Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[gnostic]

This is not getting us any where, jm2c. After we both got warnings from moderators, we are supposed to move on, either by:

1. be civil to each other,
2. or avoid each other.

Fine, since you can't move on, then I won't respond to your posts in this thread any more.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Stock Mohammad Nur Syamsu response #0001: No matter what the opponent's argument says, just accuse them of "rejecting subjectivity" and then you can ignore having to actually read it or formulate an intelligent response.

Classic.

The agency of a decision is the root of all subjectivity, and to deny it is to reject all subjectivity.

1. to be reasonable and critical, you should have replied with another conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works, to then contrast it
2. you don't have any conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works, except what you would fantasize about it while you would write a posting on it
3. everything in your writing style shows that you repress subjectivity, that you do not provide dedicated room for subjectivity, but that it only seeps through as it were, despite your exclusive focus on facts. and besides it seeping through, you manipulate with emotive words.
4. making judgement is the perogative of creationists, because only we accept subjectivity is valid.
5. my judgement on you as being the owner of your decisions is......

 

[JM2C]

It is done, JM2C. You really should drop it now, move pass it.


There is no sense in complaining that you have been unfairly treated by any moderator, because I got the same warning from a moderator, about personal attacks.


I did not report you, but I did warn you not to use racist insult, however, you repeated in your next reply to me. You were reported, but not by me.


Put it behind you.


But if you truly want civil debates, then don't twist my words.

This is what I’ve been saying and I even wrote this to shad, “We are here to debate and not insult each other. If I’m wrong correct me, but that doesn’t mean you are right when you’re correcting me. We could trade insults all day long, but at the end of the day we can ask ourselves, did I learn something today?”

Let’s avoid the words “ignorance” “idiot” “stupid” “fool” or any insulting words that can demean another person.

I’m here to debate about my faith and learn.

If I’m going to spent 3 hours a day on this forum and learn nothing, then, I would rather run and ride my bike.

 

[JM2C]

Why do think that's relevant? I've already repeatedly explained that being offended or insulted is not justification for repeatedly racially abusing another member of the forum! It is against forum rules to verbally abuse other posters, and the correct course of action in such cases is to report the offending posts - NOT TO HURL RACIST ABUSE AT THE OFFENDER.

I'll ask one last time before I put you on ignore: Do you understand this??

Do you think I care if you put me on IGNORE? You are not the first one. Do you think you are that important in this thread? Don’t think highly of yourself. I fully understand if you can’t see my side or my pov. Do you understand that?

You are not a MODERATOR and please DO NOT ACT LIKE ONE. I’m within the Moderator’s guideline, i.e., “Critique each other's ideas all you want,” and READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS: All I was doing here is criticized your arguments, but when I see that I’m wrong I apologize and that’s what I did when I misread your statements, and that’s how fair I am. When I’m wrong I apologize or swallow my pride. I did that once to mestemia, yes, I apologized to him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you think I care if you put me on IGNORE? You are not the first one. Do you think you are that important in this thread? Don’t think highly of yourself. I fully understand if you can’t see my side or my pov. Do you understand that?

Putting you on ignore is for my own sake, because you are clearly showing yourself to be impossible to reason with. I'm letting you know that if you continue to be incapable of reason, I will see no further point in debating you on any subject.

You are not a MODERATOR and please DO NOT ACT LIKE ONE.

YOU are the one who repeatedly quoted the forum rules as justification for your action. All I have done is uphold them, which is exactly what you THINK you are doing, by informing you that racial slurs are against forum rules, and for reporting you to the moderators when I felt you were contravening that rule. As a member of the forum, I have the right to report posts that I believe contravene the forum rules, and the forum moderators have the right to review the posts I report to determine whether or not they do, in fact, contravene the rules. If you have an issue with that, I suggest you stop posting on forums altogether.

I’m within the Moderator’s guideline, i.e., “Critique each other's ideas all you want,” and READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS: All I was doing here is criticized your arguments, but when I see that I’m wrong I apologize and that’s what I did when I misread your statements, and that’s how fair I am. When I’m wrong I apologize or swallow my pride. I did that once to mestemia, yes, I apologized to him.

And why should that excuse you from repeatedly hurling racist abuse at another forum member??

 

[JM2C]

Putting you on ignore is for my own sake, because you are clearly showing yourself to be impossible to reason with. I'm letting you know that if you continue to be incapable of reason, I will see no further point in debating you on any subject.

Should I ignore you or are you ignoring me now? But I can still read your response from my last post. You are confusing me because I thought when you put one on ignore you're not suppose to reply back, but here you are replying to my last post, meaning: you did not put me on ignore yet.
Got to run now see you tom.....if I'm not still on ignore yet of course..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The agency of a decision is the root of all subjectivity, and to deny it is to reject all subjectivity.

I don't reject agency or subjectivity.

1. to be reasonable and critical, you should have replied with another conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works, to then contrast it

I did. I explained how emotions actually function.

2. you don't have any conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works, except what you would fantasize about it while you would write a posting on it

Actually, yes I do. Subjectivity is a result of personal experiences and perceptions interacting with reality and formulating conclusions influenced by a wide variety of factors.

3. everything in your writing style shows that you repress subjectivity, that you do not provide dedicated room for subjectivity, but that it only seeps through as it were, despite your exclusive focus on facts. and besides it seeping through, you manipulate with emotive words.

This is a fantasy of yours. I've never done any of those things, and frankly I am finding your constant accusations extremely tiring. You constantly repeat this assertion as if it's based on anything other than your own fantasy, and it's practically impossible to reason you out of it.

4. making judgement is the perogative of creationists, because only we accept subjectivity is valid.

Big fat lie. I am capable of making all kinds of judgements.

5. my judgement on you as being the owner of your decisions is......

Irrelevant. You are not an authority on me.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't reject agency or subjectivity.


I did. I explained how emotions actually function.


Actually, yes I do. Subjectivity is a result of personal experiences and perceptions interacting with reality and formulating conclusions influenced by a wide variety of factors.


This is a fantasy of yours. I've never done any of those things, and frankly I am finding your constant accusations extremely tiring. You constantly repeat this assertion as if it's based on anything other than your own fantasy, and it's practically impossible to reason you out of it.


Big fat lie. I am capable of making all kinds of judgements.


Irrelevant. You are not an authority on me.

Personal experience and perceptions inyeracting.... are just waffle words that you got based of a dictionary.

To validate subjectivity requires a categorical distinction from objectivity. It requires a different logic from obtaining facts, and a different domain from the material domain, and then integration of the 2 domains.

Subjectivity is a creationist idea, and all great subjective realities like the soul and God are creationist.

 

[outhouse]

I’m here to debate about my faith and learn.

I have not seen this.

You refuse facts presented to you, you refuse academia, you seem to be proselytizing your faith more then learning.

 

[gnostic]

I don't reject agency or subjectivity.


I did. I explained how emotions actually function.


Actually, yes I do. Subjectivity is a result of personal experiences and perceptions interacting with reality and formulating conclusions influenced by a wide variety of factors.


This is a fantasy of yours. I've never done any of those things, and frankly I am finding your constant accusations extremely tiring. You constantly repeat this assertion as if it's based on anything other than your own fantasy, and it's practically impossible to reason you out of it.


Big fat lie. I am capable of making all kinds of judgements.


Irrelevant. You are not an authority on me.

It is this very reason, I have put him in the ignore list.

The whole "subjectivity" accusations, because I favor science, that I wasn't "subjective". When I told him stop it, he kept using this same argument again and again, which had nothing the topic of the thread, got tired of him, so I just put him in the ignore list.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It is this very reason, I have put him in the ignore list.

The whole "subjectivity" accusations that I wasn't "subjective". When I told him stop it, he kept using this argument again and again, which had nothing the topic of the thread, got tired of him, so I just put him in the ignore list.

I have not seen this.

You refuse facts presented to you, you refuse academia, you seem to be proselytizing your faith more then learning.

Bigots are there for the lolz guys.
If you just don't take anything they say seriously it becomes rather funny.
But also sad, seeing that people of that 'particular level of intelligence' actually exist.
I got warned by a mod about insulting that guy, but it's just too easy, ya know?

Peace.

 

[McBell]

Did I curse anyone here? NO!

I suspect the Mods have found your repeated use of the racial slur to cursing.
I know I do.

 

[McBell]

He cursed me first. What is so hard to understand on that?

READ AND UNDERSTAND THE RULES:

“Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums.”

“Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack.”

“Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.”

Perhaps I am missing it....
Please be so kind as to point out the part in the rules that say you are allowed to call names if you are called names first.

 

[David M]

Do you understand this? Do you think cursing is not a personal attack?!

No, Cursing is not a personal attack per se. Insulting a person is a personal attack whether it contains cursing or not.

As examples the following are perfectly within the forum rules because they are not aimed at a forum member even though they might contain "cursing":
That is the F**king stupidest argument I have ever heard.
Whoever wrote <bible verse x> was a lying sack of s**t.
In my opinion Ken Ham is a hate-mongering scam-artist.
If God exists he is a genocidal narcissistic idiot.

The following is against the forum rules:
"You are Stupid".
Hey <racist terminology>.

We agree to abide by the forum rules, that means no personal attacks. It does not matter if someone personally attacks us we do not respond because that is a breach of the rules we agree to follow. There is no "miss, miss, Johnny did it first" exemption.

 

[McBell]

Whining?

Yes, whining.

Really?

Yes, really

You guys are the one who reported me, you forgot that already?

I have not reported you.

This is what I’ve been doing it this thread, “Critique each other's ideas all you want,”

You have also repeatedly called names...
Interesting how you would lie about now.

Do you understand that?

Yes, I do understand.
What I do not understand is why you think anyone is going to buy your snake oil.

You can’t, because you were not debating in thread at all.

I cannot understand because I was not debating?
Now that is a stretch.

All you’ve been doing was heckling, throwing cheap shots at me with your one-liner comments.

All your posts have been worth thus far in this thread are one liners.
Actually, that is a lie.
They have not been worth the one liners.

You are not criticizing my posts at all because you can’t

I have criticized your posts.
my criticism is what you are whining about now....

instead you resort to this endless distasteful nonsense rhetoric on which you are very good at.

How about you try actually debating and see what happens?

 

[McBell]

You need to understand how it all started first before you draw your own conclusion.

It’s like who punched first. If guy #1 punched first and guy #2 threw a punch in response to that, would guy #2 stop punching because guy #1 stop punching? NO! It escalates into multiple punches just from that first punch by guy #1. NOW, think hard and draw a reasonable unbiased conclusion and you’ll find who is right and who is wrong. Do you understand that?

Who are you to moderate me on what to do and what not to do? Have you ever thought of that? You can’t be a moderator because you only see your own bias interpretation.

I’m within the moderator’s guideline, i.e., “Critique each other's ideas all you want,” and again for the 100 times, AHEM! AHEM! AHEM! That’s what I’ve been doing in this thread, i.e., criticize your arguments. You curse me I will not report you but expect something unpleasant in return.

this is nothing more than you trying in vain to justify your own breaking of the rules.

None of us are buying that snake oil.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

PersGaonal experience and perceptions inyeracting.... are just waffle words that you got based of a dictionary.

Actually, no. They refer to something, unlike the random words and categories you pull out of thin air.

To validate subjectivity requires a categorical distinction from objectivity. It requires a different logic from obtaining facts, and a different domain from the material domain, and then integration of the 2 domains.

There is a difference between subjective and objective: the objective is that which is regardless of perception, the subjective is that which is a result of perception. It's a very simple difference.

Subjectivity is a creationist idea, and all great subjective realities like the soul and God are creationist.

Total nonsense. When are you going to stop making stuff up?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is a difference between subjective and objective: the objective is that which is regardless of perception, the subjective is that which is a result of perception. It's a very simple difference.

You very simply don't know what you're talking about. You are researching it while you are writing your posting, you don't have a ready to go understanding of subjectivity.

The result of perception is a representation of the thing in mind. These representations are just as well objectively verifiable entities, as one can draw on paper what one perceives. From physical thing, to the mind perceiving, to drawing it on paper, it is essentially copying of one form to another form.

It is obviously ony possibe to achieve a difference between subjective and objective, when subjective and objective refer to different domains.

Which is why people refer to the soul as doing the job of choosing, and regard the existence of the soul as a matter of opinion. Full validation of subjectivity requires things the existence of which is a matter of opinion. And the way it still ties in with the material domain, is that the spiritual chooses over the material.

And this does not hinder science in any way, because with freedom it is unknowable which way a decision is going to turn out, because per definition a decision can turn out either way. Per definition it was never going to be part of science. What is part of science is knowing as fact that decisions can turn out either way.

This is why scientists can simply say they like icecream, and believe in God, and not be accused of failing to provide evidence for these statements. It is because subectivity is categorically distinct from objectivity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You very simply don't know what you're talking about. You are researching it while you are writing your posting, you don't have a ready to go understanding of subjectivity.

I'm researching it? I literally wrote that definition from memory. I don't need to research it because I already know what the concepts are and what they refer to - it's not rocket science. You are the one who is making up your own definitions that have no basis in reality.

The result of perception is a representation of the thing in mind. These representations are just as well objectively verifiable entities, as one can draw on paper what one perceives. From physical thing, to the mind perceiving, to drawing it on paper, it is essentially copying of one form to another form.

But a drawing of an object is not the same thing as an object. A drawing of a cup is not a cup - it is visual representation of a cup created by someone representing what a cup appears to be in their mind. For example: if I put a mug in front of an art student with the handle facing away from them and told them to draw it, they would most likely draw the cup as they see it - with the appearance of not having a handle, as the handle is facing away from them. However, if I put the same mug in front of an 8-year old child and asked them to draw it, even if I have the handle facing away from where the child is sitting they will most likely draw a mug with a handle. There is a difference of perception, interpretation and therefore subjective representation of the object. The art student sees the mug as a three-dimensional object as seen from a particular angle, whereas the child sees the mug as a cup with a handle - and to leave out the handle would therefore not be drawing a mug. The drawings are different, but both are representations of an objectively verifiable object.

It is obviously ony possibe to achieve a difference between subjective and objective, when subjective and objective refer to different domains.

Again, I've already explained the difference between subjective and objective. They are extremely easy to distinguish. This use of "domains" of yours is arbitrary and inane.

Which is why people refer to the soul as doing the job of choosing, and regard the existence of the soul as a matter of opinion. Full validation of subjectivity requires things the existence of which is a matter of opinion. And the way it still ties in with the material domain, is that the spiritual chooses over the material.

Please provide proof that the soul exists and is in any way involved in "choosing".

And this does not hinder science in any way, because with freedom it is unknowable which way a decision is going to turn out, because per definition a decision can turn out either way. Per definition it was never going to be part of science. What is part of science is knowing as fact that decisions can turn out either way.

If you decide to turn left, you can turn left. If you decide to turn right, you turn right. If you decided to turn left, you probably had reasons for doing so. If you decide to turn right, you probably had reasons for doing so. Are you suggesting it shouldn't be possible to be able to predict what decision a person is going to make, because people are almost constantly predictable.

This is why scientists can simply say they like icecream, and believe in God, and not be accused of failing to provide evidence for these statements. It is because subectivity is categorically distinct from objectivity.

Now you're just not making any kind of sense. This is just garbled nonsense.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm researching it? I literally wrote that definition from memory. I don't need to research it because I already know what the concepts are and what they refer to - it's not rocket science. You are the one who is making up your own definitions that have no basis in reality.


But a drawing of an object is not the same thing as an object. A drawing of a cup is not a cup - it is visual representation of a cup created by someone representing what a cup appears to be in their mind. For example: if I put a mug in front of an art student with the handle facing away from them and told them to draw it, they would most likely draw the cup as they see it - with the appearance of not having a handle, as the handle is facing away from them. However, if I put the same mug in front of an 8-year old child and asked them to draw it, even if I have the handle facing away from where the child is sitting they will most likely draw a mug with a handle. There is a difference of perception, interpretation and therefore subjective representation of the object. The art student sees the mug as a three-dimensional object as seen from a particular angle, whereas the child sees the mug as a cup with a handle - and to leave out the handle would therefore not be drawing a mug. The drawings are different, but both are representations of an objectively verifiable object.

Obviously you are making stuff up while you are writing your posting. Why you even forgot about like and dislike in relation to subjectivity.... That's what happens when you make stuff up, you forget things. Your functional definition of subjectivity is now, some of the stuff that happens in the mind. It is useless.

If you decide to turn left, you can turn left. If you decide to turn right, you turn right. If you decided to turn left, you probably had reasons for doing so. If you decide to turn right, you probably had reasons for doing so. Are you suggesting it shouldn't be possible to be able to predict what decision a person is going to make, because people are almost constantly predictable.

60/40 predictions are perfecly valid predictions. A 100/0 prediction, I don't know if that is a valid prediction. You are obvously trying to make it appear people act in a forced way, because you cannot handle freedom. And the reason you cannot handle freedom is because you blatantly and explicitly reject subjectivity.