Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 01:25 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The defined terms and the boundaries you would place on evidence/proof for any fact.
As I've said previously, it has to be empirical, testable and verifiable.

The visual and auditory evidence you have mentioned meets these criteria perfectly. Would you now please finally bring forth your evidence?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 01:53 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Would you accept these definitions?

Empirical - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Testable - A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial.

Verifiable - Capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 01:55 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 01:53 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Would you accept these definitions?

Empirical - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Testable - A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial.

Verifiable - Capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.
Yes.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 11:10 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:4.56 billion years old. Just slightly younger than our solar system.
And the dating techniques are off by around 1% or less (depends on the technique) and that is primarily based on instrumental limitations. We can measure ratios of isotopes pretty well, but not abundances. Abundances would be substantially easier and more precise, but we don't have the technology to develop these systems with any degree of accuracy at this point in time.
LOL. You can read off Wikipedia. This is the date that is presently in vogue. However, I am willing to accept that date without it having bearing on believing either the Bible or Evolution.
Quote:Oh what a tangled web you weave. So the Scientific process of research/peer review/publish findings (lather rinse repeat) is insufficient to you. yet you appear to have complete reliance on something written thousands of years ago by certainly biased authors, written hundreds of years after the events, written during a period where the scientific method was not yet devised, with very little (if any at all) corroborating evidence and in many cases contradictory contemporaneous evidence? Am I summing up your position correctly, PJ?
And now you accuse others of being ensnared by the Devil? Great googly moogly. You need to go back to your cave where you can huddle by the campfire praying to the god to make the scary thunder go away.
Your source, please, for your assertions. Most of the NT verses were repeated in letters between church fathers before the close fo the second century. The corroborating evidence includes the Talmud, which points to Jesus as who He claimed to be though it says to NOT believe in Him, and the multiple authors, the prophecies, the accuracies and the Bible codes, etc. What is your "contradictory contemporaneous evidence," please?
No, you aren't summing my position correctly. NOR my PROOF for God's existence.
Quote:I do not need to have faith, because I possess plenty of evidence. I even went as far as providing you with some of it. I have shown you both a picture and a video of myself and I have proven that the person depicted in these two mediums happens to have control over this account. You, on the other hand, have yet to bring up even one shred of evidence for your existence apart from registering and participating on this forum. Where is an image or a video of yourself to prove your existence? You are unable to bring forth empirical evidence for your own existence and yet you expect us to believe that you can provide such evidence for the existence of your god?

That aside, nobody on here or anywhere else has to do anything before you have met your burden of proof.
I'm unsure why you're reluctant to define terms. However, if you don't mind a pointer to the thread where you lay down your terms or if you don't mind repeating yourself, I'll gladly proceed. I'm not pleased with the delay either.
Quote:Okay PJ, I was a bit off on the numbers, and the actual name is, the National Academy of Science.

The last minute of this clip Tyson talks about the poll and says it was 85% proffess no belief in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...i3mtDC2fQo

Why I thought it was around 3 % comes from info from the sources this article references.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-scien...heists.htm
It's not all scientists, but 93% of the national academy of science's physicists/Astronomers (Which Tyson is and I recall he mentioned that bit in some other video) and only 5% of their Biologists belief in a deity/god.

And you're proclaiming that one being mightier than you is what makes you accountable... then how do atheists not simply have accountability to law enforcement if they behave to a harsh extreme if we all could to aliens?

Odd note... I watched Iron Man 2 last week and Shallow Hal this past weekend, and HOC comes back? Coincidence or did Comedy Central reshowing Shallow Hal put him in the mood to return. The world may never know...
I'm sorry to hear that. Your positions would stand better if they were more representative of the average person. If Tyson is true, there is a LOT of bias there. Atheists do have accountability to law enforcement. I'm sorry, please restate your point.
I couldn't follow it.
I teach geology, and I don't teach from Wikipedia. I have held rocks in my hand that are derived from the mantle. I own a piece of rock from the earliest ocean life. I work in a building where fossils and rock samples abound. I personally know and have access to mass spectrometers (of varying types) with which I could do radiometric sampling on (not my area of research but I do other isotopes). You got offended when someone generalized about you, but you are enough of a hypocrite to think it fine when you generalize about someone else?

Still ignoring everything else too? Really? I mean, I had given up hope you would ever return to the Faith thread and had even given up hope you would address some of my more recent replies in this thread, but to literally take the bit about the age and ignore everything else is getting ridiculous.

I don't throw this around much but, you are a troll and I have wasted enough time. The ignore function exists for a reason, and I shall execute its purpose with you.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I teach geology, and I don't teach from Wikipedia. I have held rocks in my hand that are derived from the mantle. I own a piece of rock from the earliest ocean life. I work in a building where fossils and rock samples abound. I personally know and have access to mass spectrometers (of varying types) with which I could do radiometric sampling on (not my area of research but I do other isotopes). You got offended when someone generalized about you, but you are enough of a hypocrite to think it fine when you generalize about someone else?

Still ignoring everything else too? Really? I mean, I had given up hope you would ever return to the Faith thread and had even given up hope you would address some of my more recent replies in this thread, but to literally take the bit about the age and ignore everything else is getting ridiculous.

I don't throw this around much but, you are a troll and I have wasted enough time. The ignore function exists for a reason, and I shall execute its purpose with you.
I've already conceded that the age of the Earth is as old as you say. Nor did I ever state the 5,000-year GARBAGE you threw in my face. The Earth could be 40 B years old for all I care. What does that have to do with the likelihood of Evolution or the inaccuracy/accuracy of the Bible? The Bible does not state the age of the Earth, regardless of mass spectrometry or Bishop Usher...!

Feel free to put me on ignore if you're going to use straw men. At least Vosur and others ask good questions. But if you feel I've ignored you, I hardly have. I've responded to dozens of your posts and you're responded selectively to my questions...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 02:15 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 01:55 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(26-02-2013 01:53 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Would you accept these definitions?

Empirical - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Testable - A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial.

Verifiable - Capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.
Yes.
Okay. Defining terms is very, very cool. I'm sorry I've allowed for so many tangents and it was not my intention to waste people's time including mine. I would be willing to say that others have met the criteria above and proven (beyond a reasonable doubt and so forth) that they do exist IF I can get some clarification on something first, please.

I'm NOT saying this is my proof of God, but I've heard testimonies like this:

"Prove it for yourself and pray." "I prayed, I received."

  1. Empirical - the individual has made observation; even to testing via the scriptural "rules" for testing
  2. Testable - a procedure was followed; the individual was skeptical and unwilling/unwanting to be converted but felt that way too many things had happened to be mere statistical coincidence
  3. Verifiable - further experiments (prayers, in this example) continued on daily for years, further observations were made and further conclusions were drawn

The flaw I see in the logic, I think, with the above "evidence" is that it is touching metaphysics. A naturalist would say an invisible deity was invoked and then a self-fulfilling prophecy was achieved. But it still seems to me to meet empirical/testable/verifiable measures. Please explain to me so I understand better. I may not deconvert but I'd at least know whether I have evidentiary or blind faith, right? Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 02:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(26-02-2013 01:55 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Yes.
Okay. Defining terms is very, very cool. I'm sorry I've allowed for so many tangents and it was not my intention to waste people's time including mine. I would be willing to say that others have met the criteria above and proven (beyond a reasonable doubt and so forth) that they do exist IF I can get some clarification on something first, please.

I'm NOT saying this is my proof of God, but I've heard testimonies like this:

"Prove it for yourself and pray." "I prayed, I received."

  1. Empirical - the individual has made observation; even to testing via the scriptural "rules" for testing
  2. Testable - a procedure was followed; the individual was skeptical and unwilling/unwanting to be converted but felt that way too many things had happened to be mere statistical coincidence
  3. Verifiable - further experiments (prayers, in this example) continued on daily for years, further observations were made and further conclusions were drawn

The flaw I see in the logic, I think, with the above "evidence" is that it is touching metaphysics. A naturalist would say an invisible deity was invoked and then a self-fulfilling prophecy was achieved. But it still seems to me to meet empirical/testable/verifiable measures. Please explain to me so I understand better. I may not deconvert but I'd at least know whether I have evidentiary or blind faith, right? Thanks!
That's confirmation bias.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cheapthrillseaker's post
26-02-2013, 02:24 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Your definitions are incomplete. Vosur said yes; I do not. The most important part is the removal of personal bias at all stages. When it comes to psychology the experiments must be done by a third party. In other words, you cannot experiment on yourself. The observer cannot also be the subject of the experiment, because it introduces personal biases.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
26-02-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:That's confirmation bias.
I understand that a confirmatory bias is a tendency for people to prove their own hypotheses/beliefs.

1. In this case it was a skeptic's conversion. 2. Shouldn't you actually write that "might" be confirmation bias?

This is what I mean by an Atheist's bias. It should be "I doubt it, but it's possible, maybe." Why wouldn't someone simply retort, "So? Atheists don't have confirmation bias, too?"

Just saying. Not trying to start a flame war.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 02:32 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Your definitions are incomplete. Vosur said yes; I do not. The most important part is the removal of personal bias at all stages. When it comes to psychology the experiments must be done by a third party. In other words, you cannot experiment on yourself. The observer cannot also be the subject of the experiment, because it introduces personal biases.
I would gladly assent to your addition to the definition except for two questions:

1. What is the practical limit for removing personal bias? We want (and make it a conditional point of law in some cases) our scientists to remove bias, we desperately want the same for judges, attorneys, jurors, police and etc. What are the practical limits of doing anything worth doing while still having a personal bias(es)?

2. In psychology, if we say "third party", we're on slippery ground, since religions and not just Christianity say it's an individual's opportunity not applicable to third parties. How would you handle that? What practical steps might you add to our testing? For Christian counselors who affirm free will, this takes a tremendous burden off the counselors' shoulders. They can safely say, "God desires healing and restitution for all but I'm a third party here and the individual has to want to get help as well." Since metaphysics touches on what we understand about psychology, yet religions of mystery apply to individuals, how would you resolve this issue. Any suggestions?

Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: