-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How to prove God exists.
- Thread starter Pachomius
- Start date
gudz23
Active Member
Which makes it fantasy, for the time being... A good and harmless fantasy, but a fantasy still the same... Nothing wrong with fantasies, so long as we acknowledge them for what they are.
Well, what do you wait for... Demonstrate.
Perhaps this was a typo, but I never suggested you had said you could control this god-figure.
I fail to see why this prediction is necessary, or even relevant.
What are these so-called 4 supernatural agents?
My point is: If the universe is intelligent, and intelligent in a manner that is relevant to us (i.e. as in an intelligence acting upon itself, and as so, affecting us), shouldn't we expect to see some evidence of such conscious activity? As in a bit more unpredictability as far as changes are concerned?
You can not micro-manage your brain, you can't can not control or be aware of all its activity. You can't sense or interact with organelles inside your brain cells, let alone control each and every cell. You can not chose which ones dies or which one multiply. You can not control how the cells branch out and connect to one another. You can not observe how it creates experience, or change anything about it. With our minds, we can to some minuscule effect control which abilities we develop, or what thoughts to focus on, but its really quite insignificant compared to all the things the brain does all on its own.
If "the universe brain" is real, how can you so easily assume that it is "in control", and aware of everything? Aware of us even, who only lives upon a tiny insignificant speck of a particle, deep within its machinery? If "the universe brain" is real, couldn't it just as easily be just as bewildered about its existence as we are? Enabled, simply because the machinery of "things" manifested it, just the way our brains manifest us.
So... What experiments have you conducted?
If God is no more than this, I still fail to see the concept's relevance.
No one is suggesting that there is no more problems to be solved in real cosmology. If that was the case, they would have stopped researching... So no, I do not accept your assurance that you have solved a greater number of problems. Not only does it introduce quite a few of its own (as far as I'm concerned), it doesn't appear to be based on any hands-on research at all. It's all dream-weavery.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What exactly is a "fantasy"? My own mind? Your mind? All minds? Be specific.
An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)
I'm simply noting that when we start discussing cosmology theories in general, the concept of control goes flying out the window. We might me 'predictions' about events here on Earth (human experiences of God), but that's the only kind of "evidence" we might be able to present. Even the ability to demonstrate a direct cause/effect relationship is virtually impossible due to the scale of events in space.
Necessary for what? Explaining "reality" and why humans experience something they call "God"? Your mainstream theory can't even make such a prediction. Score one point for Panentheism. It's relevant to Panentheism, even if it's not relevant to you personally mostly because you don't want it to be relevant to you personally.
1. "Space expansion" causes photon redshift (never happens in a the lab)
2. "Inflation" (2nd supernatural agent) causes "space expansion". Never happens in the lab.
3. Dark energy causes 'space acceleration'. Never happens in the lab
4. "Exotic matter did it" with respect to gravitational lensing patterns.
The last one in particular has been an *epic* fail in the lab, and in space over the past decade. All of them are more impotent on Earth than a Panentheistic definition of "God".
Why? Would a couple of germs siting inside our stomachs expect to see evidence of cognitive activity in the small amount of our body they have access to?
I would also argue that we do see some evidence of cognitive interaction with humans here on Earth as described by humans since the dawn of recorded human history.
Why? Isn't life unpredictable enough for you?
Through meditation I can observe my brain's thoughts, and start to even "direct" those thoughts. I can choose to be happy or sad and what to focus my attention on, and thereby "manage" how it works.
Do I even need to micromanage every cell in order to start to control my thoughts?
Well, "I", whatever "I" might be haven't exactly had the whole of eternity to 'figure out' how I might do that. That isn't to say however that it's impossible to do for a being that has no limit on the length of it's physical existence. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so AFAIK, the universe is eternal and infinite.
I can observe that it would appear to interact with humans through something called a "Holy Spirit". I can't be 100 percent certain of anything related to cosmology theory, so why would I impose such a standard on Panentheism?
Not necessarily, particularly if the awareness of God is the sum total of all awareness from all living things *plus* it's own awareness. It might be more like watching and/or participating in a very entertaining play. You're essentially asking me to get inside the head of God.
Me personally? As it relates to attempting to contact "God" my efforts have mostly been through meditation and prayer to see about connecting with the Holy Spirit.
In terms of testing the electrical aspects of the cosmology theory, this is my favorite experiment, although I didn't personally design or build it:
EU/PC theory explains how our sun and every sun generates a corona around itself, and aurora around planets. It can in fact pretty much explain all the events we observe in space without introducing any supernatural agents.
I didn't suggest that God was "no more than this", and it would still be incredibly relevant either way.
"Real" cosmology? You're introducing way more "unreal" elements (in the lab) into your cosmology theory than I have! What's "real" about "dark matter" exactly? Why has it been a total dud in the lab and in space for the past decade?
That appears to be nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy.
Ultimately no cosmology theory would not introduce any problems of it's own. They all have problems and elements that defy empirical verification in the lab. Your claim is *way* worse than mine however in terms of empirical physics.
I hate to break it to you but Birkeland's cathode (electric) solar model works in the lab. That's not "dream-weavery", that's an example of empirical physics in action.
Any "cosmology" theory however will get a little "dream-weavery" as we start to look at cosmological events, rather than events directly around us.
How can you possibly claim at a theory that uses placeholder terms from human ignorance to describe 95 percent of the universe any less "dream weavery" than a form of pure empirical physics? "Dark energy" isn't dream weavery?
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
- Nov 23, 2013
- 15,069
- 5,309
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Is it basic doctrine to say, "This line of reasoning is valid when it leads to a conclusion I agree with, but it is invalid when it leads to a conclusion that I don't agree with?"
Upvote
0
Radrook
Well-Known Member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 11,539
- 2,725
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
No blind faith needed to believe in God's existence as the scripture below clearly explains.
Romans 1:20 (NIV)
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 (NIV)
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Upvote
0
Newsbreak, newsbreak, newsbreak!
Yesterday for curiosity because this forum from atheists, to wit, AtheistsNexus.org has a thread on evidence by a die-hard atheist member there, I registered to be a member; but after having my email ascertained by them to be genuinely from me, in the interview online afterwards I learned that they only accept exclusively non-atheists to be members.
So, there, dear readers here, that is the evidence that atheists are plagued by a besieged mentality, totally different and contrary to Christian theists who operate internet forums, like the present forum of Christianforums.com.
[Start of quote from Pachomius from his list of registrations in websites etc.]
This entry, below, from me in my list of registrations to websites, email service sites, etc., where user name and password are parts of the registration procedure.
"Atheist Nexus, this forum is plagued by the mindset to not accept non-theists, obviously they just want to keep to themselves, so that they will be protected by isolation from merging with theists.
My email was confirmed but upon interview I learned that only non-theists are accepted, theists need not apply.
So, there, another atheists’ forum with the phobia and/or taboo by which they keep to themselves, lest their heart and mind be opened to and thus they be enhanced with new knowledge of existence."
This note made by me on 021617wed 0255h.
[End of quote from Pachomius, in his list of registrations in websites, etc.]
See next post from me.
Yesterday for curiosity because this forum from atheists, to wit, AtheistsNexus.org has a thread on evidence by a die-hard atheist member there, I registered to be a member; but after having my email ascertained by them to be genuinely from me, in the interview online afterwards I learned that they only accept exclusively non-atheists to be members.
So, there, dear readers here, that is the evidence that atheists are plagued by a besieged mentality, totally different and contrary to Christian theists who operate internet forums, like the present forum of Christianforums.com.
[Start of quote from Pachomius from his list of registrations in websites etc.]
This entry, below, from me in my list of registrations to websites, email service sites, etc., where user name and password are parts of the registration procedure.
"Atheist Nexus, this forum is plagued by the mindset to not accept non-theists, obviously they just want to keep to themselves, so that they will be protected by isolation from merging with theists.
My email was confirmed but upon interview I learned that only non-theists are accepted, theists need not apply.
So, there, another atheists’ forum with the phobia and/or taboo by which they keep to themselves, lest their heart and mind be opened to and thus they be enhanced with new knowledge of existence."
This note made by me on 021617wed 0255h.
[End of quote from Pachomius, in his list of registrations in websites, etc.]
See next post from me.
Upvote
0
Now, dear readers all of you including atheists, but most in particular, KTS, I am re-transmitting for the convenience of atheists here who have nothing to say, except “no proof, no proof, no proof," and/or “no evidence, no evidence, no evidence,” when they would not know proof and evidence when proof and evidence irrefutable are facing them, because their heart and mind are suffused by themselves in total and exclusive self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, and their whole being as rational animals is self-marinated by the siege mentality of taboo and phobia against genuine epistemology on the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Even though an exchange of thoughts must be purely grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, still when the issue is God exists or not, it is impossible to not dwell on the personal sentiments and biases of atheists, because the issue God exists or not is not like the issue whether the moon is up in the sky or down beneath the ocean’s surface.
The issue God exists or not is a matter of for atheists the way I know them from experiences with them on trying to get linked to them on purely epistemological grounds, they are totally and exhaustively into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism on the one hand, and self-taboo and self-phobia on the other, in a state of besiegement, lest they be exposed to thinking on reason, intelligence, and observation, or more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.
See next post from me, reproduction of my proof of God existing, on evidence, and my statements on evidence.
Even though an exchange of thoughts must be purely grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, still when the issue is God exists or not, it is impossible to not dwell on the personal sentiments and biases of atheists, because the issue God exists or not is not like the issue whether the moon is up in the sky or down beneath the ocean’s surface.
The issue God exists or not is a matter of for atheists the way I know them from experiences with them on trying to get linked to them on purely epistemological grounds, they are totally and exhaustively into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism on the one hand, and self-taboo and self-phobia on the other, in a state of besiegement, lest they be exposed to thinking on reason, intelligence, and observation, or more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.
See next post from me, reproduction of my proof of God existing, on evidence, and my statements on evidence.
Upvote
0
Dear readers here, as you read my proof on God existing, on evidence, and my statements on evidence, I will see what KTS is up to, in re four or more examples of evidence, from her definition of evidence.
No more correspondence from me with Loudmouth, period.
_________________
Here is my proof for God existing from evidence, dear atheists you can now again utter your regurgitated rancid comment, No proof, no proof, no proof.
And also my statements on evidence, so that you can utter to your silly heart’s content, No evidence, no evidence, no evidence.
Proof for God’s existence, on evidence:
[Start of quote from Pachomius #1040
Sorry, but I have to continue from the preceding post because I forgot to tell you, dear readers and Oh ye atheists, that I was going to tell you all, what is my proof for God existing, in a few words.
So, here goes:
1, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is of two kinds in the most broad dimensions of existence: necessary existence, transient existence.
3. Transient existence depends on necessary existence to come into existence.
4. Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
5. Therefore God exists as per concept of God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, scil., on evidence.
Okay, atheists, think about this proof above of the existence of God on evidence, in my next post I will look up for Loudmouth and/or KTS, to see whether either or both of them have replied to my posts, the first Loudmouth to resume his and my our common endeavor to talk about what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, and the second KTS, whether she cares to take up my challenge to her to replace Loudmouth, or even join Loudmouth in contributing her thinking on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target. And all in all, in regard to the issue God exists or not.
Dear everyone, I will now go to the posts of Loudmouth and KTS to see what they have posted in reply to my latest posting here in this thread also from myself, namely, How to prove God exists.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
Statements from me on evidence:
[Start of quote from Pachomius #1050]
Dear Loudmouth, thanks for coming over, late but not never more. Very good!
Now will you just please fill in the blanks, so that we will have a good and always present list of our respective statements, as we resume our mutual endeavor to resolve the impasse between us, namely, from your part no evidence for God existing, and from my part there is evidence for God existing.
Fill up all the blank statements from you that should correspond to my statements with the asterisk mark of * prefixed at the beginning of my statements.
And dear Loudmouth, don’t give me that you have already made your statements, that is all right but we want to have a good constant repeated list for every post I write and you write, so that everyone all people reading this thread will have with every post from me and also I suggest correspondingly from you, of the statements we have already set forth in public - you get the idea.
Fill in the blanks from your part, as to correspond to my statements prefixed with the * sigSee below.
From Pachomius:
My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
*My firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
From Loudmouth:
On Loudmouth’s concept of evidence:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]
From Pachomius, examples of evidence: babies, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky, stones, the nose in our face, everything in our environment that we live in and move in and have our existence in, in most particular everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, his example of evidence,
DNA.
*From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, what is DNA evidence, evidence to.
It is at that point when I asked Loudmouth, what is DNA evidence to, that he leaves off for up to two days already from putting up an appearance in this thread.
So, dear Loudmouth, you have only two statements to make, to have your corresponding statements to my two statements as follows, which you will fill up, in order that all people will see all the time with every post from me and from you, at the top of each post, the statements which we have presented, for their guidance on the development of the resolution of our impasse, namely, no evidence of God from your part, but yes evidence for God from my part.
From Pachomius:
*My firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]
*From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, what is DNA evidence, evidence to.
So, you just have to fill up your two blank statements, so that we will have now complete to date sets of corresponding statements.
Dear readers here, if you have ever read the records of the debate in Congress or even just the transcripts of a court’s case, you will notice that there is no end to repetition of statements from all parties, again and again and again, because mankind has learned that if there is no repetition in writing, parties up to sow confusion and vacuity of exchange to their own perverse advantage will always allege that this or that was never mentioned, etc., etc., etc.
In court’s cases, parties in conflict have to also submit their offer of evidence to each other by and on their own trouble, time, and expense – and get a written acknowledgment receipt from the other party.
Learn from the Roman law experts on evidence:
"Quod non est in actis, non est in mundo."
Xxxxxxxxxxxx ADDENDA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So, I am now in the task of getting Loudmouth to work with me as to concur on the understanding of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
Here is our each one’ definition of evidence and from me an almost infinite number of things at all for examples, and for Loudmouth he has so far one example only, namely, DNA.
[From Loudmouth]
Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
Example: DNA.
DNA fingerprinting is a good example. DNA found at a crime scene is tested for variations at genomic locations called short tandem repeats (STR). One person may have 4 repeats of AAGGAT while another person may have 5 repeats at that same position. If you look at one STR, half of the population may have 4 repeats while the other half of the population may have 5 repeats. If you look at 10 or so STRs you can get a DNA fingerprint for that person, a combination of STRs that only one in a few billion people should have, kind of like a social security number.
The process of sequencing each STR is completely independent of the conclusion. Also, there is a strong chance that the STR pattern won't match the suspect. There is nothing inherent in the method that biases towards the suspect.
The guilt of the suspect, obviously. Why do you think they do DNA fingerprinting at crime scenes?
[From Pachomius]
“Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
For example, investigators notice the presence of human sperm in the anus of a deceased human male subject, and they put in their notepad:
"Evidence of sex act with another human male, scil., sperm in anus."
DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
No more correspondence from me with Loudmouth, period.
_________________
Here is my proof for God existing from evidence, dear atheists you can now again utter your regurgitated rancid comment, No proof, no proof, no proof.
And also my statements on evidence, so that you can utter to your silly heart’s content, No evidence, no evidence, no evidence.
Proof for God’s existence, on evidence:
[Start of quote from Pachomius #1040
Sorry, but I have to continue from the preceding post because I forgot to tell you, dear readers and Oh ye atheists, that I was going to tell you all, what is my proof for God existing, in a few words.
So, here goes:
1, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is of two kinds in the most broad dimensions of existence: necessary existence, transient existence.
3. Transient existence depends on necessary existence to come into existence.
4. Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
5. Therefore God exists as per concept of God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, scil., on evidence.
Okay, atheists, think about this proof above of the existence of God on evidence, in my next post I will look up for Loudmouth and/or KTS, to see whether either or both of them have replied to my posts, the first Loudmouth to resume his and my our common endeavor to talk about what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, and the second KTS, whether she cares to take up my challenge to her to replace Loudmouth, or even join Loudmouth in contributing her thinking on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target. And all in all, in regard to the issue God exists or not.
Dear everyone, I will now go to the posts of Loudmouth and KTS to see what they have posted in reply to my latest posting here in this thread also from myself, namely, How to prove God exists.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
Statements from me on evidence:
[Start of quote from Pachomius #1050]
Dear Loudmouth, thanks for coming over, late but not never more. Very good!
Now will you just please fill in the blanks, so that we will have a good and always present list of our respective statements, as we resume our mutual endeavor to resolve the impasse between us, namely, from your part no evidence for God existing, and from my part there is evidence for God existing.
Fill up all the blank statements from you that should correspond to my statements with the asterisk mark of * prefixed at the beginning of my statements.
And dear Loudmouth, don’t give me that you have already made your statements, that is all right but we want to have a good constant repeated list for every post I write and you write, so that everyone all people reading this thread will have with every post from me and also I suggest correspondingly from you, of the statements we have already set forth in public - you get the idea.
Fill in the blanks from your part, as to correspond to my statements prefixed with the * sigSee below.
From Pachomius:
My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
*My firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
From Loudmouth:
On Loudmouth’s concept of evidence:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]
From Pachomius, examples of evidence: babies, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky, stones, the nose in our face, everything in our environment that we live in and move in and have our existence in, in most particular everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, his example of evidence,
DNA.
*From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, what is DNA evidence, evidence to.
It is at that point when I asked Loudmouth, what is DNA evidence to, that he leaves off for up to two days already from putting up an appearance in this thread.
So, dear Loudmouth, you have only two statements to make, to have your corresponding statements to my two statements as follows, which you will fill up, in order that all people will see all the time with every post from me and from you, at the top of each post, the statements which we have presented, for their guidance on the development of the resolution of our impasse, namely, no evidence of God from your part, but yes evidence for God from my part.
From Pachomius:
*My firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]
*From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, what is DNA evidence, evidence to.
So, you just have to fill up your two blank statements, so that we will have now complete to date sets of corresponding statements.
Dear readers here, if you have ever read the records of the debate in Congress or even just the transcripts of a court’s case, you will notice that there is no end to repetition of statements from all parties, again and again and again, because mankind has learned that if there is no repetition in writing, parties up to sow confusion and vacuity of exchange to their own perverse advantage will always allege that this or that was never mentioned, etc., etc., etc.
In court’s cases, parties in conflict have to also submit their offer of evidence to each other by and on their own trouble, time, and expense – and get a written acknowledgment receipt from the other party.
Learn from the Roman law experts on evidence:
"Quod non est in actis, non est in mundo."
Xxxxxxxxxxxx ADDENDA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So, I am now in the task of getting Loudmouth to work with me as to concur on the understanding of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
Here is our each one’ definition of evidence and from me an almost infinite number of things at all for examples, and for Loudmouth he has so far one example only, namely, DNA.
[From Loudmouth]
Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
Example: DNA.
DNA fingerprinting is a good example. DNA found at a crime scene is tested for variations at genomic locations called short tandem repeats (STR). One person may have 4 repeats of AAGGAT while another person may have 5 repeats at that same position. If you look at one STR, half of the population may have 4 repeats while the other half of the population may have 5 repeats. If you look at 10 or so STRs you can get a DNA fingerprint for that person, a combination of STRs that only one in a few billion people should have, kind of like a social security number.
The process of sequencing each STR is completely independent of the conclusion. Also, there is a strong chance that the STR pattern won't match the suspect. There is nothing inherent in the method that biases towards the suspect.
The guilt of the suspect, obviously. Why do you think they do DNA fingerprinting at crime scenes?
[From Pachomius]
“Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
For example, investigators notice the presence of human sperm in the anus of a deceased human male subject, and they put in their notepad:
"Evidence of sex act with another human male, scil., sperm in anus."
DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
Upvote
0
"On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]"
Even though I have answered that question multiple times, Pachomius continues to not tell the truth.
Upvote
0
Well, KTS has not reacted to my invite to her, so I will now invite most seriously another lady atheist, PsychoSarah, to take over from KTS: produce your definition of evidence, and four or more examples of evidence.
[Start of quote on invite to KTS from Pachomius, Yesterday at 3:10 AM #1246]*
Alert to KTS.
__________________
Dear readers:
No, Loudmouth has not been here since my last posting here yesterday.
He must be on one of his leaves of absence, and there goes also unanswered his from my challenge to him, the presentation by him of four or more examples of what is evidence, as to fit his own peculiar definition of evidence, aside from one example with DNA.
In the meantime, please dear lady atheist KTS: let you and me exchange thoughts on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
I see you to be a fan of Bertrand Russell,* but I am sure you know nothing about his departure from mathematics and philosophy, where he got himself badly busted by better minds during his earlier long lifetime, and finally took to become some sort of celebrity in regard to among other things, advocacy against the use of nuclear bombs.
Let me see if you have really done any serious and prolonged reading about Bertrand Russell,
Tell me if you know about this at least well founded anecdote, to his credit or discredit, namely:
When he was no longer into mathematics and philosophy, he was at a dinner and was seated right beside the head mistress of an exclusive girls college
The lady college head asked him:
“I learned that you have given up philosophy, why?”
Bertie answered: “Because I discovered I preferred gnikcuf" [read that in reverse].
Okay, dear lady atheist KTS, fan of Bertrand Russell, see if you can find any link(s) in the internet on that anecdote.
And here is what I expect you to do, since you are parading all the time about evidence required by Bertrand Russell for God to exist, tell me what do you know from your own stock knowledge: what is evidence, and also give some examples of evidence.
Now, dear readers, let us sit back and await KTS to tell us what is her from stock knowledge idea of evidence, and some examples.
And dear lady atheist KTS, Don’t neglect to search for link(s) in the internet on Russell’s answer to why he gave up philosophy.
_______________
*This text from lady atheist KTS is paraded endlessly by KTS as some gem of terrific wisdom from Bertrand Russell:
"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." — Bertrand Russell
If you ask me, the man was a consommé escape artist.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
*Everyone, please bear with me, I am really or I find it impossible to write here with the what I imagine to be universal word processing codes: thus my peculiar ways and means as I can manage, to write as to be read quickly and easily and clearly and definitively by people who are yes read and yes write, you get the idea.
I did try to find in the internet the kind of word processing codes employed in this forum, but I did not succeed.
And I can't be investing time and labor into fathoming the codes employed here, besides I am glad that with my way and means of writing here, I see my posts to come out quite clearly, quickly, easy to read, and most definitively carrying forth my ideas to all peoples who happen to read this thread - hehehehehe...
Tomorrow again.
[Start of quote on invite to KTS from Pachomius, Yesterday at 3:10 AM #1246]*
Alert to KTS.
__________________
Dear readers:
No, Loudmouth has not been here since my last posting here yesterday.
He must be on one of his leaves of absence, and there goes also unanswered his from my challenge to him, the presentation by him of four or more examples of what is evidence, as to fit his own peculiar definition of evidence, aside from one example with DNA.
In the meantime, please dear lady atheist KTS: let you and me exchange thoughts on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
I see you to be a fan of Bertrand Russell,* but I am sure you know nothing about his departure from mathematics and philosophy, where he got himself badly busted by better minds during his earlier long lifetime, and finally took to become some sort of celebrity in regard to among other things, advocacy against the use of nuclear bombs.
Let me see if you have really done any serious and prolonged reading about Bertrand Russell,
Tell me if you know about this at least well founded anecdote, to his credit or discredit, namely:
When he was no longer into mathematics and philosophy, he was at a dinner and was seated right beside the head mistress of an exclusive girls college
The lady college head asked him:
“I learned that you have given up philosophy, why?”
Bertie answered: “Because I discovered I preferred gnikcuf" [read that in reverse].
Okay, dear lady atheist KTS, fan of Bertrand Russell, see if you can find any link(s) in the internet on that anecdote.
And here is what I expect you to do, since you are parading all the time about evidence required by Bertrand Russell for God to exist, tell me what do you know from your own stock knowledge: what is evidence, and also give some examples of evidence.
Now, dear readers, let us sit back and await KTS to tell us what is her from stock knowledge idea of evidence, and some examples.
And dear lady atheist KTS, Don’t neglect to search for link(s) in the internet on Russell’s answer to why he gave up philosophy.
_______________
*This text from lady atheist KTS is paraded endlessly by KTS as some gem of terrific wisdom from Bertrand Russell:
"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." — Bertrand Russell
If you ask me, the man was a consommé escape artist.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
*Everyone, please bear with me, I am really or I find it impossible to write here with the what I imagine to be universal word processing codes: thus my peculiar ways and means as I can manage, to write as to be read quickly and easily and clearly and definitively by people who are yes read and yes write, you get the idea.
I did try to find in the internet the kind of word processing codes employed in this forum, but I did not succeed.
And I can't be investing time and labor into fathoming the codes employed here, besides I am glad that with my way and means of writing here, I see my posts to come out quite clearly, quickly, easy to read, and most definitively carrying forth my ideas to all peoples who happen to read this thread - hehehehehe...
Tomorrow again.
Upvote
0
Radrook
Well-Known Member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 11,539
- 2,725
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Well, Loudmouth is presently engaged in discrediting the Biblical Flood account at another thread but I'm sure that once he is completely through with that urgent mission he will be willing to debate the issues presented.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
- Nov 23, 2013
- 15,069
- 5,309
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Stop with the song and dance. If you have evidence, present it. You use so many words that the point of your posts is impossible to discern. Learn to be concise. And get to your point. Post whatever evidence you have.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
