I call evidence, and this is always the case between theists and atheists. I don't care what you call yourself, you're not an atheist.

The major dishonesty with you, is that you claimed proof of god. Your evidence is anecdotal, yet you try to pass it off as objective and spiritual. This is a category error. "Spiritual evidence" is necessarily subjective, and hence, anecdotal, and hence, NOT objective and not "proof." Proof is not subjective, because proof is a mathematical term that denotes CERTAINTY. You can not grant certainty, therefore, you don't have proof. Empirical means it can be observed by someone else, and hence, is objective. A fossil exists in objective reality. It still exists whether you want it to or not. Whether you think this is evidence of evolution, is based on your presuppositions about the universe. Of course, but this has to do with reasoning around the evidence, and your evidential standards. Theists simply deny that any inferences are possible with creation scientific disciplines. The hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or... from the fact of human spiritual belief, as it is with you. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you.

Good greif, so now you think the laws of science are absolute? You are the ******* idiot, not Boss. Proof *is* subjective and requires confidence in the scientist and those who peer review his work and there have been multiple failures here as well.

While I agree that science has been the more certain tool of investigation it can be wrong as well and has been time and time again and it has very narrow scope.

But I think it is clear that you are not interested in a discussion of these things, but only in provocation and ridicule. IT was plain Boss has a point and you damn him for even attempting to discuss it.

In short, NP, you are a posturing hypocrite, and a fraud.

 

[JimBowie1958]

you've always maintained that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years to say you have not, is a lie .

I have said 6,000 to 10,000 and I have also said 6,000 to 14,000 and I have also stated I just don't know and nobody knows.

Nonsense.

That information is common knowledge, and is available with a quick search:

4.54 billion years.

ROFLMAO

Yeah, they say its that, but that estimate is going to change within the next ten years, dude.

There simply is not enough accuracy and the derived significant digits of measure to pin point an age at better than 3 digits of accuracy, EVEN IF ALL THE UNDERLYING THEORY IS CORRECT.

Current model most agree to is the accretion model and it doesn't give a fixed point in time that the Earth formed,
"The earliest material found in the Solar System is dated to 4.5672±0.0006 bya;[34] therefore, it is inferred that the Earth must have been formed by accretion around this time. By 4.54±0.04 bya[23] the primordial Earth had formed."

 

[newpolitics]

You've not proven one thing in the OP to be a fallacy, causal or otherwise. This is your OPINION and it is not supported by anything but your OPINION.

The OP is an opinion.

Again, shit stain, you have not proven the OP to be a fallacy, casual or otherwise. You've also not proven that evidence is not subjective. You continue to prove you are an obtuse jackass.

Hey dumbass, read carefully: The OP IS AN OPINION BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE.

You have, by your own evidential standards, made your own assertion impossible to prove. That's a big LOL.

 

[newpolitics]

What the hell are you trying to say, idiot?

Evidence, like "proof" is nothing BUT subjective. It all depends on perception. As I said, if evidence were not subjective, we would have no reason for trials, evidence could be presented and that would be the proof, and since it wasn't subjective, no one could ever argue against it, and the case could be decided without a jury. But evidence IS subjective, it depends on your perception of the evidence, whether you accept it as valid or not, is a subjective evaluation. I don't know why you are idiotically hung up on this.

Are you REALLY this stupid? You REALLY believe that any evidence is not subject to whether or not you consider it valid and objective? You just tried to explain it, and you couldn't get through a paragraph without contradicting your own reasoning, but that doesn't even seem to penetrate your hard head. It sounds more like you just want to argue something silly, to avoid the topic here, or to somehow establish that YOUR evidence can't be objected to, while you dismiss MY evidence. Now, if the definition of "evidence" said that it's up to newpolitics to determine whether it is valid and legitimate evidence, and no one can question it, then I would agree with you, but that's not the definition we find.

All evidence is completely subject to interpretation of the said evidence, it is subjective. There is no argument here, you are making an inane point that you cannot establish with logic or common sense. One man's "evidence" is another man's "bullshit" and this has been illustrated in this very thread.

You can't be this dumb. It's just not possible. I think you are faking all of this just to get attention! Also, funny that you chide others for name-calling when you call me stupid and an idiot. You're an asshole.

What you are claiming is that everything is relative and subjective, and is isn't, because objective reality exists, and certain things are true and certain things are false. We don't get to choose which is which. All we can do, is discover the truth. It then comes down to what you can demonstrate to be true about OBJECTIVE reality (IF you admit that objective reality exists, which I'm not sure you do). If you do not, then you are a solipsist (good luck with that).

The scientific method has been the most successful method at ascertaining truths about reality. In the last few hundred since its inception, humanity's knowledge about the universe has grown exponentially, evidenced by the vast progress in technology and our understanding of the universe. This should be evidence to anyone that scientific epistemology is effective at getting at truth of reality. Before science, humans relied on religious epistemologies, which got them no where. Humans thought disease were caused by demons, that thunder was caused by the gods, and that if they prayed, good things would happen. In other words, we were simply wrong, and suffered for it. Now, here you are trying to vindicate this ineffective epistemology. This is laughable. The simplest explanation about spiritual belief, is that humans were and continue to be SIMPLY WRONG.

The definition of evidence does not indicate whether it is intrinsically objective or subjective. You said this yourself. Now you are saying it is necessarily subjective. Sort yourself out dude. You are confused and really frustrating to deal with, but this hasn't changed. You call me stupid? That's ridiculous. You're the complete idiot here who is the one contradicting himself within a single paragraph. It's hilarious to watch you insult me for things I don't do, but that you do! It's ******* mind-numbing. I've never met anyone as dumb and blind to their own idiocy, as you. You need to bend evidential standards to allow your "evidence" to be admitted. You are bastardizing epistemology, and this discussion does come down to epistemology, as it always does between theists/deists/spiritualists and atheists. What you call evidence is not what I call evidence, and this is always the case between theists and atheists. I don't care what you call yourself, you're not an atheist.

The major dishonesty with you, is that you claimed proof of god. Your evidence is anecdotal, yet you try to pass it off as objective and spiritual. This is a category error. "Spiritual evidence" is necessarily subjective, and hence, anecdotal, and hence, NOT objective and not "proof." Proof is not subjective, because proof is a mathematical term that denotes CERTAINTY. You can not grant certainty, therefore, you don't have proof. Empirical means it can be observed by someone else, and hence, is objective. A fossil exists in objective reality. It still exists whether you want it to or not. Whether you think this is evidence of evolution, is based on your presuppositions about the universe. Of course, but this has to do with reasoning around the evidence, and your evidential standards. Theists simply deny that any inferences are possible with creation scientific disciplines. The hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or... from the fact of human spiritual belief, as it is with you. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you.

Good greif, so now you think the laws of science are absolute? You are the ******* idiot, not Boss. Proof *is* subjective and requires confidence in the scientist and those who peer review his work and there have been multiple failures here as well.

While I agree that science has been the more certain tool of investigation it can be wrong as well and has been time and time again and it has very narrow scope.

But I think it is clear that you are not interested in a discussion of these things, but only in provocation and ridicule. IT was plain Boss has a point and you damn him for even attempting to discuss it.

In short, NP, you are a posturing hypocrite, and a fraud.

First of all, What the hell are the "laws of science?" Secondly, I didn't say anywhere that these so-called "laws of science" are absolute. Thirdly, It is only the gullible and faith-filled that claim anything to be absolute.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You can't be this dumb. It's just not possible. I think you are faking all of this just to get attention! Also, funny that you chide others for name-calling when you call me stupid and an idiot. You're an asshole.

What you are claiming is that everything is relative and subjective, and is isn't, because objective reality exists, and certain things are true and certain things are false. We don't get to choose which is which. All we can do, is discover the truth. It then comes down to what you can demonstrate to be true about OBJECTIVE reality (IF you admit that objective reality exists, which I'm not sure you do). If you do not, then you are a solipsist (good luck with that).

The scientific method has been the most successful method at ascertaining truths about reality. In the last few hundred since its inception, humanity's knowledge about the universe has grown exponentially, evidenced by the vast progress in technology and our understanding of the universe. This should be evidence to anyone that scientific epistemology is effective at getting at truth of reality. Before science, humans relied on religious epistemologies, which got them no where. Humans thought disease were caused by demons, that thunder was caused by the gods, and that if they prayed, good things would happen. In other words, we were simply wrong, and suffered for it. Now, here you are trying to vindicate this ineffective epistemology. This is laughable. The simplest explanation about spiritual belief, is that humans were and continue to be SIMPLY WRONG.

The definition of evidence does not indicate whether it is intrinsically objective or subjective. You said this yourself. Now you are saying it is necessarily subjective. Sort yourself out dude. You are confused and really frustrating to deal with, but this hasn't changed. You call me stupid? That's ridiculous. You're the complete idiot here who is the one contradicting himself within a single paragraph. It's hilarious to watch you insult me for things I don't do, but that you do! It's ******* mind-numbing. I've never met anyone as dumb and blind to their own idiocy, as you. You need to bend evidential standards to allow your "evidence" to be admitted. You are bastardizing epistemology, and this discussion does come down to epistemology, as it always does between theists/deists/spiritualists and atheists. What you call evidence is not what I call evidence, and this is always the case between theists and atheists. I don't care what you call yourself, you're not an atheist.

The major dishonesty with you, is that you claimed proof of god. Your evidence is anecdotal, yet you try to pass it off as objective and spiritual. This is a category error. "Spiritual evidence" is necessarily subjective, and hence, anecdotal, and hence, NOT objective and not "proof." Proof is not subjective, because proof is a mathematical term that denotes CERTAINTY. You can not grant certainty, therefore, you don't have proof. Empirical means it can be observed by someone else, and hence, is objective. A fossil exists in objective reality. It still exists whether you want it to or not. Whether you think this is evidence of evolution, is based on your presuppositions about the universe. Of course, but this has to do with reasoning around the evidence, and your evidential standards. Theists simply deny that any inferences are possible with creation scientific disciplines. The hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or... from the fact of human spiritual belief, as it is with you. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you.

Good greif, so now you think the laws of science are absolute? You are the ******* idiot, not Boss. Proof *is* subjective and requires confidence in the scientist and those who peer review his work and there have been multiple failures here as well.

While I agree that science has been the more certain tool of investigation it can be wrong as well and has been time and time again and it has very narrow scope.

But I think it is clear that you are not interested in a discussion of these things, but only in provocation and ridicule. IT was plain Boss has a point and you damn him for even attempting to discuss it.

In short, NP, you are a posturing hypocrite, and a fraud.

First of all, What the hell are the "laws of science?"

Yeah you only said, "The scientific method has been the most successful method at ascertaining truths about reality.' Silly me thinking you were making any reference to the resultant laws of science, lol.

Another semantic dodge from you, no surprise.

Secondly, I didn't say anywhere that these so-called "laws of science" are absolute.

Then how can they be objectively true and not under any subjectivity? Those damned logarithmic charts are VITAL to any experiment, lol

Thirdly, It is only the gullible and faith-filled that claim anything to be absolute.

Unlike your declaration that the scientific method is objective?

roflmao