IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th June 2011, 06:19 AM   #441
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
Please try your best to limit your posting to the Christian God which is defined by me as in fundamental concept in relation to the universe the:
Maker of everything that is not God Himself.



Yrreg
This is a public forum,not your personal church,you do not make the rules. Why are all the other gods not real? Why should we confine ourselves to talking about one fantasy being? Are you a Hindu and Muslim atheist? You have not defined anything,just dished up your usual incoherent word salads. Do you have any proof that your sky daddy exists? That is the first step.

Last edited by dafydd; 18th June 2011 at 06:21 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 06:36 AM   #442
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,551
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
Here is my example of the fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe,
the nose in man's face.
That is just one example representing one kind of evidence but it illustrates perfectly the fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe as:
Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.

Explanation: Man knows the existence of his nose and what he does with it. wherefore it leads him to know about breathing in a living thing that has also what appears to be a nose in its face.

Nose is an existing thing, an object thing; breathing is an existing thing, a process thing.


Man knowing his nose leads him to know breathing in another living thing.

Simple.


Lesson: Anything at all that exists in objective reality or in man's mind as a concept can be a piece of evidence leading him to know another thing.

Okay?




Yrreg
That sounds about right for your kind of thinking. You've figured out that creatures with noses breathe, but not why or how, accepting without evidence the implication that creatures that breathe have noses, and ignoring the sensorial function that makes a nose more than a hole in your body.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 09:11 AM   #443
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
That sounds about right for your kind of thinking. You've figured out that creatures with noses breathe, but not why or how, accepting without evidence the implication that creatures that breathe have noses, and ignoring the sensorial function that makes a nose more than a hole in your body.
It's no surprise that he has only just noticed that people breath through their noses. What this has to do with proving that his sky daddy exists is anybody's guess.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 09:15 AM   #444
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Did the threads get merged? Gerry will take that as an insult.
All of his threads should be merged. He only has one note on his trumpet, 'Please believe in my sky daddy!'
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 09:55 AM   #445
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
 
Elizabeth I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,930
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
On the other hand, being at the center of a moderated thread might be the very thing for an ego like his. He watches the view count very, very carefully. The replies are far less important.
I think you have gerry confused with doc. doc is the one always going on about how what he says must be true because of all the views of his posts.

(And for those who missed the gerry glory days, here's post one of a gerry thread titled "HAHA, GOTCHA!":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...77&postcount=1
Quote:
HAHA, GOTCHA! Let's investigate atheists instead of atheism.
You see, man is the measure of everything that man concerns himself with.

God is one thing man concerns himself with.

As far as my knowledge of man's relationship with God goes, man first got to know God's existence, then some men started to deny God's existence.

It's almost impossible to talk with God's deniers, viz., atheists, about what they are denying, because they are bent on tergiversation (look up that word, get its etymology for a complete understanding of what is tergiversation).

So I have decided to look for people who investigate outspoken atheists to find out how they are getting on in this big business of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Eudaimonia is what everyone who has an activated brain is working for.

I am now looking for investigators who pursue almost forensic probes on atheists and their eudaimonia.

This thread will be further focused more specifically on particular aspects of eudaimonia in outspoken atheists.

Yrreg
This post wonderfully encapsulates almost all that is gerry: the pompous language, the condescension, the use of several big words where one small one would be better. It even contains his theme song, the repetition of tergiversation. Sadly, it does not exhibit his belief that God must exist because gerry has a nose and a penis.

The complete thread is here.)
Elizabeth I is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 10:21 AM   #446
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
I think you have gerry confused with doc. doc is the one always going on about how what he says must be true because of all the views of his posts.

(And for those who missed the gerry glory days, here's post one of a gerry thread titled "HAHA, GOTCHA!":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...77&postcount=1

This post wonderfully encapsulates almost all that is gerry: the pompous language, the condescension, the use of several big words where one small one would be better. It even contains his theme song, the repetition of tergiversation. Sadly, it does not exhibit his belief that God must exist because gerry has a nose and a penis.

The complete thread is here.)
A hilarious thread.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 10:41 AM   #447
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
Is that the one where someone jokingly admitted that their atheism was purely so they could masturbate guiltlessly and Yrreg took it seriously? Or the one where a lady's penis was proof of god?
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 10:56 AM   #448
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by X View Post
Is that the one where someone jokingly admitted that their atheism was purely so they could masturbate guiltlessly and Yrreg took it seriously? Or the one where a lady's penis was proof of god?
That's the one. Comedy gold.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 10:57 AM   #449
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,910
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
So, in other words, we're just gonna go around in circles, then. Terrific. I'll be back when this thread hits page 12.


Hey, folks! Welcome to page 12!
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 11:04 AM   #450
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,918
This thread had me thinking on something - If I'm ever to write any fiction with some sort of deity in it, it'd basically be a classic "demiurge", a background entity with limited power, who only intervenes in events of the universe when it conflicts with some higher purpose, greater than the deity itself, perhaps one beyond what humans can comprehend, and only intervenes as little as it has to (perhaps because usage of its power disrupts the universe).

Such a deity would probably either be a very passive ally or the main villain of a story. I do have a thing for stories that involve killing gods.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 11:28 AM   #451
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 35,972
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
You guys are not accustomed to genuine thinking, but only to rote regurgitation of rancid slogans.

That's certainly what we're accustomed to seeing from you.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 01:33 PM   #452
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
That's certainly what we're accustomed to seeing from you.
The bible is one long rancid slogan.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 03:30 PM   #453
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Hey, folks! Welcome to page 12!
Gerry is so predictable.
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo
MIKILLINI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 04:18 PM   #454
yrreg
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,420
We are now into the fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe.

Title of new thread [that is merged by the admin with the previous thread not abandoned but put on abeyance]:
Fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe.
Here is my fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe, and an example [already transmitted earlier]:

Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
Fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe.
Here is my fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe:

Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.
What do you guys say?

Originally Posted by yrreg View Post

Here is my example of the fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe,
the nose in man's face.
That is just one example representing one kind of evidence but it illustrates perfectly the fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe as:
Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.

Explanation: Man knows the existence of his nose and what he does with it. wherefore it leads him to know about breathing in a living thing that has also what appears to be a nose in its face.

Nose is an existing thing, an object thing; breathing is an existing thing, a process thing.


Man knowing his nose leads him to know breathing in another living thing.

Simple.


Lesson: Anything at all that exists in objective reality or in man's mind as a concept can be a piece of evidence leading him to know another thing.

Okay?


Just read the title of the [new] thread which I will keep at the top my posts, and also the two posts [in links] from me above for your orientation.

I will not read after the first words any posts that do not convey the poster's fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe in not more than than 20 words, and then an example in not more than 100 words.

For guys who have given your definition and what you think is an example, do it again, the definition in not more than 20 words, namely, what is your fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example plus the explanation in not more than 100 words.

I will not read any posters who on first words of the post already reveal themselves to be into irrelevancies.


My purpose now is to find out whether atheists can think their way into the fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example with explanation on the how and why of their concept of evidence.

Honestly, so far I have not found any exposition on evidence from atheists that is worth the bandwidth it is written on.

And atheists are the most vociferous about evidence in the issue of God or no God.


So, when I have already come to their fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, I will use it to prove that God as the maker of everything that is not God Himself exists in objective reality outside the realm of concepts in man's mind.


If anyone posts nothing but irrelevancies, when I see his name, I will just omit reading his posts.




Yrreg
yrreg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 04:28 PM   #455
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,551
Yrreg. I thought for a whole thirty seconds or so about your splendid example of evidence and conclusion using the nose as an example.

Sharks have noses but do not breathe, and whales breathe but have no noses.

Of what is a nose evidence?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 04:30 PM   #456
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
Title of new thread [that is merged by the admin with the previous thread not abandoned but put on abeyance]:
Fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe.
Here is my fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe, and an example [already transmitted earlier]:








Just read the title of the [new] thread which I will keep at the top my posts, and also the two posts [in links] from me above for your orientation.

I will not read after the first words any posts that do not convey the poster's fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe in not more than than 20 words, and then an example in not more than 100 words.

For guys who have given your definition and what you think is an example, do it again, the definition in not more than 20 words, namely, what is your fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example plus the explanation in not more than 100 words.

I will not read any posters who on first words of the post already reveal themselves to be into irrelevancies.


My purpose now is to find out whether atheists can think their way into the fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example with explanation on the how and why of their concept of evidence.

Honestly, so far I have not found any exposition on evidence from atheists that is worth the bandwidth it is written on.

And atheists are the most vociferous about evidence in the issue of God or no God.


So, when I have already come to their fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, I will use it to prove that God as the maker of everything that is not God Himself exists in objective reality outside the realm of concepts in man's mind.


If anyone posts nothing but irrelevancies, when I see his name, I will just omit reading his posts.




Yrreg
Go ahead and put me on your ignore list, gerrY. You never respond to meaningful questions anyway, so you might as well stop abusing my electrons
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 04:33 PM   #457
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post

To make the thread simpler.




Yrreg
The thread couldn't get any simpler,not unless we all have lobotomies.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 04:35 PM   #458
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
Title of new thread [that is merged by the admin with the previous thread not abandoned but put on abeyance]:
Fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe.
Here is my fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe, and an example [already transmitted earlier]:








Just read the title of the [new] thread which I will keep at the top my posts, and also the two posts [in links] from me above for your orientation.

I will not read after the first words any posts that do not convey the poster's fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe in not more than than 20 words, and then an example in not more than 100 words.

For guys who have given your definition and what you think is an example, do it again, the definition in not more than 20 words, namely, what is your fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example plus the explanation in not more than 100 words.

I will not read any posters who on first words of the post already reveal themselves to be into irrelevancies.


My purpose now is to find out whether atheists can think their way into the fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example with explanation on the how and why of their concept of evidence.

Honestly, so far I have not found any exposition on evidence from atheists that is worth the bandwidth it is written on.

And atheists are the most vociferous about evidence in the issue of God or no God.


So, when I have already come to their fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, I will use it to prove that God as the maker of everything that is not God Himself exists in objective reality outside the realm of concepts in man's mind.


If anyone posts nothing but irrelevancies, when I see his name, I will just omit reading his posts.




Yrreg
Do what you like mate,no skin off my nose. You will end up with us all on ignore and mumbling to yourself. I bet you do a lot of that anyway. Will you be proving the existence of your sky daddy anytime soon? The fundamental concept of the universe,lol. As for proving that your imaginary god made everything,you would have trouble proving that Marilyn Monroe was a woman,using your deeply flawed logic,and I use the term logic very loosely.

Last edited by dafydd; 18th June 2011 at 04:45 PM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 05:11 PM   #459
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 15,332
Your definition of evidence is not just woefully inadequate, it's quite fundamentally wrong.

You are conflating knowledge and belief and your posts are filled with needless repetition, irrelevancies and redundancies. Further, you are not the boss of this forum so you would do well to cease trying to limit the word count of other people's posts.

I expect you will ignore this post as you have ignored others.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 05:22 PM   #460
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
I am trying a new approach, and I want to be more solemn now.

We are all interested in getting to the facts, so it behooves us all to be serious and not flippant, and also not into diversionary tactics which do not serve any profitable advance to us all in the quest for facts.

God is the maker of everything that is not God Himself, I think that is a very simple, plain, clear and to my mind very precise way of conceiving God in our mind, so that we can go forward in the world outside our mind to look for God, seeking for the entity that satisfies that description.



Yrreg
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I sense us drifting off topic.

In your first post, you said:




Only after someone mentioned evidence, did you say:





In your last post, you talked about examining our own noses.

What exactly is the next step after we grant that God, the maker of the universe, exists?

Is it to look at our noses? Is it to then define evidence? Is it an unnamed third thing?

In any case, the examples of evidence sufficient to form proof are infinite. What level of certainty do you consider to be high enough to constitute proof in your case?
Is this to hard for you Gerry? If it isn't, then why don't you respond clearly and concisely.
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo
MIKILLINI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 05:30 PM   #461
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,587
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
Title of new thread [that is merged by the admin with the previous thread not abandoned but put on abeyance]:
Fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe.
Here is my fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe, and an example [already transmitted earlier]:








Just read the title of the [new] thread which I will keep at the top my posts, and also the two posts [in links] from me above for your orientation.

I will not read after the first words any posts that do not convey the poster's fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe in not more than than 20 words, and then an example in not more than 100 words.

For guys who have given your definition and what you think is an example, do it again, the definition in not more than 20 words, namely, what is your fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example plus the explanation in not more than 100 words.

I will not read any posters who on first words of the post already reveal themselves to be into irrelevancies.


My purpose now is to find out whether atheists can think their way into the fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example with explanation on the how and why of their concept of evidence.

Honestly, so far I have not found any exposition on evidence from atheists that is worth the bandwidth it is written on.

And atheists are the most vociferous about evidence in the issue of God or no God.


So, when I have already come to their fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, I will use it to prove that God as the maker of everything that is not God Himself exists in objective reality outside the realm of concepts in man's mind.


If anyone posts nothing but irrelevancies, when I see his name, I will just omit reading his posts.




Yrreg
It sounds like you think intelligence is in inverse proportion to the number of words used.

You used 554 words.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 06:24 PM   #462
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Why oh Why.....

Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
Title of new thread [that is merged by the admin with the previous thread not abandoned but put on abeyance]:
Fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe.
Here is my fundamental concept of evidence for man in relation to the universe, and an example [already transmitted earlier]:





Just read the title of the [new] thread which I will keep at the top my posts, and also the two posts [in links] from me above for your orientation.

I will not read after the first words any posts that do not convey the poster's fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe in not more than than 20 words, and then an example in not more than 100 words.

For guys who have given your definition and what you think is an example, do it again, the definition in not more than 20 words, namely, what is your fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example plus the explanation in not more than 100 words.

I will not read any posters who on first words of the post already reveal themselves to be into irrelevancies.


My purpose now is to find out whether atheists can think their way into the fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example with explanation on the how and why of their concept of evidence.

Honestly, so far I have not found any exposition on evidence from atheists that is worth the bandwidth it is written on.

And atheists are the most vociferous about evidence in the issue of God or no God.


So, when I have already come to their fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, I will use it to prove that God as the maker of everything that is not God Himself exists in objective reality outside the realm of concepts in man's mind.


If anyone posts nothing but irrelevancies, when I see his name, I will just omit reading his posts.




Yrreg
You have yet again failed to establish a basis for a rational discussion. You keep saying "I want this" and "I want that", without once demonstration that you are capable of correctly interpreting any response you may receive.

When are you going to answer the questions?

  1. what do you define as evidence? Provide examples consistent with your definition
  2. what do you define as proof? Provide examples consistent with your definition
  3. specify the criteria by which any evidence will be rated for relevance and weight. Clearly document these in advance so that any contributors or spectators may impartially apply these criteria and arrive at the same conclusion.
  4. please provide information on your experience, skills, qualifications and knowledge relating to analysing and evaluating data, and synthesising conclusions. Attach examples of your prior work.
  5. Specify in advance the weight of evidence or proof that will empirically establish the proof of the god postulate that you have established, so that any participant or spectator may by inspection of the weight of evidence and proof, establish whether that threshold has been reached.
  6. Describe the process whereby evidence will be assessed as being "for" or "against" your case, noting that one could contrive to later reinterpret proofs to suit one's own preconceptions.
  7. Noting that we all have a real life somewhere, specify the timeframe in which this exercise is proposed to take place.
  8. Specify the roles and responsibilites that will be required to be assigned, for this exercise to be done in the required timeframe.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 06:35 PM   #463
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,910
Gerry:

I've provided definitions of evidence and proof.

I've asked you to clarify your meaning of "proof."

I've given a very thorough critique of your proposed definition of evidence.

You have almost completely ignored everything I've written. I won't rewrite it all. I will, however, take offense at your statement that my posts are not worth the bandwidth consumed. First of all, text takes up very little bandwidth. Second, I've actually answered you.

In any case, on behalf of the universe, I am honestly very sorry for the abuse you suffered as a child. Either at the hands of your father or the church, you were very badly mistreated when you were young. Today, you are absolutely torn apart between loyalty to and defiance of authority. It has affected every aspect of your life, including your ability to form and keep relationships. And I think that is an utter shame. I hope the people who love you can get you the help you need.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 06:37 PM   #464
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,910
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
[*]what do you define as proof? Provide examples consistent with your definition
[*]Specify in advance the weight of evidence or proof that will empirically establish the proof of the god postulate that you have established, so that any participant or spectator may by inspection of the weight of evidence and proof, establish whether that threshold has been reached.

To my mind, these two items are basically the same.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 06:59 PM   #465
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,092
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
I will not read after the first words any posts that do not convey the poster's fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe in not more than than 20 words, and then an example in not more than 100 words.

For guys who have given your definition and what you think is an example, do it again, the definition in not more than 20 words, namely, what is your fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, and give one example plus the explanation in not more than 100 words.
You have not yet responded to my post. I require from you examples of what you mean by evidence. You are to post five examples, each in no more than 329 words and no less than 327.

At least three of the five examples must include cats. This is essential, responses which do not have cats in the thread will be assumed false.

Once you have done this, we will be ready to move on with the discussion in further threads.

Failure to comply will indicate that you have converted to atheism.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 07:46 PM   #466
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
To my mind, these two items are basically the same.
to your mind, yes - but your mind and yrreg's mind are as similar as potato crisps and proctology.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 08:26 PM   #467
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
So, when I have already come to their fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe, I will use it to prove that God as the maker of everything that is not God Himself exists in objective reality outside the realm of concepts in man's mind.

Finally! People have been asking you to do that, and you have more or less claimed that you would do that for well over five years now. You've had every opportunity in your almost 2000 posts here, and still have never come close to showing that any sort of gods exist, and certainly by extension you've been unable to show that that/those god(s) made anything at all.

So would it be presumptuous to ask when you intend to begin that process of objectively proving the existence of your god thing?
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 08:49 PM   #468
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
<snip>

I will not read after the first words any posts that do not convey the poster's fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe in not more than than 20 words, and then an example in not more than 100 words.

<snip>

I stopped reading here.
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2011, 09:20 PM   #469
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
I will not read after the first words any posts that do not convey the poster's fundamental concept of evidence in relation to the universe in not more than than 20 words, and then an example in not more than 100 words.
Why Gerry? Why ask for evidence in not more than 20 words and ignore all posts that have done so?? That says everything that needs to be said about how you conduct yourself. Then you ask for an example of not more than 100 words. Why don't you read the posts with the concept of evidence first? (One step at a time...Just repeating what you have said earlier)

Quote:
I will not read any posters who on first words of the post already reveal themselves to be into irrelevancies.
This is always, ALWAYS an excuse of yours. You haven't proven them to be irrelevant.



Quote:
Honestly, so far I have not found any exposition on evidence from atheists that is worth the bandwidth it is written on.
Nothing that suits you?....Not our problem; That's your problem.


Quote:
If anyone posts nothing but irrelevancies, when I see his name, I will just omit reading his posts.
Once again, can you prove them to be irrelevant?
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo
MIKILLINI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 10:46 AM   #470
yrreg
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,420
I am giving you an idea, but you are the ones to tell me what is the fundamental...

I am giving you an idea, but you are the ones to tell me what is for you atheists the fundamental concept of evidence and of proof in relation to the universe.

So that I can be guided to prove the existence of God according to your exposition on what is evidence and what is proof, and also your examples.

Otherwise you atheists as usual will insist that I don't have the correct ideas about evidence and proof.


Anyway, I found a website from atheists which invites people to ask them questions.

And here is my question to them:

Quote:
What is your concept of evidence and proof?

Please give five examples of evidence as of proof.

By stating what five things are evidenced by what evidence.

And what five things are proved by what proof.

I understand there is a difference between evidence and proof, of course they are connected.

http://asktheatheist.com/?page_id=31
.

.
No, the question is not reproduced in their website, and I hope they will answer it in public.


It is useless to talk with you people here, because you are always beating about the bush, evading the business on hand.

If any thinkers today should be the ones most keen on what is evidence and what is proof, it should be atheists, but there are so far as I have searched in the web no systematic exposition by atheists on what is the fundamental concept of evidence as of proof in relation to the universe.


Tell you what, atheists, go to very well-stocked libraries and read up on evidence and proof, and give readers here the gist of what you find in published bibliography outside the web.

That will be a great service to the cause of atheists, and also to the advancement of knowledge for mankind in the field of what is evidence and what is proof.


Or do some very personal constructive thinking on what is evidence and what is proof, and verbalize your mental fruits concisely, precisely, and clearly, giving examples of evidence as of proof.

Here in this thread.



Yrreg
yrreg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 10:52 AM   #471
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,587
Since you are the one asking, you go to a library and read up for your own personal edification. Then come back here and concisely state your evidence that caused you to believe in your personal god.

You may only use a maximum of 20 words. No more of your over-wordy nonsense phrases. Then you will be into genuinely thinking and not beleiving.

Also, you may only type in cyan text. All else will be believer nonsense.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 11:02 AM   #472
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 52,430
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
I am giving you an idea, but you are the ones to tell me what is for you atheists the fundamental concept of evidence and of proof in relation to the universe.

So that I can be guided to prove the existence of God according to your exposition on what is evidence and what is proof, and also your examples.

Otherwise you atheists as usual will insist that I don't have the correct ideas about evidence and proof.


Anyway, I found a website from atheists which invites people to ask them questions.

And here is my question to them:


.

.
No, the question is not reproduced in their website, and I hope they will answer it in public.


It is useless to talk with you people here, because you are always beating about the bush, evading the business on hand.

If any thinkers today should be the ones most keen on what is evidence and what is proof, it should be atheists, but there are so far as I have searched in the web no systematic exposition by atheists on what is the fundamental concept of evidence as of proof in relation to the universe.


Tell you what, atheists, go to very well-stocked libraries and read up on evidence and proof, and give readers here the gist of what you find in published bibliography outside the web.

That will be a great service to the cause of atheists, and also to the advancement of knowledge for mankind in the field of what is evidence and what is proof.


Or do some very personal constructive thinking on what is evidence and what is proof, and verbalize your mental fruits concisely, precisely, and clearly, giving examples of evidence as of proof.

Here in this thread.



Yrreg
No.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 01:19 PM   #473
Dunstan
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,289
Glasses fit on a nose perfectly.
I have a nose.
Therefore, I need glasses.
Dunstan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 01:32 PM   #474
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 52,430
Originally Posted by Dunstan View Post
Glasses fit on a nose perfectly.
I have a nose.
Therefore, I need glasses.
And when you say "nose", obviously you mean "penis".
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 02:16 PM   #475
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
 
Elizabeth I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,930
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
And when you say "nose", obviously you mean "penis".
He wears glasses on his penis? Eeeewww!
Elizabeth I is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 02:56 PM   #476
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Larechar View Post
No.

I'm curious to know if anyone has at least researched them, so that I can judge whether to base my response in laymen's terms, or in practitioner's terms.
Hit us with your best shot.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 04:04 PM   #477
yrreg
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,420
Just do some personal thinking instead of plagiarising, okay?

Read the last paragraph below put in bold by yours truly.

Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
I am giving you an idea, but you are the ones to tell me what is for you atheists the fundamental concept of evidence and of proof in relation to the universe.

So that I can be guided to prove the existence of God according to your exposition on what is evidence and what is proof, and also your examples.

Otherwise you atheists as usual will insist that I don't have the correct ideas about evidence and proof.


Anyway, I found a website from atheists which invites people to ask them questions.

And here is my question to them:
Quote:
What is your concept of evidence and proof?

Please give five examples of evidence as of proof.

By stating what five things are evidenced by what evidence.

And what five things are proved by what proof.

I understand there is a difference between evidence and proof, of course they are connected.

http://asktheatheist.com/?page_id=31

.
.
No, the question is not reproduced in their website, and I hope they will answer it in public.


It is useless to talk with you people here, because you are always beating about the bush, evading the business on hand.

If any thinkers today should be the ones most keen on what is evidence and what is proof, it should be atheists, but there are so far as I have searched in the web no systematic exposition by atheists on what is the fundamental concept of evidence as of proof in relation to the universe.


Tell you what, atheists, go to very well-stocked libraries and read up on evidence and proof, and give readers here the gist of what you find in published bibliography outside the web.

That will be a great service to the cause of atheists, and also to the advancement of knowledge for mankind in the field of what is evidence and what is proof.


Or do some very personal constructive thinking on what is evidence and what is proof, and verbalize your mental fruits concisely, precisely, and clearly, giving examples of evidence as of proof.

Here in this thread.
Or do some very personal constructive thinking on what is evidence and what is proof, and verbalize your mental fruits concisely, precisely, and clearly, giving examples of evidence as of proof.

So, are you guys going to do some personal thinking instead of plagiarizing by the hand scoops?


Yrreg
yrreg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 04:14 PM   #478
Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
 
Lord Emsworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,014
Blah Blah Blah.
Lord Emsworth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 04:19 PM   #479
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,910
Originally Posted by yrreg View Post
If any thinkers today should be the ones most keen on what is evidence and what is proof, it should be atheists, but there are so far as I have searched in the web no systematic exposition by atheists on what is the fundamental concept of evidence as of proof in relation to the universe.

That's amazing to me, Gerry, because I have dedicated my entire professional life to the study of evidence and proof. I am, thus, aware that there is a phenomenal amount that has been written about the subject.

It is also amazing to me because I have already given you a definition of proof and evidence in this thread with examples ... several times. You have ignored me every time. To say that it has not been done is an insult to me and my efforts.

However, I'll do it all over again.

Proof, in general, is evidence sufficient to convince the mind of the truth of a proposition.

As is obvious, the crux of that definition is the word "sufficient." What is sufficient? Well, that depends on the type of circumstance and what we want to use our proof for.

If we want to use proof to make one guy pay $200.00 for knocking over your mailbox, we may require a very low level of proof. That would be a preponderance of the evidence. That means that some evidence may favor the defendant, but the majority of it favors the plaintiff. OJ Simpson was found liable for killing his wife by a prepoderance of the evidence.

If we want to use proof to send someone to jail and brand him for life as a criminal, we will only accept a higher level of proof. This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is usually defined as a doubt that you can put into words. A mere "worry" that you might be wrong is not reasonable doubt. The fact that some evidence points to the guilt of someone else (and it cannot be explained in another way) is. OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scientists ask for another level of proof because they have another mission than the courts. Scientists are trying to build as accurate a model of the workings of the world as possible. They cannot tolerate any contradictory evidence whatsoever, because contradictory evidence means that they do not have a perfect picture of how the universe works. Thus, scientific proof is usually defined as repeatable, valid experiments consistent with a falsifiable hypothesis. As soon as an experiment contradicts the hypothesis, either the experiment must be explained or the hypothesis must be thrown out. This is far beyond a reasonable doubt - it is beyond any doubt whatsoever using current methods of analysis. It holds the door open, however, to new methods forever. Newtonian physics was demonstrated time and again for decade after decade until new experiments at high speeds and high energy showed it to be incorrect.

Mathematic or logical proof is a different sort of proof altogether. Mathematicians want to uncover fundamental rules which always work in all situations. A math or logic proof is necessarily true if the premises are true. No condition other than the truthfulness of the theorum could ever occur. This proof is intrinsic to the conditions themselves. There is no guesswork or leap of faith. A triangle has three sides. A line segment can be bisected into two parts, the sum of which is never less than the segment itself. Thus, any two sides of a triangle must together be longer than the third side.

There are many, many other types of proof that I have not discussed. Proof of the efficacy of a medication for FDA purposes is different than any of the above. Proof sufficient to stop and frisk a person on the street is different than any other. The central question is - what are we using the proof for? How important and far reaching are our goals? What happens if we're wrong? What will we do if we're right?


I am afraid that if you are waiting for a consensus of atheist opinions about the level of proof "in relation to the universe," you're going to be waiting a long time. First, there is no central organization of atheists. So, there's no way to even count atheists, let alone gather their opinions, let alone quantify them.

Second, there is no evidence that the average atheist has the training to discuss levels of proof. I have a doctorate in law (and I'm still out of my depth in the science and math department, as shown by my pitiful triangle example). Most people don't even have my training.

Third, as discussed, there are many, many different levels of proof. There is not one definition. So, asking for one definition is utterly useless.

I hope this clears things up.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 04:34 PM   #480
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
That's amazing to me, Gerry, because I have dedicated my entire professional life to the study of evidence and proof. I am, thus, aware that there is a phenomenal amount that has been written about the subject.

*snip for size*

I hope this clears things up.
Pearls before swine...
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.