Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Kirran]

Which means other mentions of love are scientifically wrong? It's a nonsense, that is just reasonable judgement in the dictionary, a popular judgement, but still a judgement.

So no words mean anything?

Are you a Sufi?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope, not rejecting (not sure if you quite understand what that word means). Merely allowing for possibilities.

Not buying it. You are rejecting subjectivity wholesale. And when you say you accept subjectivity, then you are using a different definition than the creationist definition of choosing about what it is that chooses. You have never accepted the existence of the human soul, or love, or any, on this basis that you choose the conclusion that it is there making a decision turn out the way it does.

 

[leibowde84]

It's a nonsense, it falls perfectly in line with atheistic arguments about an invisible teapot orbiting the earth.

And this is also in the context of you actively opposing any factual knowledge whatsoever about how things are chosen in the universe, and insisting on that love is partially objective.

Btw, similarities in arguments do not show correlations in conclusion necessarily. Basic logic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So no words mean anything?

Are you a Sufi?

That is misrepresentation of creationism again. Creationism has an entire category for objectivity, facts, with defined meanings.

And opinions also relate to one another, but the relationships vary.

 

[Kirran]

That is misrepresentation of creationism again. Creationism has an entire category for objectivity, facts, with defined meanings.

And opinions also relate to one another, but the relationships vary.

When you say 'creationism' are you on about Islamic creationism, Hindu, Navajo, Jewish?

 

[leibowde84]

Not buying it. You are rejecting subjectivity wholesale. And when you say you accept subjectivity, then you are using a different definition than the creationist definition of choosing about what it is that chooses. You have never accepted the existence of the human soul, or love, or any, on this basis that you choose the conclusion that it is there making a decision turn out the way it does.

I do not believe that to be the case. Again, you are just making false assumptions. I believe in the soul, love, and subjective exoerience. The only difference between our views is my recognition of the fact that my beliefs could be wrong.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I said this was a start. Never rejected alternative definitions. What definition are you using? You still haven't answered that.

I use a way of deciding, I have discipline with how the conclusion is chosen, and besides that a hodge podge of interrelated opinions, etc.

 

[leibowde84]

I am sure you don't have a clue what love means fundamentally, because you never actually dealt with the subjective "part" at all, in saying it was partially subjective. You never addressed how to decide in forming an opinion what is loving, which means, you have no clue about how subjectivity works, you only understand objectivity.

Why do you think I've never dealt with subjective love. I never made this claim.

 

[leibowde84]

I use a way of deciding, I have discipline with how the conclusion is chosen, and besides that a hodge podge of interrelated opinions, etc.

Ok, that just means it's complicated. You should still be able to provide the meaning of any word you use in debate. Do you not agree?

 

[leibowde84]

That is misrepresentation of creationism again. Creationism has an entire category for objectivity, facts, with defined meanings.

And opinions also relate to one another, but the relationships vary.

The question was only referring to how you were using the word linguistically.

 

[leibowde84]

I use a way of deciding, I have discipline with how the conclusion is chosen, and besides that a hodge podge of interrelated opinions, etc.

Love is a decision. But what makes it different than other decision. In other word why use love rather than choose or like.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I do not believe that to be the case. Again, you are just making false assumptions. I believe in the soul, love, and subjective exoerience. The only difference between our views is my recognition of the fact that my beliefs could be wrong.

"Wrong" more applies to facts than to opinions. Your beliefs may be immoral, evil, misguided. Saying they might be wrong, implies you made an error in measurement, or whatever.

You consistently slant everything towards objectivity, you reject subjectivity.

And still you have never accepted the creationist procedure of choosing about what it is that chooses. You use different definitions than creationism for choosing, subjectivity, freedom, opinion and everything else. Evolutionists use the logic of sorting to mean choosing. So it is all quite meaningless that you say to accept subjectivity, believing and whatever, as long as you don't go into the actual details of the procedure. Because you might as well use a logic of being forced, cause and effect, with the word choosing like professional evolutionary biologists do.

 

[Kirran]

"Wrong" more applies to facts than to opinions. Your beliefs may be immoral, evil, misguided. Saying they might be wrong, implies you made an error in measurement, or whatever.

You consistently slant everything towards objectivity, you reject subjectivity.

And still you have never accepted the creationist procedure of choosing about what it is that chooses. You use different definitions than creationism for choosing, subjectivity, freedom, opinion and everything else. Evolutionists use the logic of sorting to mean choosing. So it is all quite meaningless that you say to accept subjectivity, believing and whatever, as long as you don't go into the actual details of the procedure. Because you might as well use a logic of being forced, cause and effect, with the word choosing like professional evolutionary biologists do.

You don't know what the Theory of Evolution is.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Love is a decision. But what makes it different than other decision. In other word why use love rather than choose or like.

No love is what makes a decision turn out the way it does, it is not the decision. I certainly have said that more than a dozen times to you. You systematically misrepresent creationism. And then you complain that I say you reject subjectivity. You have no basis for complaining. You reject subjectivity, that's a matter of fact issue, and the fact is that you do.

 

[leibowde84]

"Wrong" more applies to facts than to opinions. Your beliefs may be immoral, evil, misguided. Saying they might be wrong, implies you made an error in measurement, or whatever.

You consistently slant everything towards objectivity, you reject subjectivity.

And still you have never accepted the creationist procedure of choosing about what it is that chooses. You use different definitions than creationism for choosing, subjectivity, freedom, opinion and everything else. Evolutionists use the logic of sorting to mean choosing. So it is all quite meaningless that you say to accept subjectivity, believing and whatever, as long as you don't go into the actual details of the procedure. Because you might as well use a logic of being forced, cause and effect, with the word choosing like professional evolutionary biologists do.

Ok. I'll play along. What is the "creationist definition for choosing"?

 

[leibowde84]

No love is what makes a decision turn out the way it does, it is not the decision. I certainly have said that more than a dozen times to you. You systematically misrepresent creationism. And then you complain that I say you reject subjectivity. You have no basis for complaining. You reject subjectivity, that's a matter of fact issue, and the fact is that you do.

Why?

 

[leibowde84]

No love is what makes a decision turn out the way it does, it is not the decision. I certainly have said that more than a dozen times to you. You systematically misrepresent creationism. And then you complain that I say you reject subjectivity. You have no basis for complaining. You reject subjectivity, that's a matter of fact issue, and the fact is that you do.

You have certainly tried to explain your reasoning. You've just repeatedly done an insufficient job.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ok. I'll play along. What is the "creationist definition for choosing"?

To make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not.

It's not possible that you accept subjectivity, while you don't accept choosing, because subjectivity operates on choosing.

 

[Kirran]

To make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not.

It's not possible that you accept subjectivity, while you don't accept choosing, because subjectivity operates on choosing.

No it does not. It operates on opinion.

 

[leibowde84]

To make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not.

It's not possible that you accept subjectivity, while you don't accept choosing, because subjectivity operates on choosing.

I accept choosing and that definition as you stated. We are in agreement on this point. So when you use the word love in regards to how a choice is made, what do you mean specifically?