Does any supernatural god exist?

[Tinkerpeach]

There is no context in which the excuses you've proposed make sense - like technically Judas bought the land because he used the priests as a third party to buy the land for him when he threw the money away? Do you not see what mental gymnastics that requires?

In one version Judas possesses the money and he uses it. In the other he casts the money away and the priests then possess the money and they use it. It's unmistakably clear. Both of those things cannot be true

It’s very clear if you don’t try and confuse it.

Here is an example: if a father gives his son 5000 to buy a car and the son goes and purchases it then who bought the car?

The son or the father?

Was it the father for providing the funds or the son for physically handing the money over?

Wouldn’t the answer be that they both did?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Can you rephrase that, please. English is not my first language.

Mine either so no.

 

[Nakosis]

Problem is that relevance is not physical, material, natural and/or objective and you have no evidence for it as it has no measureable effect as per your standard of evidence.

It is only relevant if it does have a measurable effect and that measurable affect would be the evidence so your above sentence doesn't make make any sense to me.

That is your trick in short. Your demand for evidence as for the demand itself is without evidence.

Again, the measurable affect is the evidence and I don't demand it, it is just the way reality works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mine either so no.

Thanks. I will stop here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is only relevant if it does have a measurable effect and that measurable affect would be the evidence so your above sentence doesn't make make any sense to me.



Again, the measurable affect is the evidence and I don't demand it, it is just the way reality works.

What is the physical evidence for that proposition? What is your evidence for the fact that this is how evidence is and works?

 

[Nakosis]

What is the physical evidence for that proposition? What is your evidence for the fact that this is how evidence is and works?

Consistency. As long as it consistently works that way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Consistency. As long as it consistently works that way.

The bold word is a mental word without any physical referent.

You are making a mental non-physical explanation of how evidence works for you. Don't you understand that?

 

[Soandso]

It’s very clear if you don’t try and confuse it.

Here is an example: if a father gives his son 5000 to buy a car and the son goes and purchases it then who bought the car?

The son or the father?

Was it the father for providing the funds or the son for physically handing the money over?

Wouldn’t the answer be that they both did?

No, because what happens in the Bible isn't the scenario you describe. What you are talking about is unrelated to the topic at hand

What we have here is one version of a story where a guy takes his money and buys a piece of land for himself. The money is his property, and the land he buys it with also becomes his property that he later explodes on. In the other story he feels awful about what he did and throws the money away before hanging himself. He relinquishes ownership of it. It is no longer his money as it now belongs to the priests. They choose to buy property and turn it into a graveyard for foreigners with that money - the money they now own. What they choose to do with the money after he relinquishes it is up to them because it's now their money

What you describe above is a scenario where there is a mutual agreement. There's no such agreement in the stories we are talking about

 

[Nakosis]

The bold word is a mental word without any physical referent.

You are making a mental non-physical explanation of how evidence works for you. Don't you understand that?

It means it happens repeatably in the physical world. Which of those words do you not understand?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It means it happens repeatably in the physical world. Which of those words do you not understand?

No, that it happens again and again is a mental experince in you. You can't show as point to it happens repeatably.

 

[Ajax]

Same thing.

We know who humans are and what abilities they possess and turning staffs into snakes is not one of them.

God does possess that ability though.

We now known a lot of things that the primitive writers of the Bible never thought we would know.The Bible was written in about 600 BCE, the Exodus never happened, nor any sticks ever turned to snakes. And talking of the Exodus, it was God who didn't allow Pharaoh to"free the Israelites", by hardening Pharaoh's heart...Exodus 9:12 "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses."
This God of OT must have been a lunatic. Unfortunately Christianity had to accept the OT, because it's a by-product or heresy of Judaism.

 

[Ajax]

The bold word is a mental word without any physical referent.

It's a man made word describing repeatability and as all thoughts and words, originates from physical elements, i.e. the brain.
There is nothing supernatural or non physical in humans.
But I think we are way off topic.

 

[Nakosis]

No, that it happens again and again is a mental experince in you. You can't show as point to it happens repeatably.

No, you can record it with various instruments. You don't even have to be present.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a man made word describing repeatability and as all thoughts and words, originates from physical elements, i.e. the brain.
There is nothing supernatural or non physical in humans.
But I think we are way off topic.

You are doing philosophy and not science.
Science tells us nothing about the supernatural or non physical one way or another. That is philosophy.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, you can record it with various instruments. You don't even have to be present.

Please record the present as present for its meaning with an instrument.
Please reference a sceince site for what instruemnt is used and what measurement standard it is calibrated to use.

 

[Nakosis]

Please record the present as present for its meaning with an instrument.

Please reference a sceince site for what instruemnt is used and what measurement standard it is calibrated to use.

Consumer product clocks for the general public’s use are tested by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) IST-F2, IST-F2. Since 1999, NIST has determined the length of a second by its NINIST-F1 Standard which measures the length of a second by cesium atoms. In 2014, it released the F2 Standard. To develop this standard, it was measured by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris, France. This International Organization collates data from atomic clocks around the world. While the NIST keeps “civilian” time, the US Navy keeps the official military time standards at its U.S. Naval Observatory.
Clock, Watch, and Time Measurement, Calibration and Testing | Outsource! Contract Laboratory Blog

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

View attachment 91138​

Consumer product clocks for the general public’s use are tested by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) IST-F2, IST-F2. Since 1999, NIST has determined the length of a second by its NINIST-F1 Standard which measures the length of a second by cesium atoms. In 2014, it released the F2 Standard. To develop this standard, it was measured by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris, France. This International Organization collates data from atomic clocks around the world. While the NIST keeps “civilian” time, the US Navy keeps the official military time standards at its U.S. Naval Observatory.
Clock, Watch, and Time Measurement, Calibration and Testing | Outsource! Contract Laboratory Blog

I didn't ask for seconds or a clock. I asked for the scientific defintion of the present for its meaning and how you know what the present is as a concept.
Try again.

 

[Nakosis]

I didn't ask for seconds or a clock. I asked for the scientific defintion of the present for its meaning and how you know what the present is as a concept.
Try again.

What do you mean by scientific?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean by scientific?

If you can for give an explanation of say a second in regards to measure it using an instruement calibrated to a scientific measurement standard. then it is science. Now a second and a clock is science in that sense.
The present is not. The explanation doesn't involve the bold. It involve that you understand subjectively the concept of the present.

You keep conflating that understanding what a second is that same as what a present moment is, because you understand both, therefore the understanding must be the same. It is not.
The one is objective and the other is subjective.

 

[Nakosis]

If you can for give an explanation of say a second in regards to measure it using an instruement calibrated to a scientific measurement standard. then it is science. Now a second and a clock is science in that sense.
The present is not. The explanation doesn't involve the bold. It involve that you understand subjectively the concept of the present.

You keep conflating that understanding what a second is that same as what a present moment is, because you understand both, therefore the understanding must be the same. It is not.
The one is objective and the other is subjective.

No, the present is defined as The present is the period of time that is occurring now. The present is contrasted with the past, the period of time that has already occurred, and the future, the period of time that has yet to occur.

I would have simply said "now" but the above provide a little more for you to parse.

So, how is that subjective?