Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Subduction Zone]

Yeag, you could help him. Show with scientific evidence how another human can be wrong. E.g give the scientific measurement standard for wrong.

You are once again abusing the scientific method. We do not use the circular reasoning of applying the scientific method to the scientific method. It is rated by going outside of the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So all contexts are not science and for those contexts not science, science is not the best method we have. I agree.

See, here is how it works. You have a worldview and that contains of different behaviors. Some scientific and some not. That is the same for me. I just admit that everything I do, is not science and in some cases I can't use science.
Now that wasn't that hard.

Science is a good, but limited method that can't be used on all aspects of human life, only some.
For the other aspects I use different methods from human science(Danish definition of a form of non-hard science), philosophy, politics, everyday life and even religion. Now no one method is the best, because which is the best depends on context.
So there it is. Yes, science works, but in a limited sense and it is not the best method for all contexts.

In effect you above admitted that. Context, context, context, ...
See, it is not that hard.

Has he claimed or even implied that everything he does is based upon the scientific method?

You appear to be using a strawman fallacy. He may have even pointed that out, once or twice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeag, you could help him. Show with scientific evidence how another human can be wrong. E.g give the scientific measurement standard for wrong.

That is not how it is used.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are once again abusing the scientific method. We do not use the circular reasoning of applying the scientific method to the scientific method. It is rated by going outside of the scientific method.

We agree. Science is not everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We agree. Science is not everything.

Then why the constant use of strawman arguments on your part?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Has he claimed or even implied that everything he does is based upon the scientific method?

You appear to be using a strawman fallacy. He may have even pointed that out, once or twice.

No, just that science is the best method we have without reference to the actual science to show that it is the best.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then why the constant use of strawman arguments on your part?

Because if since is the best method we have, I have yet to see the actual evidence for that and not just the words that claim it.

 

[Sheldon]

So all contexts are not science and for those contexts not science, science is not the best method we have. I agree.

Not what I said, you've done it again and inserted a claim you are making as if I am making it.

Try addressing the fact you linked a post about semantics, and insisted I offer a peer reviewed scientific source for the conclusions someone was semantically wrong.

I'm not playing by your arbitrary rules here, when you work that out you might get something from these exchanges.

Now that wasn't that hard.

No. it was a straw man though, again.

So all contexts are not science and for those contexts not science, science is not the best method we have. I agree.

Straw man fallacy. Go back read what I claimed and read it slowly and carefully to see if you can work out why.

Science is a good, but limited method that can't be used on all aspects of human life, only some.

Straw man again.

Now no one method is the best, because which is the best depends on context.

This is where you derailed this into a slew of straw man assumptions. The fact that a method isn't needed to understand all aspects of reality, does not mean it isn't the most successful method.

 

[Sheldon]

No, just that science is the best method we have without reference to the actual science to show that it is the best.

Well that is dishonest, as I have cited the successes of science as evidence, and these are necessarily based on that method. I'd also point out that my claim is not necessarily a scientific claim, as others seem to understand, rather it is a claim about science and how successful it is. Again had you understood that simple fact, or paused at any moment for clarification of it, you might not have leaped from one endless straw man fallacy to another.

Best method does not mean only method, why is this escaping you?

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, this is a debate forum after all, but do me the courtesy of disagreeing what I have actually posted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's right Duane, it is that biggest pile of crap I have seen in years. Some atheists are so illogical, they think we can post all the evidence for the Baha'i Faith on a forum post. That just shows that they have no conception of just how much evidence there is. If you can't show it you don't have it is also completely illogical because a person can have something and not choose to show it. For example, I could have a new car but not want to show it to you, but that does not mean I do not actually HAVE the car. What this is really about is atheists wanting us to do their homework for them so they won't have to do their own homework.

Wait a minute, didn't you agree with me a while back that if you can't show it, then you don't know it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait a minute, didn't you agree with me a while back that if you can't show it, then you don't know it?

Hmm, that phrase does sound familiar

Of course I copied it from another source myself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

This is where you derailed this into a slew of straw man assumptions. The fact that a method isn't needed to understand all aspects of reality, does not mean it isn't the most successful method.

Now read your conversation from me and answer the last one.
Or if you don't here it is:
I have broken the rules in regards to you. Now give a Mod a PM and they will sort it out.

 

[Sheldon]

Now read your conversation from me and answer the last one.
Or if you don't here it is:
I have broken the rules in regards to you. Now give a Mod a PM and they will sort it out.

You didn't address what I said though, again.

"The fact that a method isn't needed to understand all aspects of reality, does not mean it isn't the most successful method."

Any thoughts on how you managed to misrepresent that so badly? It's a fair question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You didn't address what I said though, again.

"The fact that a method isn't needed to understand all aspects of reality, does not mean it isn't the most successful method."

Any thoughts on how you managed to misrepresent that so badly? It's a fair question.

"Does not mean" or "does mean" are both subjective interpretations.

 

[Sheldon]

"Does not mean" or "does mean" are both subjective interpretations.

True to form, another straw man, and you still haven't addressed what I said.

"The fact that a method isn't needed to understand all aspects of reality, does not mean it isn't the most successful method."

Any thoughts on how you managed to misrepresent that so badly? It's still a fair question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

True to form, another straw man, and you still haven't addressed what I said.

"The fact that a method isn't needed to understand all aspects of reality, does not mean it isn't the most successful method."

Any thoughts on how you managed to misrepresent that so badly? It's still a fair question.

Here we go again:

I see a dog.
I see that 2+2=11.
I see that it is the most successful method.

First off, that is 2 different meaning for the verb "see" and you can't see as see, but see as understand/think/feel for I see that it is the most successful method. That is what you are doing. You are doing something non-objective per these versions of objective:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
Definition of OBJECTIVE

The same for "does not mean"
So here it is: The word successful has no objective referent just like the word God.

 

[Sheldon]

Here we go again:

I see a dog.
I see that 2+2=11.
I see that it is the most successful method.

First off, that is 2 different meaning for the verb "see" and you can't see as see, but see as understand/think/feel for I see that it is the most successful method. That is what you are doing. You are doing something non-objective per these versions of objective:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
Definition of OBJECTIVE

The same for "does not mean"
So here it is: The word successful has no objective referent just like the word God.

I'm not seeing any relevance in there to this:

"The fact that a method isn't needed to understand all aspects of reality, does not mean it isn't the most successful method."

Any thoughts on how you managed to misrepresent that so badly? It's still a fair question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not seeing any relevance in there to this:

"The fact that a method isn't needed to understand all aspects of reality, does not mean it isn't the most successful method."

Any thoughts on how you managed to misrepresent that so badly? It's still a fair question.

Tell me how you see successful? You know, objective evidence.
That is where it ends.

 

[Sheldon]

Tell me how you see successful?

Oh come on, it's in the dictionary ffs.

You know, objective evidence.

For a word definition?

Successful
adjective

1. accomplishing a desired aim or result.

That is where it ends.

Where what ends? You still haven't addressed my post at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wait a minute, didn't you agree with me a while back that if you can't show it, then you don't know it?

Maybe I did say that, but that was in a different context, and I cannot remember what that context was since I get so many posts in one day alone.