Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[jonathan180iq]

goodness and evil of a man are not real.

"We have a winner, Johnny!"

The common denominator why you all side together is that you reject subjectivity.

If subjectivity is the basis of knowledge, then isn't my faith in the Powerful Space Wizard from Gammatron 5 equally as legitimate as your faith in Allah?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No they do not. You confuse your refusal of science with what scientists should do. Laws of nature is metaphysical views. Scientists follow scientific laws which is different. Again demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about.

Laws of Nature | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"Scientific laws" contrasted with natural laws, that is probably postmodernistic degeneracy in science. I am pretty sure your sources, which you have not even read yourself, are postmodernistic, and consider everything to be in essence "opinion". Only a postmodernist would emphasize that scientific theories are made up by scientists, while creationists would say that the laws of nature are not made up but are found, and the mathematics of the laws of nature accurately reflects reality 1 to 1 in principle.

And again, using your ideas obviously directly leads to the false view of time slowing down, on account of accepting Einstein's theories.

Meanwhile, again, anybody can know that what you say is nonsense by that in life as well as in science, the word fact means an accurate 1 to 1 representation of something. You deny this is valid, so anybody can know you are talking nonsense.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why would the meaning of the term "fact" that you claim is used in "common discourse" and science not be included in any scientific dictionary? Do you see how ridiculous that claim is? You can't possibly believe that, so I'm just going to have to assume you are being dishonest. If I am wrong, please provide at least something to support your argument that isn't just another baseless claim made by you. Where can I find the definition/meaning you claim is "common discourse" in any legitimate source? If you can't provide any external support for your argument, I have to assume you are, yet again, being dishonest.

Actually, I got the definition from a scientist. And again, your argumentation is solely authoritarian huffing and puffing.

People can see for themselves that fact is usefully defined in terms of modelling. That to not have a 1:1 representation of something, it means you have no facts.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Actually, I got the definition from a scientist. And again, your argumentation is solely authoritarian huffing and puffing.

People can see for themselves that fact is usefully defined in terms of modelling. That to not have a 1:1 representation of something, it means you have no facts.

No matter what I always wonder one thing here.
Even if your argument was true, what's so bad about rejecting subjectivity?

 

[Shad]

"Scientific laws" contrasted with natural laws, that is probably postmodernistic degeneracy in science. I am pretty sure your sources, which you have not even read yourself, are postmodernistic, and consider everything to be in essence "opinion". Only a postmodernist would emphasize that scientific theories are made up by scientists, while creationists would say that the laws of nature are not made up but are found, and the mathematics of the laws of nature accurately reflects reality 1 to 1 in principle.

And again, using your ideas obviously directly leads to the false view of time slowing down, on account of accepting Einstein's theories.

Meanwhile, again, anybody can know that what you say is nonsense by that in life as well as in science, the word fact means an accurate 1 to 1 representation of something. You deny this is valid, so anybody can know you are talking nonsense.

Guess you never read the link. The link proves you are wrong. Perhaps read it before you prove you are still wrong and incapable of reading anything provided which proves you wrong.

" I am pretty sure your sources, which you have not even read yourself, are postmodernistic, and consider everything to be in essence "opinion". " Proof you didn't bother reading the source at all. The opening paragraphs itself proves you are wrong.

Scientific theories are not opinion but explanations based on observation. You know... a model....

Nope facts are evidence as per my previous source which you do not read.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"We have a winner, Johnny!"

If subjectivity is the basis of knowledge, then isn't my faith in the Powerful Space Wizard from Gammatron 5 equally as legitimate as your faith in Allah?

That you reject goodness and evil as not real means you reject subjectivity altogether.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually, I got the definition from a scientist. And again, your argumentation is solely authoritarian huffing and puffing.

People can see for themselves that fact is usefully defined in terms of modelling. That to not have a 1:1 representation of something, it means you have no facts.

So, you don't have anything to support your claim, then? Just another unsubstantiated claim of "getting it from a scientist"? You can't provide any support for your argument?

 

[jonathan180iq]

That you reject goodness and evil as not real means you reject subjectivity altogether.

Yes I do. I just told you that I did.

Now (stay focused here) please tell me how, if I accepted subjectivity, my belief in the Powerful Space Wizard from Gammatron 5 would be any less legitimate than your belief in Allah.

 

[Shad]

Actually, I got the definition from a scientist. And again, your argumentation is solely authoritarian huffing and puffing.

People can see for themselves that fact is usefully defined in terms of modelling. That to not have a 1:1 representation of something, it means you have no facts.

Source?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, since putting Muhammad on ignore, debates involving him have become a lot more entertaining. It's like watching everyone banging their head against an invisible brick wall.

Post~ 11337
Ow.

Post~ 11338
Ow.

Post~ 11339
Ow.

Post~ 11340
Ow.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Source?

Go read your own sources google-boy.

And the only source for the issue should be common sense. Use common sense to verify that a fact is to make a 1 : 1 representation of something.

If any scientist uses any different definition than that, then they are wrong, and need to find another name for what they wish to convey.

 

[Shad]

Actually, since putting Muhammad on ignore, debates involving him have become a lot more entertaining. It's like watching everyone banging their head against an invisible brick wall.

Post~ 11337
Ow.

Post~ 11338
Ow.

Post~ 11339
Ow.

Post~ 11340
Ow.

It does not bother me. I am actually using him, among others, as an example for a side project in which religious views are assumed as an expertise for those with no expertise.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Go read your own sources google-boy.

And the only source for the issue should be common sense. Use common sense to verify that a fact is to make a 1 : 1 representation of something.

If any scientist uses any different definition than that, then they are wrong, and need to find another name for what they wish to convey.

LOL
You honestly and truly have no argument.

 

[Shad]

Go read your own sources google-boy.

And the only source for the issue should be common sense. Use common sense to verify that a fact is to make a 1 : 1 representation of something.

If any scientist uses any different definition than that, then they are wrong, and need to find another name for what they wish to convey.

So you have no source to provide? Good to know you have nothing but rhetoric and sophistry backing your views.

Common sense has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate when it comes to science the further sciencitific knowledge has progressed and improved.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It does not bother me. I am actually using him, among others, as an example for a side project in which religious views are assumed as an expertise for those with no expertise.

He's most definitely a shining example of that. You could probably do your entire project just about him.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes I do. I just told you that I did.

Now (stay focused here) please tell me how, if I accepted subjectivity, my belief in the Powerful Space Wizard from Gammatron 5 would be any less legitimate than your belief in Allah.

Where is Gammatron 5? You are obviously referring to the creation category, not to the creator category.

Which means you do not just suggest you reject subjectivity for the sake of argumentation, you really genuinely do reject subjectivity.

 

[Shad]

He's most definitely a shining example of that. You could probably do your entire project just about him.

He only has a minor role in general as a member of the masses which reject science when it is suitable then using a double-standard when it helps their arguments. His comments on magnetic fields as a subjective "thing" is a prime example. He cites just enough for his argument while ignoring or omitting the majority of information which contradicts his arguments.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Where is Gammatron 5? You are obviously referring to the creation category, not to the creator category.

Which means you do not just suggest you reject subjectivity for the sake of argumentation, you really genuinely do reject subjectivity.

Yes I do. I already told you that I did...

Gammatron 5 is in space, but it's so far away that you can't see it. That's where the Powerful Space Wizard lives. He is the creator of our solar system and He will judge us all with his lightning hands at the end of the Universe.

Now it's your turn.
Where is heaven? Where is paradise? Where does Allah chillax?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Guess you never read the link. The link proves you are wrong. Perhaps read it before you prove you are still wrong and incapable of reading anything provided which proves you wrong.

" I am pretty sure your sources, which you have not even read yourself, are postmodernistic, and consider everything to be in essence "opinion". " Proof you didn't bother reading the source at all. The opening paragraphs itself proves you are wrong.

Scientific theories are not opinion but explanations based on observation. You know... a model....

Nope facts are evidence as per my previous source which you do not read.

I scanned through your reference it seems hopeleslly postmodernistic, what with emphasizing the "inaccuracy" of scientific theories.

It's totally obvious that you don't read the sources you reference, and that these nonsense references are just part of your strategy of throwing anything and the kitchen sink at people who say goodness and evil are properly attributed to the spirit of the man doing the choosing.

You reject subjectivity, and regard what is goodness and evil as fact. That is what your true position is here, and you will just say about anything to get away with that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes I do. I already told you that I did...

Gammatron 5 is in space, but it's so far away that you can't see it. That's where the Powerful Space Wizard lives. He is the creator of our solar system and He will judge us all with his lightning hands at the end of the Universe.

Now it's your turn.
Where is heaven? Where is paradise? Where does Allah chillax?

Yes it is quite obvious that you reject subjectivity, which means you lost the argument.