Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Hollie]

The evidence that carries the most weight are observed evidences. Since you can't observe evolution and it isn't shown in the fossil record all we have is a myth supported merely opinions which I already shot a hole in.

Not a non-sequitur at all nor ad-hominem fallacy.

You obviously never attended a 7th grade science class. Evolution clearly has been observed. This has been delineated for you several times. You simply repeat the fundie creationist party line dogma wifh no ability to learn.

Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations have been observed however never macro-evolution. Evolutionist extrapolate from this evidence as evidence for macro-evolution. Every case where you present supposed evidence it's nothing more then micro-evolution.

Do you want macro defined for you ? an ape producing a non ape. A horse producing a non horse. A feline producing a non feline. A fly producing a non fly.

Small changes within a gene pool does not constitute macro-evolution that supposedly accounts for all species on this planet.

Do you think this nonsense is not understood to be taken directly from Christian creation ministries? Both you and they grind out these profoundly stupid comments over and over.

 

[newpolitics]

I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.

This is still a non-sequitur. A person's disposition with respect to knowledge has no bearing on their ability to test evidence. The only thing that effects ones ability to test evidence, is their methodology for testing evidence. Your assertion amounts to an ad-hominem fallacy, by virtue of the fact that a person's ability to demonstrate truth is not logically connected to their personal doubts about knowledge. For instance, a schizophrenic person conducting an experiment correctly, doesn't make the results any less correct simply because that person is a schizophrenic, to cite an extreme test case. The only thing that would make their results incorrect, is a fault in their methodology.

The evidence that carries the most weight are observed evidences. Since you can't observe evolution and it isn't shown in the fossil record all we have is a myth supported merely opinions which I already shot a hole in.

Not a non-sequitur at all nor ad-hominem fallacy.

This is just an excuse for creationists to dismiss evolution. Science uses indirect evidence all the time. I don't hear you crying about that. Forensic science makes inferences about events in the past for which no one was there to reliably witness, yet you don't have a problem with it. In fact, forensic science closely mirrors historical sciences in this respect. No one was there to witness, for a example a murder/suicide, yet forensics can tell us what happened, and this is deemed acceptable in our court systems. I don't see you picketing our court system because "no one was there." Its such a bullshit argument, and constitutes special pleading. Science is about building predictive models about reality, which are as accurate to reality as possible. Direct or indirect evidence is irrelevant, as long as it is empirical, and can be demonstrate repeatedly and conforms to predictive models.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is still a non-sequitur. A person's disposition with respect to knowledge has no bearing on their ability to test evidence. The only thing that effects ones ability to test evidence, is their methodology for testing evidence. Your assertion amounts to an ad-hominem fallacy, by virtue of the fact that a person's ability to demonstrate truth is not logically connected to their personal doubts about knowledge. For instance, a schizophrenic person conducting an experiment correctly, doesn't make the results any less correct simply because that person is a schizophrenic, to cite an extreme test case. The only thing that would make their results incorrect, is a fault in their methodology.

The evidence that carries the most weight are observed evidences. Since you can't observe evolution and it isn't shown in the fossil record all we have is a myth supported merely opinions which I already shot a hole in.

Not a non-sequitur at all nor ad-hominem fallacy.

You obviously never attended a 7th grade science class. Evolution clearly has been observed. This has been delineated for you several times. You simply repeat the fundie creationist party line dogma wifh no ability to learn.

Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke

Dissent From Darwin Blog

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are the perfect candidate for promoting creationist fear and superstition. Your typically dodge any requirement to support your argument, but instead, bluster on with
juvenile questions speak to an utter lack a science vocabulary.

Hollie you still have not addressed my earlier questions and since you can't you try to change the subject .a typical ploy of someone getting their ass kicked.

Your silly conspiracy theories, posed as questions, have been addressed before.

Do you believe your conspiracy theories are to be taken seriously?

So what about that talking snake in the magic garden?

You are making stuff up hollie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You obviously never attended a 7th grade science class. Evolution clearly has been observed. This has been delineated for you several times. You simply repeat the fundie creationist party line dogma wifh no ability to learn.

Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations have been observed however never macro-evolution. Evolutionist extrapolate from this evidence as evidence for macro-evolution. Every case where you present supposed evidence it's nothing more then micro-evolution.

Do you want macro defined for you ? an ape producing a non ape. A horse producing a non horse. A feline producing a non feline. A fly producing a non fly.

Small changes within a gene pool does not constitute macro-evolution that supposedly accounts for all species on this planet.

Do you think this nonsense is not understood to be taken directly from Christian creation ministries? Both you and they grind out these profoundly stupid comments over and over.

Dissent From Darwin Blog

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is still a non-sequitur. A person's disposition with respect to knowledge has no bearing on their ability to test evidence. The only thing that effects ones ability to test evidence, is their methodology for testing evidence. Your assertion amounts to an ad-hominem fallacy, by virtue of the fact that a person's ability to demonstrate truth is not logically connected to their personal doubts about knowledge. For instance, a schizophrenic person conducting an experiment correctly, doesn't make the results any less correct simply because that person is a schizophrenic, to cite an extreme test case. The only thing that would make their results incorrect, is a fault in their methodology.

The evidence that carries the most weight are observed evidences. Since you can't observe evolution and it isn't shown in the fossil record all we have is a myth supported merely opinions which I already shot a hole in.

Not a non-sequitur at all nor ad-hominem fallacy.

This is just an excuse for creationists to dismiss evolution. Science uses indirect evidence all the time. I don't hear you crying about that. Forensic science makes inferences about events in the past for which no one was there to reliably witness, yet you don't have a problem with it. In fact, forensic science closely mirrors historical sciences in this respect. No one was there to witness, for a example a murder/suicide, yet forensics can tell us what happened, and this is deemed acceptable in our court systems. I don't see you picketing our court system because "no one was there." Its such a bullshit argument, and constitutes special pleading. Science is about building predictive models about reality, which are as accurate to reality as possible. Direct or indirect evidence is irrelevant, as long as it is empirical, and can be demonstrate repeatedly and conforms to predictive models.

But there are no predictive models for macro-evolution that have worked.

 

[Hollie]

The evidence that carries the most weight are observed evidences. Since you can't observe evolution and it isn't shown in the fossil record all we have is a myth supported merely opinions which I already shot a hole in.

Not a non-sequitur at all nor ad-hominem fallacy.

You obviously never attended a 7th grade science class. Evolution clearly has been observed. This has been delineated for you several times. You simply repeat the fundie creationist party line dogma wifh no ability to learn.

Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke

Dissent From Darwin Blog

You can cut and paste links to Christian creationist websites. How stereotypical... and pointless.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You obviously never attended a 7th grade science class. Evolution clearly has been observed. This has been delineated for you several times. You simply repeat the fundie creationist party line dogma wifh no ability to learn.

Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke

Dissent From Darwin Blog

You can cut and paste links to Christian creationist websites. How stereotypical... and pointless.

These scientists are more qualified to speak on the matters than you're. Tell me just what your education is ? You want to slander people that have worked long and hard in this field give me your credentials ? I have given you mine.

Let's see if you are just an ignorant atheistic Ideologue with very little education on these matters.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You obviously never attended a 7th grade science class. Evolution clearly has been observed. This has been delineated for you several times. You simply repeat the fundie creationist party line dogma wifh no ability to learn.

Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke

Dissent From Darwin Blog

You can cut and paste links to Christian creationist websites. How stereotypical... and pointless.

I notice how you never take on the evidence.

 

[Hollie]

Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke

Dissent From Darwin Blog

You can cut and paste links to Christian creationist websites. How stereotypical... and pointless.

I notice how you never take on the evidence.

I notice how you never post evidence.

Your link to the Disco'tute was laughable. Do you recall how Ann Gauger was "green-screened" in front of a stock photo of a science lab? The frauds and charlatans attempted to represent that the Disco'tute did actual research. Of course, they don't. They spend time trying to fraudulently pass themselves off as something they are not.

 

[Hollie]

Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke

Dissent From Darwin Blog

You can cut and paste links to Christian creationist websites. How stereotypical... and pointless.

I notice how you never take on the evidence.

Why Gauger’s green-screened ‘lab’ is an appropriate target of ridicule

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe on December 23,2012 8:46 PM | 30 Comments

Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of “Science and Human Origins.” They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger’s blather about “… a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,” argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example).
While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it’s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco ‘Tute to erode public confidence in ‘mainstream’ science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco ‘Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called “academic freedom” for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).

 

[Hollie]

Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke

Dissent From Darwin Blog

You can cut and paste links to Christian creationist websites. How stereotypical... and pointless.

These scientists are more qualified to speak on the matters than you're. Tell me just what your education is ? You want to slander people that have worked long and hard in this field give me your credentials ? I have given you mine.

Let's see if you are just an ignorant atheistic Ideologue with very little education on these matters.

There's an obvious reason why your cutting and pasting is exclusively from fundie creationist websites. Why is that?

Do you really think the frauds and charlatans at the Disco'tute lend anything but ridicule to your conspiracy theories?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can cut and paste links to Christian creationist websites. How stereotypical... and pointless.

I notice how you never take on the evidence.

Why Gauger’s green-screened ‘lab’ is an appropriate target of ridicule

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe on December 23,2012 8:46 PM | 30 Comments

Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of “Science and Human Origins.” They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger’s blather about “… a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,” argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example).
While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it’s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco ‘Tute to erode public confidence in ‘mainstream’ science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco ‘Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called “academic freedom” for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).

This is your source lol.

The Panda's Thumb: Richard B. Hoppe Archives

Richard B. Hoppe's education - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Boss]

If we are not talking about the truth or objective reality, then there is no point to your OP.

Objective reality and "truth" are two different things. Objective reality deals with physical reality which we can be objective about. It has nothing at all to do with spiritual truth. We've already determined that God doesn't physically exist. Therefore, objective physical reality means very little to the question of god's existence. That said, we can objectively reason, if an animal has always exhibited a particular behavior, it's not merely a figment of imagination or delusion, there is a fundamental reason for the behavior, vital to the species.

Objectivity has nothing to do with physical reality, by logical necessity. God would exist objectively, yet not in the physical, refuting your point entirely. Objective simply means "mind-independant," or not dependent upon the perception of anyone, anywhere for it to be the case. If god doesn't exist objectively, again, you will have conceded your entire argument, since god would only exist in your head, and have no relevance to anyone else's life. Unless, you are claiming that you are god??? Therefore, objectivity and truth are not two different things, because truth is something that exists whether we want it to or not.

Objectivity is the act of being objective. Being objective can be associated with truth, but it's not truth. Objective reality is based on perception of the individual. You don't believe in spiritual existence, so it is not objective reality in your mind. God does exist objectively, but you have to objectively accept spiritual evidence and spiritual existence.

Neither do you understand anything other than physical reality, unless you are claiming that you are have a pathway to the spiritual.

DUH! What do you think the basis for my argument has been?

A belief is not a pathway. You would need a sixth sense that is able to interact with the spiritual, or a "Sensus Divinitatis." You have yet to provide evidence that humans have this sense, therefore, all they have is belief, which is not evidence of anything.

Not only have I proven they have it, I proved they've had it for as long as humans have existed. You have failed to offer any proof to the contrary.

Don't tell me what I believe or don't believe. The very idea of spiritual nature is not contradictory to what I believe in at all.

Wow... talk about covering your bases! Not many people reel off these mile-long threads regarding something they don't believe in, but actually DO believe in. Most people are non-retarded enough to just say... hey, what you're saying is possible.

It would be supplemental to a physical universe. There is no evidence for such an existence, and your belief, nor that of billions of others, will never logically amount to ANY evidence at all. This is a logical fallacy known as an argument from popularity. You have failed to refute this or address this at all. You simply gloss it over, and re-assert the veracity of your OP, like a child plugging his ears, stamping his feet, and screaming "NO!"

There IS evidence, billions of people have given their testimonial. They even had to create a special word to describe the realization of benefits from this spiritual existence, called "blessings." There is no "PHYSICAL" evidence, unless you count physical nature itself, which spiritual nature created. The logical fallacy is assuming physical nature created itself.

How? Are you positing a divine sense? You need to show that this sense exists on the human body, or in the human brain. There is no scientific evidence for such a sense.

Humans have the ability to connect spiritually to spiritual nature. If you want to evaluate that as an extra "sense," that's fine with me, it is indeed something humans can do, and have been doing all their existence. We have scientifically proven this is true.

Until you do, all you have is a belief, like any other, which is not evidence. If belief was evidence, then if I believed I could fly, that would be evidence I could fly? No. Yet, for some reason, you think that more people believing something makes it true. If this were so, what is the number of people you need until something is true? There must be a cut-off, and yet you haven't explained this. Is it ten billion, 20 billion? How many? Your logic is quite terrible, and you don't realize it.

The fact that 95% of all humans to ever exist, were able to spiritually connect or recognize spiritual connection, is pretty strong evidence. I don't know what you are trying to say about cut-offs and logic.... you don't make any sense, I have not argued that spirituality exists because a lot of people believe it does. If 95% of the people on this planet, reported seeing the moon turn purple last night, we would have to consider the phenomenon did happen, and that number of people weren't suffering from mass delusion. If 95% of the people reported this happening every night, for all of human existence, we couldn't deny the phenomenon is happening. Even if there were no physical explanation, we could not deny the phenomenon is happening. It's called "objective reality!"

Again you are positing that I have a divine sense, but you haven't' demonstrated this sense to exist.

70k years... billions of people. The single most defining attribute of the species. Yes, I have.

Its okay boo-boo. Your idiocy is really easy to exploit. Your reading comprehension is very poor. I'm not going to repeat myself. I consider the point conceded and expect you not to rehash this, since you keep on losing every point you try to advance.

Oh, but you have repeated yourself, repeatedly. You even attempt to repeat me sometimes and claim it was you. I'm going to always lose every point I try to advance with you on the existence of spiritual nature, because you reject spiritual evidence. I conceded that point in the OP, you've only confirmed it.

I have proven that evidence is not necessarily subjective, yet you continue with the same old tired line.

LMFAO... AFTER claiming "evidence, by definition, is not subjective." When I pointed out you were incorrect, you adopted MY position, and started pretending I was arguing against my own position. That was absolutely fascinating, I have never seen this tactic used in debate before. "Evidence" is subject to whether we accept it as evidence, and then, it is subject to whether we consider it strong or weak evidence. Now let's see if that prompts you to pretend you've made that statement and not me?

I hear this all the time from theists. If evidence is necessarily subjective, then you have no claim to your own "spiritual evidence" pointing to anything objectively existing. If you admit that it doesn't exist objectively, then it only exists in your mind, which means it doesn't actually exist. You have backed yourself into a logical corner from which you can not now escape. I expect you to concede your points, logically, but as you are entirely illogical, I know that you will not. A discussion about evidence is one of epistemology, not the subject/object problem.

Look... Evidence has nothing to do with objective or subjective. You are now tangling yourself up in your own barbed wire. "Exist" means a physical existence to you, it's all it CAN mean, since you do not accept or acknowledge "spiritual existence." Since spiritual nature does not possess physical existence, you have "objectively" evaluated that it doesn't exist physically. I "objectively" agree with you, spiritual nature doesn't exist physically. However, I believe that spiritual nature can be objectively evaluated, if you objectively comprehend spiritual existence. Since you refuse to accept spiritual nature, you believe the spiritual evidence to be "anecdotal" or subjective. From a spiritual understanding, the evidence is absolutely objective and overwhelming.

Objective and subjective, are evaluations WE assign, depending on our perceptions. What is "objective evidence" to you, may be "subjective evidence" to me, or it may not even be "evidence" at all, depending on my perspective. You want to flood the board with some long-winded explanation of how some evidence is "empirical" and some is "anecdotal" but again, this is subject to evaluation by the individual. Spiritually connected people find their evidence empirical, while you find it anecdotal. In other words, the evidence is subjective.

I knew you were going to take a 2nd grader's stance on this. I shouldn't have expected someone of your mental incapacity to be able to understand reality on reality's terms. I NEVER SAID EVIDENCE CAN'T BE SUBJECTIVE. I said it is not necessarily subjective, because it is not in the definition.

What started this whole conversation on the subject, was your quote: "Evidence is, by definition, not subjective," and I proved your statement is incorrect. Since then, you have tried to adopt MY refutation of your incorrect statement, and claim that I am arguing against it, or that you brilliantly made the observation I refuted your incorrect statement with. It's getting really bad when you start stealing your opponents points in a debate.

Stop stretching my words! I explained this to you clearly in my last post, yet you continuously and dishonestly assert that I am saying something I did not, because at this point, its all you think you have on me. I advise you to let go of it, as you are wrong her as well. Admittedly, i put it a little vaguely at first. I should have said, "Evidence is not necessarily subjective, by definition," which is what I meant. Regardless, I explained my position clearly, and twice in the last post, and yet you hold me to a position I do not myself hold. This is a straw-man. You misunderstood my position to begin with, and upon clarification, refuse to accept said clarification for purposes of rhetoric and mockery. You really are a little child.

ALL evidence is subjective! It is subject to our personal evaluation, of whether or not it meets the criteria of evidence in the first place, then as to whether or not it is empirical or anecdotal, then as to whether it is strong or weak evidence. This varies from person to person, subject to their personal perceptions. You stated it was not subjective by definition... and have since been arguing nothing in the definition has anything to do with subjective or objective, which was my refutation of your incorrect statement.

You haven't done anything of note in this entire thread. You haven't convinced anyone of your proposition, and only preach to the choir which consist of the fools who already believe your conclusion. Your reasoning is invalid and unsound, and does not follow from your ridiculous premises.

I predicted in the OP, that if you can't accept or acknowledge spiritual nature, the question can't be answered for you. I'm not presenting my argument to convince people, but because it is a valid and legitimate argument. My reasoning is valid and sound until you can prove otherwise, which you haven't. My premise is not ridiculous until you've proven that to be true, and you haven't. You keep running and hiding behind physical science, claiming you don't have to prove a negative, you have no burden of proof whatsoever, you can claim spiritual nature does not exist, and that is not to be challenged but can't be proven.

Find me where a definition of "evidence" that explicitly indicates the quality of it being "subjective." When you can't, you will understand what I meant, which is a true statement.

Find me a definition of evidence which says it is not subjective. When you can't, you will understand I have refuted your incorrect statement, and you'll have to so some mighty spinning in order to pretend you said something else. Oh wait.... that's what you're doing now!

ALL evidence is subjective, meaning, it is all subject to interpretation.

I will try for a third time, because dealing with someone so mentally inept is kind of fun, but only because your pride is astounding and you deserve a hard fall: Nowhere in the definition of evidence, is the concept of subjectivity found. Therefore, by definition, evidence is not subjective.

This is the most ridiculous spin I have ever heard. If the definition of evidence stated that evidence is not subjective, it would be as you have stated. Since it doesn't state that, by definition, evidence has nothing to do with how the evidence is evaluated. The same exact evidence can be objectively or subjectively evaluated, or not considered evidence at all. Examples of all three are found in this thread.

I admit to putting it vaguely, but this was merely a reaction to your having said that by definition, evidence WAS subjective, when it isn't. It is nowhere indicated in the definition.

Well then you can't say "by definition" if it's nowhere indicated in the definition! Why are you being so thick about this? You were wrong, I proved you wrong, and you don't like that... I get it, I hate being proven wrong too! It usually doesn't result in me ripping into page long tirades about it, trying desperately to spin out of what I said. I never claimed evidence was "by definition" subjective. All evidence is subject to evaluation as evidence, whether it meets the criteria as evidence, whether it is strong or weak, anecdotal or empirical, and this is all dependent upon individual subjective or objective reasoning based on personal perception.

You don't reach the ideas of subjectivity or objectivity until you get to the different kinds of evidence. If we are talking about anecdotal evidence, then it is 100% subjective. If we are talking about empirical evidence, then it is not, and points to something that exists objectively. Get it? If we have to go over this again, because you decided to say that evidence is necessarily subjective, while at the same time saying evidence can be either subjective or objective (I can go find it), then you are a fucking asshat.

Even if your evidence is what you consider "empirical," I can subjectively evaluate otherwise, depending on my own perspective. That a fossil exists, is empirical evidence that an object physically exists. This empirical evidence is still subject to evaluation, if I don't believe it is the result of deposits surrounding a living organism and creating a fossil, I may find the "evidence" to be subjective, that a fossil exists, even though an object objectively exists. You may believe this fossil is evidence of evolution happening, and I may disagree with your evaluation, it is subject to interpretation... subjective.

Subjective means mind-dependant, and by logical consequence, it is subject to our interpretation and evaluation.

ALL evidence, regardless of what it is, FITS this criteria.

However, this doesn't mean that evidence is subjective.

YES... IT DOES!

This would mean evidence only exists in the mind, but this is not true.

Making the determination that something IS evidence, is a subjective evaluation. Determining evidence is empirical or anecdotal, is a subjective evaluation. Objective reality is self-evident, it doesn't need evidence, has no use for it.

This would only be anecdotal evidence. However, whether one considers something to be evidence, IS subjective, but this says nothing about the existential condition of empirical or anecdotal evidence. Empirical evidence is available to the senses, anecdotal evidence is not. The dispute over what to call evidence is epistemology. Something that is reliably demonstrated to be evidence of something else, must be empirical, otherwise it is simply heresay, which is all you have. I can't believe how many times you need to be explained things! It's crazy.

Gawd almighty, you are the longest-winded fucker on the internet! How much do you have to try and spin your way around the incorrect statement you made? I can say that flowers are empirical evidence that god exists, and you can subjectively disagree with my assessment. You can say a fossil is empirical evidence that evolution happened, and I can subjectively disagree with your assessment. You can claim my belief in god is anecdotal, and I can claim your disbelief in god is anecdotal. You are attempting to construct a philosophy by which, YOU can determine what is valid evidence and what isn't, without regard to anything I have to say. But that is a nonsensical argument.

You are twisting my words all around. I never said evidence is an unassailable fact.

If evidence, by definition, is not subjective, that is exactly what you said. Yes, I understand you screwed up and said something rather stupid and indefensible, but instead of admitting you said something stupid and indefensible, you've chosen to try and spin the argument around on me, and make it appear that you have bested me in the point making department. I must say, it's a bold and daring move to do what you've attempted here. To try and take your opponent's position away by adopting the position yourself, and then spinning the argument around so that it appears you have made the brilliant point, which contradicts your initial statement. Ballsy, indeed!

Evidence is used to determine what is true about objective reality, as best as possible. Our reasoning about what is and is not evidence and what we can call evidence, IS SUBJECTIVE.

Exactly! Which is what I said, which is contradictory to your statement: "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective."

Objective reality is important to define here. Your "objective reality" does not include spiritual nature, and mine does. That is why we have a problem agreeing on what is objective or subjective, and what is empirical or anecdotal. These are all perceptions based on our personal understanding and reasoning. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp, it's almost like you think "evidence, subjective or objective" is determined by you and science alone, and nothing else can ever challenge what you perceive. But no one died and made you Empirical King of Evidence, that I am aware of.

This relates to an individual's epistemology. However, the evidence itself, can not be called subjective, especially if it is claimed to be demonstrable of something objective. Given your premises, the very least you would need to prove, is that humans have a sixth sense which allows them to interact with the divine or spiritual and give them knowledge of the divine/spiritual realm. This divine sense is something that would exist in physical reality, within the human body somewhere, and could be studied empirically. Can you cite one scientific, peer-reviwed paper that confirms the existence of this sixth divine sense? No, because it doesn't exist. Therefore, you can't logically prove that any human, ever, was actually interacting with anything outside of its own mind.

Humans have been communicating and interacting with spiritual nature for all their existence as humans. If the connection were imaginary, the attribute would have died out long ago, and humans would not be so inclined. Now you want to jump back into physical science and what can be physically proven to exist physically in a physical universe, why? We are not discussing a physical nature or entity, or physical existence. Why should physical science apply? Well... it's because, all you believe in is physical nature. There is no such thing as "spiritual existence" and the term simply doesn't make logical sense to you. For ANYTHING to "exist" it must have a verifiable physical material presence in reality, otherwise it is non-existent. This is how you have justified your disbelief in spiritual nature.

"Faith" in spiritual evidence is a contradiction. Faith is defined as belief without evidence, therefore, if you are citing faith, you have no evidence, by definition. Get yourself some academic help. You are making a mess of this place.

You really need to work on your definitions of things, this is becoming apparent. Nowhere in the definition of "faith" does it say there is no evidence. Let me ask you, do you have faith that gravity will work today the same as it worked yesterday on the planet Earth? Now, isn't there some evidence to support this faith?

There are an abundance of things science "has faith" in, like theories. Are you claiming that scientific theories are not based on evidence? Over thousands of years, billions of people claim to have evidence of spiritual interaction, blessings, miracles, feats of both inner and physical strength, endurance, perseverance and inspiration. Many of them were willing to go to their graves fighting for this spiritual connection they fully believed was real, and had evidence to support. You dismiss this as 70k years of mass delusion and imaginary security blankets for irrational fears, found nowhere else in nature.

I see this mistake with theists all the time. They claim everything is a result of faith, simply because that is their epistemology and how they have garnered knowledge. In fact, it is not knowledge, simply their belief that they have knowledge. How hilarious that you would try to consider yourself an atheist, yet talk of faith epistemologies while making a "definitive" argument for god. Let me get this straight: you're an atheist, yet have bound yourself with some responsibility to prove god and argue it with your "fellow atheists"? I find this hard to believe. You are either seriously confused, have some mental issues, or are just a poe.

As I have explained, I don't personally run around calling myself "Atheist" and this is simply a designation made with regard to the epistemology of the word itself and how it applies to my personal spiritual view. I am non-theistic. That is a better descriptor than Atheist. I do not believe in organized religious incarnations of God. Most Atheists claim no God exists, while agnostics leave the possibility open, they just don't believe in God. I do believe God exists, and humans spiritually can connect to God. However, God is something humans have difficulty comprehending or relating to, so they created Religions. These are supposed to explain God, but they are constructed by humans who only have the concepts of human nature to relate to, so God becomes filled with humanistic attributes, none of which conform to what I believe in as God.

Now, I say... "what I believe in" and that is a bit of an understatement, because I actually know this spiritual energy does exist, I routinely rely on it and use it daily in my everyday life, and have done so for the past 40 years or so. Convincing me that it doesn't exist, would literally be like me trying to convince you that your own mother doesn't exist. I don't need "faith" at all, I personally know and understand my connection to God, and I believe a LOT of spiritually connected people see it the same way.

You have to provide sound reasoning and evidence of your point. My refutation consists of pointing out this obvious fact, which I've done, and you have failed to respond to. You continue to re-assert your points, as if you haven't before, and yet somehow, on this time around, it is going to make a difference. This is the sign of someone inflexible and un-dynamic. In others, dumb.

You've not provided any evidence supported by science, nature, or logic, to support your contention that spiritual nature does not exist and is a figment of our imagination. You've presented nothing in the way of science, nature or logic, to support your conclusion that humans developed spirituality to cope with fear of death, which no other living thing seems to grapple with, or is troubled by. You've show no scientific examples in nature of any living thing, creating a placebo for knowledge not yet obtained, and yet, clinging to that placebo even in the light of astounding knowledge. In short, nothing you have provided, makes any rational sense whatsoever. It is a hodge-podge of quickly made up excuses and explanations for something you don't want to admit exists and is part of nature itself.

Insults aside, which you actually deserve after all of this, you have not proved that the connection is real. This is the nexus of the whole argument. Again, you would need humans to have a "sense" of the divine somewhere on our physical body. If it doesn't exist, then you can't claim the connection is real. It really is that simple. Prove a divine sense. Even then, you haven't proven the spiritual realm exists, logically, but it would be a start. So far, you haven't even gotten off ground with your grandiose assumptions.

The connection IS real, or spirituality would not still exist in humans as our most defining attribute. You continue to talk about what is "real" in the only context you understand "real" to be, a physical one. I understand this, and I pointed this out in the first two paragraphs of the OP. You continue to prove my point beautifully, you refuse to acknowledge or accept any other kind of "real" except physical. The nexus of the whole argument is whether or not you accept spiritual nature and evidence. Unless you do, you can't comprehend spiritual existence, the term does not compute.

Spiritual nature most certainly exists, it created physical nature. This is supported by your own scientific theory of Big Bang. Nothing in physical nature could have caused the creation of the physical universe, because physical nature did not yet exist. This leaves spiritual energy as the most likely explanation.

You also cannot rationalize, through science, how the same basic elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., all exist in the universe, but sometimes 'magically' possess organic attribute. Why protons, electrons and neutrons exist in all matter, but sometimes 'magically' possess the attributes of electricity. Why mass and density sometimes determines gravity, and sometimes it is 'magically' caused by atmospheric pressure. You can explain HOW physics work, but you are unable to explain WHY.

I never said anything about evidence only being physical. You are putting words in my mouth. At best, I am saying we live in a physical universe, therefore the only EMPIRICAL evidence we have ever found is physical.

But we don't live in a physical universe, YOU live in one. Most of us live in a physical and spiritual universe which coexist. We can make connection to the spiritual universe, an attribute you have obviously been unable to master. Those who are able to connect spiritually, find overwhelming spiritual evidence and enlightenment. Your disbelief, does not refute this, it only proves that you disbelieve.

If you don't have empirical evidence, then you don't have an argument. That doesn't mean it has to be physical, as this is based on induction is isn't necessarily the case, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to find non-physical empirical evidence. If you did, you've have won the nobel and wouldn't be on a fucking online debate forum debating atheists anonymously. Also, I never equated objective reality to the physical. You did, and incorrectly. Nor did I ever say that evidence is defined by it being physical. I simply asked for any evidence at all, and you fail to provide any.

I have presented my evidence in the OP. It is comprised of both physical and spiritual evidence. You reject the spiritual evidence as "nonsense" and dismiss the physical evidence as 70k+ years of mass delusion, by the most advanced species of life. You've presented NO valid science or evidence to contradict anything I said in the OP. Therefore, my argument remains unchallenged.

Aristotle invented the idea of natural inquiry, but it wasn't science as we would call it, it was "natural philosophy," or an attempt to explain the world WITHOUT supernatural elements. It wasn't modern science and Aristotle was wrong about everything he thought, such as the motion of objects. Plato had nothing to do with science. The modern scientific method was developed until the 11th century by a Muslim. The fact that they believed in a spiritual realm, again, is not evidence of a spiritual realm. When you stop making this logical leap, you will understand why your OP is complete and utter horse shit topped with shit sprinkles.

Aristotle and Plato are both known as the predecessors to modern science. But that was not the point, they both had firm beliefs in a spiritual universe. So did Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, and others. It's not until the late 20th century, we see an emergence of young Internet Philosophers, advocating their religions of disbelief, regarding spiritual nature.

You have yet to prove that we connect to a spiritual realm daily, and that it is any more than a belief, just like any other. This is a huge claim, and you're only evidence is human belief itself. Were you to present this to a philosophy or a science or a religious teacher (who was honest), they would laugh in your face.

I never said that "we connect" at all. You obviously don't connect, daily or ever, to something you don't believe in. I think any teacher would conclude that before you can teach something, there first has to be a willingness to accept knowledge regarding the teaching itself. I can't teach French to someone who disbelieves French language exists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can cut and paste links to Christian creationist websites. How stereotypical... and pointless.

I notice how you never take on the evidence.

Why Gauger’s green-screened ‘lab’ is an appropriate target of ridicule

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe on December 23,2012 8:46 PM | 30 Comments

Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of “Science and Human Origins.” They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger’s blather about “… a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,” argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example).
While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it’s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco ‘Tute to erode public confidence in ‘mainstream’ science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco ‘Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called “academic freedom” for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).

What does this have to do with who I brought to your attention Pandas Thumb really ?

Scientist Ralph Seelke.

Professor Collin Reeves.

Edward Peltzer Chemist.

Chris Williams Ph.D in Biochemistry

 

[MaryL]

I have a little saying, (call it Mary's conundrum): There is as much proof that disproves a supreme being's existence as there is to prove it.
That being said, isn’t this debate a waste of time? IF there is a god, that is one thing. Then what religion is the true religion? And how could you tell the false ones from the true ones? Or, on the other hand, there isn’t a God and we are just wasting our time …
With all the pain and suffering in the world, either god is a real jerk or life is just random happenstance. With all the evidence given, who can tell the difference?

 

[Hollie]

I notice how you never take on the evidence.

Why Gauger’s green-screened ‘lab’ is an appropriate target of ridicule

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe on December 23,2012 8:46 PM | 30 Comments

Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of “Science and Human Origins.” They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger’s blather about “… a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,” argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example).
While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it’s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco ‘Tute to erode public confidence in ‘mainstream’ science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco ‘Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called “academic freedom” for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).

What does this have to do with who I brought to your attention Pandas Thumb really ?

Scientist Ralph Seelke.

Professor Collin Reeves.

Edward Peltzer Chemist.

Chris Williams Ph.D in Biochemistry

Ralph Seelke - intelligent design apologist

Ralph Seelke - intelligent design apologist

It's as though you're in a permanent stupor.

 

[daws101]

I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.

This is still a non-sequitur. A person's disposition with respect to knowledge has no bearing on their ability to test evidence. The only thing that effects ones ability to test evidence, is their methodology for testing evidence. Your assertion amounts to an ad-hominem fallacy, by virtue of the fact that a person's ability to demonstrate truth is not logically connected to their personal doubts about knowledge. For instance, a schizophrenic person conducting an experiment correctly, doesn't make the results any less correct simply because that person is a schizophrenic, to cite an extreme test case. The only thing that would make their results incorrect, is a fault in their methodology.

The evidence that carries the most weight are observed evidences. Since you can't observe evolution and it isn't shown in the fossil record all we have is a myth supported merely opinions which I already shot a hole in.

Not a non-sequitur at all nor ad-hominem fallacy.

what? the fossils show evolution ..so the hole is in your head.

 

[daws101]

So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils nice try by the way you never responded to the question I raised using that article,why is that Hollie ? since you think you can debate science. Why do fossils dated back over 400 million years ago and the very same organisms alive today show no evolutionary change. The mechanisms for evolution are still working today so why was there no change in an organism that had a higher mutation rate a shorter life span,oh and were able to reproduce many more generations since their life span is less then two weeks. They are also able to produce many more offspring. Why is there no evolutionary change ?

You believe the far more complex homo sapiens evolved in a much shorter time span than flies or mosquitoes.

"So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils" -YWC
THE ABOVE QUOTE IS FALSE.
As the content of the quoted article is not factual or scientific it proves nothing as it is based on a religious belief not evidence.
therefore YWC'S CLAIM "'kicking butt" is also false.

Well hello dummy wondered when you would show up. Wrong because the pictures of the fossils and the dates assigned to the fossils came from evolutionist once again you show your stupidity.

Living-Fossils.com

As the content of the quoted article is not factual or scientific it proves nothing as it is based on a religious belief not evidence.
really dummy?

 

[daws101]

I am well aware that I don't believe the earth is that old. What I am doing is using the evolutionists conclusions against their views. You however do believe this I am asking you how this works ?

The explanations are fraudulent yes they are. Their explanations and theory is not supported by the evidence. Why isn't the science community blowing the whistle on this ? It's simple many don't want to put their jobs at risk.

Hollie the mechanisms are at to work today but the theory is a failure. Harun Yahya is haunting you. Why is it you can't simply look at the evidence it's because your agenda has blinded you.

Still nothing worth responding to.

then why did you?