Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

Make it worth my while then I will find the quote of you saying that for some issues you consider goodness and evil a fact. Like get lost from religious forums altogether, when I produce the quote where you make such statements.

I think basic human decency demands you citing my comment when you make claims about what I've said in the past. You have a tendency of being very dishonest, so I think it fair to ask you to cite the comment in question. Short of that, your claim is baseless and without merit. "Unsubstantiated" if you will. Since, to the best of my knowledge, I have never made such claims, I am unable to help you out with this one.

And, I would watch the whole asking people to leave Religious Forums too. I believe it is against the Forum rules, and pretty darn childish as well.

 

[leibowde84]

You must remember something here.
"Good, Evil, Pure, Beautiful, Ugly, Bad"
They are only identity words.

"God is pure and just".
Opinion.
"[name] thinks God is pure and just"
Fact.

Nothing can be factually "good" or "evil".
Even if God were to say, "Satan is evil".
Still an opinion.

#SecondGrade

I'm getting deja'vu from saying this....

I agree.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I agree.

I think our friend here should read your signature and take it to heart.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The Universe has been shown to be determined by cause and effect. .

Some things in the universe are forced, but there is no indication whatsoever that everything in the universe is forced, and that it cannot turn out several different ways. Obviously it is only because you consider chooing to mean calculating an optimal result, using the facts of good and evil as sorting criteria, that you deny that there is any freedom in the universe.

Because the processes in the brain, we can simply see that they can turn out several different ways, on the same basis that we can see other processes in the universe turn out several different ways. Obviously your idea about choosing is not tied to something being able to turn out several different ways, but to knowledge of good and evil.

So that's enough evidence that you regard good and evil as fact, now get lost.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I agree.

You agree with a psycho.

 

[leibowde84]

Some things in the universe are forced, but there is no indication whatsoever that everything in the universe is forced, and that it cannot turn out several different ways. Obviously it is only because you consider chooing to mean calculating an optimal result, using the facts of good and evil as sorting criteria, that you deny that there is any freedom in the universe.

Because the processes in the brain, we can simply see that they can turn out several different ways, on the same basis that we can see other processes in the universe turn out several different ways. Obviously your idea about choosing is not tied to something being able to turn out several different ways, but to knowledge of good and evil.

So that's enough evidence that you regard good and evil as fact, now get lost.

I think you would benefit from a study in logic, as your comment here doesn't prove anything. It merely makes unsubstantiated claims about me. Can you give an example of how an inanimate object can "turn out several ways" that isn't determined by outside forces? And, I'm still waiting for the comment where I claimed that Good and Evil are facts.

 

[leibowde84]

You agree with a psycho.

Why do you think he is a psycho?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Theories are based on laws. If there are no laws to base your theories, how can you even begin to hypothesize?

Theories and laws are different things.

Scientific Laws and Theories

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think basic human decency demands you citing my comment when you make claims about what I've said in the past. You have a tendency of being very dishonest, so I think it fair to ask you to cite the comment in question. Short of that, your claim is baseless and without merit. "Unsubstantiated" if you will. Since, to the best of my knowledge, I have never made such claims, I am unable to help you out with this one.

And, I would watch the whole asking people to leave Religious Forums too. I believe it is against the Forum rules, and pretty darn childish as well.

Same here. You have a tendency to say, "agree" and then it turns out you hold opposite views to what you said to "agree" with. I have from the start simply proposed the creationist conceptual scheme of 2 categories, mine is really just a technical argumentation. The rest brings nonsense to the table because they know they have no argument against creationism.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you think he is a psycho?

Well that would be because he suggested about me volunteering to be tortured to death a few posts previous.

 

[leibowde84]

Same here. You have a tendency to say, "agree" and then it turns out you hold opposite views to what you said to "agree" with. I have from the start simply proposed the creationist conceptual scheme of 2 categories, mine is really just a technical argumentation. The rest brings nonsense to the table because they know they have no argument against creationism.

You haven't provided any evidence for creationism as of yet. You haven't even explained why "rejecting subjectivity" is an incorrect way to see the world, even though you have dishonestly accused many of us of doing so. You really haven't argued anything beyond the unsubstantiated claim that we reject subjectivity.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Well that would be because he suggested about me volunteering to be tortured to death a few posts previous.

lol...
I sure did.
I am indeed a psycho, at least by common use of the term.

But I can control myself.
Though I have no issues with doing what you and many, many, others find sickening.
It's also entertaining to me when people, such as my father, realize such things.
Expressions are one of the few things on a short list that get me excited.
I could only imagine yours in a face to face encounter.

 

[leibowde84]

Same here. You have a tendency to say, "agree" and then it turns out you hold opposite views to what you said to "agree" with. I have from the start simply proposed the creationist conceptual scheme of 2 categories, mine is really just a technical argumentation. The rest brings nonsense to the table because they know they have no argument against creationism.

You haven't even properly defined "creationism", so how can you expect anyone to argue against it. What specifically do you mean by creationism?

 

[leibowde84]

Same here. You have a tendency to say, "agree" and then it turns out you hold opposite views to what you said to "agree" with. I have from the start simply proposed the creationist conceptual scheme of 2 categories, mine is really just a technical argumentation. The rest brings nonsense to the table because they know they have no argument against creationism.

This is largely because you make up your own definitions for terms that are not used in common discourse or anywhere else, from what you've provided in regards to support. How can you expect people to understand your arguments when you make up your own meanings of terms.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

Au contraire, mon frère!
I answered your questions. So in the spirit of healthy dialogue, I think it only fair that you answer mine.
For the remainder of this conversation, I will assume your position and readily accept that Subjectivity is real and present in the Universe and that I will accept how things are chosen.

So, in the nature of mutual respect and debate:

Where is Heaven?
Where is Paradise?
Where does Allah reside?

 

[leibowde84]

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

So, you think that your subjective opinion that "it is obvious that he rejects subjectivity" somehow causes you to "win the argument"? You "win" with reasoned arguments and supporting evidence. Your subjective opinion as to whether something is "obvious" to you does not matter in the least. You have to support your claims with evidence rather than just making baseless claims and going on nothing more than your opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You haven't even properly defined "creationism", so how can you expect anyone to argue against it. What specifically do you mean by creationism?

I have certainly defined creationism more than 7 times to you, what with the lists if creator and creation for example. You simply ask again and again because your habit of refarding good and evil as fact automatically desyroys creationism.

 

[leibowde84]

I have certainly defined creationism more than 7 times to you, what with the lists if creator and creation for example. You simply ask again and again because your habit of refarding good and evil as fact automatically desyroys creationism.

You have not defined it once. You have merely explained you belief in its relation to subjectivity or "choosing". That is an extremely vague and lacking definition. I want to know what it states about adaptations, the age of the earth, species, etc. Can you provide that?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Au contraire, mon frère!
I answered your questions. So in the spirit of healthy dialogue, I think it only fair that you answer mine.
For the remainder of this conversation, I will assume your position and readily accept that Subjectivity is real and present in the Universe and that I will accept how things are chosen.

So, in the nature of mutual respect and debate:

Where is Heaven?
Where is Paradise?
Where does Allah reside?

No, you reject subjectivity it means you lost. You can go play debating games with yourself.

 

[leibowde84]

No, you reject subjectivity it means you lost. You can go play debating games with yourself.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. You can say it over and over, but you haven't provided any real evidence. What specifically has he stated that makes you 100% certain he does not believe in subjectivity? Still waiting for the comment of mine you claimed you could provide, btw.