How do you decide if something is factual?

[The Brown Brink]

Seems pretty subjection to me.

Well...
It's not proof that there's a big man-like God up in the sky, true...
But all this stuff had to come from somewhere...
And nothing could create this stuff except "God"...whatever God actually is...

 

[Kenny'sID]

.

 

[Radagast]

I think that any description of the universe would have to cover the first two. It would have to match what we see in reality, and it would also have to be logically consistent. In other words, it wouldn't contradict reality, and it wouldn't contradict itself.

Not contradicting itself is a weaker condition.

Yes, but if many people all agree on the same thing, it is unlikely to be a false memory that often happens with eyewitness testimony.

True, but it means that you don't only determine truth by testing things personally.

Not really. It's actually quite easy to make some remember an event that never happened.

You miss my point, but I'm not sure how to explain it better.

Scientific observation requires a lot more than just seeing it happen. It involves recording it and making notes as the event occurs.

That's what I said. And other professions do that too.

And apparently, God can't drive out the inhabitants of the valley if they have iron chariots. Beats me why God is rendered helpless by iron... (Judges 1:19)

That misrepresents what the passage says.

If that's your approach, I think I'm done here.

 

[Kylie]

Not contradicting itself is a weaker condition.

Weaker?

Tell me, how can an idea be considered true if it contradicts itself?

True, but it means that you don't only determine truth by testing htings personally.

I think you need to read post 103.

You miss my point. I'm not sure how to explain it better.

Please try.

That's what I said. And other professions do that too.

And yet there are things done in scientific observation that aren't done by the average eyewitness.

That misrepresents what the passage says. Actually, I think I'm done here.

Ah yes. The old "Claim the passage is taken out of context, then leave so you don't have to explain what that correct context is" technique.

I also note that you are leaving before you get to the part where I show contradictory qualities of God, which you claimed don't exist.

 

[Kylie]

I have absolutely no interest in scientific matters or scientific perspectives on life.

Then we have no common frame of reference to base a discussion on. From my point of view, you are dismissing the only tool we have that gives us accurate information about reality.

So I'll pray the Lord sends you some of our more science-oriented Christian members we have here.

Yes. You'll pray for me. How lovely.

 

[Kylie]

Faith does not require evidence. You either have faith that the bible is the word of God or you do not.

So, does that mean it has worked well or not?

 

[Kylie]

...

 

[Kylie]

I answered your question exactly...with a very solid and well thought out answer, but it seems you want to restrict how I draw my personal conclusion.

Except for the bit where you presented the scientific side as just "happening for no reason at all", instead of "happening due to the non-random process of evolution by means of natural and sexual selection."

I changed nothing

Yes you did, and I just told you what it was.

you didn't include a very important factor in your question..."where did it all begin". And I assumed it's as it always has been with Atheist evolutionists, in that it all "just started", (It's not realistic to avoid the unavoidable because we have no answer, but it's done all the time with the beginning of evolution) and didn't really expect an argument on that. You say they are two completely different things, but they are not, where it began is absolutely part of the evolutionary process. Sure it's a stumper for you, but that's not my fault (I'm assuming that is the actual problem you had with my answer) I personally use that "from nothing" as part of my logical process toward conclusion.

First, evolution doesn't deal with how life began, or even how the universe began. It deals only with how life forms change over many generations in response to pressures they face in their environment.

Secondly, are you claiming that science is useless because it doesn't have all the answers? I'd rather an honest "I don't know" instead of invoking an untestable claim of a deity to patch in the holes in knowledge.

Evolution had to start somewhere and I'm not going to skip that part in drawing my conclusion, however it's up to you if you choose to. To not recognize a beginning is like, for instance, how does one draw a factual conclusion on how a man got from point A to point B without explaining where he started. It *has* to be included.

If you insist on proceeding that way, then you don't know much about the position you are arguing against. That would explain your strawman.

You asked, I told you, and now it seems I'm not allowed to use certain criteria in order to draw my factual conclusion.

Well, I would appreciate it if you WOULDN'T rephrase my position in a way that changes its meaning!

Are there any other restrictions that I need to know about?

Yeah. Don't use any logical fallacies. You can find a good list of fallacies here: List of fallacies - Wikipedia

So I call your non existent or Straw beginning and raise you one Straw man.

What you are saying here makes no sense.

And BTW, there is nothing wrong with putting a creator in that place where you have no explanation of how things came to be.

In other words, if you don't know, then just make it up!

If you asked me where, say, a house came from, a house that neither of us saw built, and I said it was built by a man, you could actually argue "straw man" because neither of us are certain who built, but it would still be logical to assume it was a man that built it, just as logical as assuming it was God at times.

Oh rubbish. We have literally MILLIONS of documented cases of humans building houses, and ZERO cases of house existing without being built by humans. Seeing a house and concluding that it was built by a human is perfectly rational.

That is NOT the case with God and the universe!

Assumption are sometimes necessary to fill in the blanks while compiling a conclusion and if they don't fit in the end, they can be removed....part of the process.

First, that is a terrible way to figure things out, since it is likely to lead to a bias. Secondly, I have pointed out how such an inclusion is not justified, and you seem determined to hold on to it. What happened to removing it? You seem to insist on fitting everything around this assumption you've made!

People rely on the Straw Man argument way too much, and throwing it in there as a restriction when this thread is all about how we draw our own individual conclusion is kind of like, you really don't want my conclusion, at least not until you give it to me.

Feel free to reach any conclusion you want, but if it's based on a logical fallacy, then you better believe I'm going to call you out on it.

 

[The Brown Brink]

Well, the laptop I use for writing this, is made in Taiwan. So that comes from Taiwan.
I have a few spare lightbulbs made in the Netherlands. So these come from the Netherlands.
I have some bottles of French champagne and French and Italian wine.
Part of my furniture comes from Ikea.


Do I really need to go on until " this all this stuff around us" has been traced back to it's different origins?

All this stuff around us has one origin.
There is only one.

 

[Zoii]

Faith does not require evidence. You either have faith that the bible is the word of God or you do not.



This.

The entire Creationism vs. Evolution debate is pointless head-desking by people who crave an audience to their self-approval and aren't aware that they are actually masochists.

That was uncalled for. The OP asked how I determine evidence and I gave an answer. I don't expect to be attacked for it and it certainly didn't invalidate my comment

 

[The Brown Brink]

True, but it's equally good evidence for a potentially infinite number of ideas for where 'all this stuff' came from - including all the other origin myths, and ideas based on successful scientific theory.

Which raises the question: why this particular myth idea and not another? One assumes the choice wasn't random... or was it not a choice, but chance - being born into a particular culture ?

There is NOT an infinite number of reasonable ideas for the origin of all this stuff.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Except for the bit where you presented the scientific side as just "happening for no reason at all", instead of "happening due to the non-random process of evolution by means of natural and sexual selection."

"Starting" for nor reason at all, if I wasn't clear already. The start of evolution is part of evolution, but deny that if you will...you won't be the first.

Yes you did, and I just told you what it was.

Did not.

First, evolution doesn't deal with how life began, or even how the universe began.

Unfortunately evolutionists prefer to leave that part out, and there is a reason for that. I gave you reason why it's part of the equation, and why evolution is incomplete without a beginning to evolution... ignore it if you like.

Secondly, are you claiming that science is useless because it doesn't have all the answers?

I stated no such thing. Science is opinion and not the end all almighty explanation people tout it to be.

If you insist on proceeding that way, then you don't know much about the position you are arguing against. That would explain your strawman.

Not so, but we are unable to debate that due to your restrictions so, I had to assume a few things.

Well, I would appreciate it if you WOULDN'T rephrase my position in a way that changes its meaning!

I changed nothing, I went with the normal flow that it always comes down to here, since it's not debatable on this thread...t

Yeah. Don't use any logical fallacies. You can find a good list of fallacies here: List of fallacies - Wikipedia

You aren't paying attention, I went over all that. Reread my post, please.

What you are saying here makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense but I would expect as much from you...oh well.

In other words, if you don't know, then just make it up!

Of course not... I went over that as well. I went to the trouble to explain that and other things here, but if you are just going to skip by it as if I never addressed it, and then try to make me look clueless because *you* didn't read it or chose to pretend it wasn't addressed, I'll not waste my time
anymore. Geez.

Oh rubbish. We have literally MILLIONS of documented cases of humans building houses, and ZERO cases of house existing without being built by humans. Seeing a house and concluding that it was built by a human is perfectly rational.

That is NOT the case with God and the universe!

The bible is not a document? Of course it is, even if you do not believe in it.

You'll have to realize there are others aside from yourself that very much believe it's documentation, making the concept of God doing things, not rubbish at all. You don't have to believe our beliefs but I would hope you would accept that we do and that it's not all about just your beliefs..

Except for the bit where you presented the scientific side as just "happening for no reason at all", instead of "happening due to the non-random process of evolution by means of natural and sexual selection."

Starting for nor reason.

Yes you did, and I just told you what it was.

Did not.

First, evolution doesn't deal with how life began, or even how the universe began.

Unfortunately evolutionists prefer to leave that part out, and there is a reason for that. I gave you reason why it's part of the equation, and why evolution is incomplete without a beginning to evolution... ignore it if you like.

Secondly, are you claiming that science is useless because it doesn't have all the answers?

I stated no such thing. Science is opinion and not the end all almighty explanation people tout it to be.

If you insist on proceeding that way, then you don't know much about the position you are arguing against. That would explain your strawman.

Not so, but we are unable to debate that due to your restrictions so, I had to assume a few things.

Well, I would appreciate it if you WOULDN'T rephrase my position in a way that changes its meaning!

I changed nothing, I went with the normal flow that it always comes down to here, since it's not debatable on this thread...t

Yeah. Don't use any logical fallacies. You can find a good list of fallacies here: List of fallacies - Wikipedia

You aren't paying attention, I went over all that. Reread my post, please.

What you are saying here makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense but I would expect as much from you...oh well.

In other words, if you don't know, then just make it up!

Of course not, but I went over that as well. I went to the trouble to explain that and other things here, but if you are just going to skip by it as if I never addressed it, and then try to make me look clueless because *you* didn't read it, I'll not waste my time anymore. Geez.

First, that is a terrible way to figure things out, since it is likely to lead to a bias

No, it's just not terrible, it's done all the time. Not sure what else to tell you on that.

, and you seem determined to hold on to it. What happened to removing it?

You aren't paying close attention again. I never said it was always removed...it still works for me, and it is after all my conclusion.

Feel free to reach any conclusion you want, but if it's based on a logical fallacy, then you better believe I'm going to call you out on it.

You slipped past explanation on that as well. I know you have to rely heavily on the Logical Fallacy thing so go ahead. I already gave good reasons to think out of the box on that, but I don't have the heart to push taking something away from you that you all seem to need so much, so I won't bother with further explanation on why the concept doesn't always hold water.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yes. You'll pray for me. How lovely.

Well, like I said. I was hoping you also respected my frame of reference. Looks like I was wrong.

 

[Zoii]

I dont get you guys. Why are you arguing. The OP was NOT about evolution versus creation. It was about how we construct evidence where you arrive at a conclusion that what you think is fact as opposed to simply what you think might be true. Please stop these awful insults and bickering and instead focus on yourself and how you build evidence towards fact.

I find it particularly disappointing when an answer is designed to get under someones skin. If you think youre christian, or simply a genuine atheist philosopher, will you quit it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is NOT an infinite number of reasonable ideas for the origin of all this stuff.

Perhaps; we can never know - unless you have some interesting logical proof?

I think there are many more unreasonable ideas than reasonable ones, but then I think reasonable ideas should have some grounding in existing knowledge or some evidential support, so YMMV.

 

[Kylie]

"Starting" for nor reason at all, if I wasn't clear already. The start of evolution is part of evolution, but deny that if you will...you won't be the first.

No, the origin of life is NOT part of evolution.

And we don't know how life started. That does not mean it happened for no reason at all.

Did not.

Don't be a smart alec.

Unfortunately evolutionists prefer to leave that part out, and there is a reason for that. I gave you reason why it's part of the equation, and why evolution is incomplete without a beginning to evolution... ignore it if you like.

Your ignorance of evolution is your own problem, but don';t think others are going to accept your flawed views of it when they know more about it than you.

I stated no such thing. Science is opinion and not the end all almighty explanation people tout it to be.

You know nothing about evolution, and you know nothing about science.

Not so, but we are unable to debate that due to your restrictions so, I had to assume a few things.

So you prefer to fill the gaps with made up nonsense instead of honestly saying you don't know.

I changed nothing, I went with the normal flow that it always comes down to here, since it's not debatable on this thread...t

And you seem to be the one dragging it down.

You aren't paying attention, I went over all that. Reread my post, please.

Reading your flawed argument again will not make it better. You don't understand evolution, you don't understand science, and you don't understand logical fallacies.

Of course not... I went over that as well. I went to the trouble to explain that and other things here, but if you are just going to skip by it as if I never addressed it, and then try to make me look clueless because *you* didn't read it or chose to pretend it wasn't addressed, I'll not waste my time
anymore. Geez.

Okay, bye.

The bible is not a document? Of course it is, even if you do not believe in it.

You don't understand evolution, you don't understand science, you don't understand logical fallacies and you don't understand what documenting something means.

You'll have to realize there are others aside from yourself that very much believe it's documentation, making the concept of God doing things, not rubbish at all. You don't have to believe our beliefs but I would hope you would accept that we do and that it's not all about just your beliefs..

In other words, you just believe that, assume it';s true and use that as your basis. Circular reasoning.

Starting for nor reason.

Do you understand the difference between an unknown reason and no reason?

Did not.

Unfortunately evolutionists prefer to leave that part out, and there is a reason for that. I gave you reason why it's part of the equation, and why evolution is incomplete without a beginning to evolution... ignore it if you like.

I stated no such thing. Science is opinion and not the end all almighty explanation people tout it to be.

Not so, but we are unable to debate that due to your restrictions so, I had to assume a few things.

I changed nothing, I went with the normal flow that it always comes down to here, since it's not debatable on this thread...t

You aren't paying attention, I went over all that. Reread my post, please.

Makes perfect sense but I would expect as much from you...oh well.

Of course not, but I went over that as well. I went to the trouble to explain that and other things here, but if you are just going to skip by it as if I never addressed it, and then try to make me look clueless because *you* didn't read it, I'll not waste my time anymore. Geez.

Repeating yourself?

No, it's just not terrible, it's done all the time. Not sure what else to tell you on that.

Yeah, done all the time by people who would rather have any answer instead of the truth.

You aren't paying close attention again. I never said it was always removed...it still works for me, and it is after all my conclusion.

So you have a gap in your knowledge, you make something up to fit that gap, then ignore and twist other evidence to fit into that, and you're saying it works for you?

You slipped past explanation on that as well. I know you have to rely heavily on the Logical Fallacy thing so go ahead. I already gave good reasons to think out of the box on that, but I don't have the heart to push taking something away from you that you all seem to need so much, so I won't bother with further explanation on why the concept doesn't always hold water.

lol, what logical fallacy have I used?

 

[Kylie]

Well, like I said. I was hoping you also respected my frame of reference. Looks like I was wrong.

Respecting your frame of reference does not mean I have to be grateful when you try to put your beliefs onto me.

I respect your right to have your beliefs. I want no part of them, so please don't try to share them with me.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I dont get you guys. Why are you arguing. The OP was NOT about evolution versus creation. It was about how we construct evidence where you arrive at a conclusion that what you think is fact as opposed to simply what you think might be true. Please stop these awful insults and bickering and instead focus on yourself and how you build evidence towards fact.

I find it particularly disappointing when an answer is designed to get under someones skin. If you think youre christian, or simply a genuine atheist philosopher, you will quit it.

Well actually, Zoii, this thread is under "Creation Vs. Evolution." What the Op is driving at is constructing evidence to make determinations specifically about the Evolution/Creation debate. But I do agree with you that we shouldn't be trying to be deliberately vindictive.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Respecting your frame of reference does not mean I have to be grateful when you try to put your beliefs onto me.

I respect your right to have your beliefs. I want no part of them, so please don't try to share them with me.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you displeased because I said I would pray for you, or because I stated that I thought everyone's frame of reference should be respected, or maybe because I was trying to convince you that the matter was highly subjective? Which beliefs are you so upset about?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, the origin of life is NOT part of evolution.

And we don't know how life started. That does not mean it happened for no reason at all.



Don't be a smart alec.



Your ignorance of evolution is your own problem, but don';t think others are going to accept your flawed views of it when they know more about it than you.



You know nothing about evolution, and you know nothing about science.



So you prefer to fill the gaps with made up nonsense instead of honestly saying you don't know.



And you seem to be the one dragging it down.



Reading your flawed argument again will not make it better. You don't understand evolution, you don't understand science, and you don't understand logical fallacies.



Okay, bye.



You don't understand evolution, you don't understand science, you don't understand logical fallacies and you don't understand what documenting something means.



In other words, you just believe that, assume it';s true and use that as your basis. Circular reasoning.



Do you understand the difference between an unknown reason and no reason?



Repeating yourself?



Yeah, done all the time by people who would rather have any answer instead of the truth.



So you have a gap in your knowledge, you make something up to fit that gap, then ignore and twist other evidence to fit into that, and you're saying it works for you?



lol, what logical fallacy have I used?

I think your post was supposed to steer us to your way of thinking on something, it didn't work out for you, and now you want to debate it....something I was certain you did not allow. and it appears I'm not the only one that rule, your rule, doesn't seem to be working out with.

Your question has been answered, but you may pick to death the very thing you asked us to do/show, and pretend it wasn't answered if you like.

Sorry my conclusion wasn't to your liking, and hope you can find someone who will follow your exact criteria for drawing theirs, (not their own way as you asked us to) so they will draw the conclusion you were hoping for....yours.

I'd recommend you next time list all your rules/things we cannot use in the equation, (you left so many out this time) and that we are not allowed to debate them (I mean talk about giving yourself an edge. lol.) Then I can pretty much guarantee you'll get what you want much faster and without all the mess. That is if you get a response at all to your post, because you'll, in affect, be telling us what you are here...that doing it your way can *only* lead too *your* conclusion and that is how it has to be..

Been fun.

Oh, and PS: I loved the classic, in so many words "you don't understand Evolution"...why did I not expect that. Fact is, there is nothing to understand, and not a single person here has ever been able to prove it a fact.

Honestly...I personally am almost embarrassed to give it the time I do these days.