Evidence -- making it useful

[TransmutingSoul]

The only option then is blind faith.

That is not a logical conclusion. It is a preconceived conclusion. The evidence contains the proofs, or it does not.

Regards Tony

 

[rational experiences]

Every human who owns sanity knows to talk upon any theme or subjective reasoning. It's being human first. You live you are a human you were a human baby.

Basic answers.

As the human origin life human has been mutually deceased a long time. Are now mineral skeletal dusts. Those dusts are inside waters mass. We know. We told ourselves.

So the biology that's gone to cause hardened bones that disintegrate into dust is water mass. As life's biology is mainly water.

The topic humans life presence is now only. Right now living owning now and present now as living experiences.

Living now we talk now to state now only as we live in a living humans experience. Now.

Realise now reflected is won.

So you can read. Humans say don't look back at powers. It's all only in a past status.

Themed lot...meaning a man wanted calculated power by his mother's woman fake themed mass terms.

He says the woman looked back.

Thesis is fake. As no human is living in the themed thesis.

So man looking back false theoried. About maths science power is what he said.

He says I turned maths science womb power into stone.

So you think.

Man says above us is sun mass dusts burning in vacuum void like a ground above us. I'll name it a firmament.

So you question how did men using a lot mass of power form a stone pillar?

He says he sees falling burning stone mass come through sun cross. Stars. Above us should be dusts. CH heavens above he says.

Obviously men caused Rock mass to cross over as they do sun UFO mass.

As the heavens mass was once owner of a larger amount of heavenly body gases said men. Rock would have once crossed. Now it's metals.

Pretty basic warnings don't mess with God that I named as a man a human and a scientist. I said never give it a theory..a name.

 

[Eric Hyom]

Yes, I should have said know. I guess context is a concept that is foreign to you.

Don't blame me for something you should have said, but didn't.
Just to be clear, I wouldn't say I believe 2+2 = 4. I would know this. We can't have that same certainty with the evolution story, over a period of 3.7 billion years. Belief plays a big part.

But no, even with "real evidence" there can be plenty to talk about. "Real evidence" may be insufficient, it may be misinterpreted, etc..

Agreed, fossil evidence can be misinterpreted. After all, the most interesting fossils are hundreds of millions of years old. Not to mention evidence from three billion years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't blame me for something you should have said, but didn't.
Just to be clear, I wouldn't say I believe 2+2 = 4. I would know this. We can't have that same certainty with the evolution story, over a period of 3.7 billion years. Belief plays a big part.

Really? I would say a rather small part. Can you tell me what you think that we do not know and why it matters?

Agreed, fossil evidence can be misinterpreted. After all, the most interesting fossils are hundreds of millions of years old. Not to mention evidence from three billion years ago.

What is deemed interesting would be very dependent on what one was studying. People studying human evolution are interested almost exclusively in fossils within the last ten million years.

 

[Muffled]

Well, assuming a God exists as you think it does. And assuming sin is an actual thing, which is doubtful and lacks evidence. Salvation is absurd, anyway, given the whole story starts with Adam and Eve, goes through a global flood, and ends up with God creating a child just so he can be executed to atone for the sins of humans in a world God created.

And assuming health problems isn't largely just the lottery of life, just as some children are born with defects or genes that cause cancer, and not God deliberately causing these problems for children.

Or do you think God deliberately put genes in children that cause them cancer? And often a premature, and painful death?

I believe God can punish sin in any number of ways; pestilence is only one of them.

I believe people are wrong about that. The story starts with the words "In the beginning."

I believe that is wrong. There is no end to the story. There is an end to temporal life for a time but that comes 1,000 years after the return of Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

How did you mangle your interpretation of my post so badly?

I believe your statement is a prime example of avoiding the question.

I believe I manage because I don't see things the way people usually see them.

 

[Muffled]

That is their quandary.

I was sceptical before I actually studied the evidence. In fact my wife nearly disowned me, as I was so pig headed about the new Faith she had found. I wanted nothing of any faith.

So it may just be their loss.

Regards Tony

I believe one may wish to please a spouse but mine was dead set against me; stomped on my Bible and threw pots and pans at me until the day came that she encountered a demon and could no longer deny the supernatural.

 

[F1fan]

I believe God can punish sin in any number of ways; pestilence is only one of them.

I believe people are wrong about that. The story starts with the words "In the beginning."

I believe that is wrong. There is no end to the story. There is an end to temporal life for a time but that comes 1,000 years after the return of Jesus.

Your personal beliefs are irrelevant.

The only way your beliefs could be relevant is if you had facts that he got exists, and that sin is a true phenomenon and can show us these are likely true or true. The problem you theists have is that you have these beliefs and claims but lack credible evidence that your beliefs are true, or even likely true. So, by logical default, all your personal beliefs are rejected, and deemed irrelevant to any sort of larger argument.

 

[F1fan]

I believe one may wish to please a spouse but mine was dead set against me; stomped on my Bible and threw pots and pans at me until the day came that she encountered a demon and could no longer deny the supernatural.

Was it you she encountered?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe your statement is a prime example of avoiding the question.

I believe I manage because I don't see things the way people usually see them.

Their is no onus to answer some questions. You screwed up.

Here is an example of a question where hopefully one cannot answer as asked:

"Have you quite beating your wife yet? Answer yes or no."

If you ask proper questions you will get answers.

EDIT:

And it was you that dodged a question. We were discussing evidence and you brought up some rather poor examples so I posted this"

"Then why call it "evidence"? To be considered evidence it first must be reliable. And if you can't test it it cannot be reliable. What you are discussing are anecdotes and stories. They are not evidence."

You then brought up an mitosis and tried to ask a question based upon your misunderstanding of that event. That was a dodge on your part.

So you don't have any evidence. That gets us back to why do you believe what you bbelieve?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I believe one may wish to please a spouse but mine was dead set against me; stomped on my Bible and threw pots and pans at me until the day came that she encountered a demon and could no longer deny the supernatural.

Everyone gets to judge the evidence for their own selves.

Each person can let their own nature, nurture and opinions tarnish the Evidence does give us.

We can be the worst of demon's, or we can be angles.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everyone gets to judge the evidence for their own selves.

Each person can let their own nature, nurture and opinions tarnish the Evidence does give us.

We can be the worst of demon's, or we can be angles.

Regards Tony

No, evidence does not work that way. It is rather clear that you are conflating evidence with confirmation bias. As long as a person is reasoning rationally evidence is the same for everyone. "It is evidence for me" means that what you have is not evidence.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, evidence does not work that way. It is rather clear that you are conflating evidence with confirmation bias. As long as a person is reasoning rationally evidence is the same for everyone. "It is evidence for me" means that what you have is not evidence.

The Evidence is available and is the same for everyone. I have pursued it and was able to weight it using reason and logic.

The evidence will not be viewed the same way by everyone, that is why there are juries.

Denial of that the evidence exists, by anyone else, does not concern me at all, not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow, not ever, as that is 100% thier problem.

So maybe you will not offer that again?

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Evidence is available and is the same for everyone. I have pursued it and was able to weight it using reason and logic.

The evidence will not be viewed the same way by everyone, that is why there are juries.

Denial of that the evidence exists, by anyone else, does not concern me at all, not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow, not ever, as that is 100% thier problem.

So maybe you will not offer that again?

Regards Tony

And that once again raises the question of if it is available why don't you ever post any?


Your actions tell us that you do not have any evidence. There may be evidence, though that is rather doubtful and you have shown that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence in the first place.

 

[rational experiences]

First instance relative.

Funky. I typed family nothing like funky...

Family human mutual relatives...plural of first word meaning. Relatives

No science even exists.

All things balanced mutual the evidence.

Science says genesis DNA of humans evidence is mutual equal tribal family first parent DNA the same for everyone.

Our evidence first they were brother and sister.

The garden holy mutual in life laws so were animals mutual.

Balances between light and dark exact.

Evidence.

Then the unholy star came. Satan terms.

Pretty basic.stated Satan as it had been part of the evil hell sun.

So it brought a body mass from hell.

Evidence.

God one highest greatest of all things kept all things protected.

Law O earth rock and it's history owned heavens.

God.

Brother's mind became a satanist a theist against God of anything.

Began converting which is destroying.

His con is con vert. I con vert everything.

Get the idea yet?

Now he says new experiment is co vert.

As he already converted family.

You all discuss the history of his nothing Satanism.

As all things existed before man.

Telling a believed thesis isn't truth.

Evidence is lived experienced seen.

To explain evidence...there is none as confess of men about Sion said Sion Fu Sion fish sion he conjured evil phenomena.

As no man is God. God had never owned evil.

Consuming only the sun mass owned basic law.

Earth mass cooled evolved.

Pretty basic law.

 

[Eric Hyom]

As long as a person is reasoning rationally evidence is the same for everyone.

2+2 =4, no problem all agreed.

Pre Big Bang = natural causes. There is no rational consensus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

2+2 =4, no problem all agreed.

Pre Big Bang = natural causes. There is no rational consensus.

So what? How does that help you with your claims?

 

[F1fan]

Everyone gets to judge the evidence for their own selves.

You say this, but as soon as critical thinkers (people skilled at reasoning via facts) give their assessment you attack them for getting the wrong conclusion, but then offer no better rationale yourself.

Each person can let their own nature, nurture and opinions tarnish the Evidence does give us.

See what I mean? You have your own personbal assumptions that you insist are true and valid, and then accuse anyone who disagrees with you as having some bias. This is completely false, and ironic since your assumptions have been exposed as lacking facts, and even being contrary to what is understood of reality. I have noted on a few responses that this insulting attitude is passive agressive behavior, and indicates your own discomfort about how these debates are going. You don't seem willing to refelct on your own thinking here.

We can be the worst of demon's, or we can be angles.

At least 90 degrees, eh?

Again I have to wonder about your motive here. You obviously are trying to sway the way skeptics think by referring to their conclusions as "tarnished", and now you divide us between angels and demons. Who are the demons, in your view? Dehumanizing your opponent is divisive and bad manners. Is that what you want people to think about the Baha'i?

 

[F1fan]

2+2 =4, no problem all agreed.

Pre Big Bang = natural causes. There is no rational consensus.

Right, rational thinkers require adequate answers, so no natural cause, and certainly no supernatural cause.

What has science and reason demonstrated thus far: all natural causes for observed phenomenon, and no supernatural causes. So supernatural assumptions seem irrelevant as a probability.

 

[Eric Hyom]

So what? How does that help you with your claims?

It goes against your claim, when you say, As long as a person is reasoning rationally evidence is the same for everyone.

The evidence for pre BB is pretty much non existent and controversial. In such circumstances, rational thinking carries no weight.