Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

Obviously it would require effort to search your comment and when it is found you would just have some meaningless statement about it, and take no consrquence. Obviously Leibowde did say it, which is shown by that he rejects attributing the goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choising, the existence of which spirit is a matter of opinion.

The fact is that leibowde rejects subjectivity, and denies freedom is real. These 2 always go together because subjectiviry opeates by choosing.

I do believe that people choose between being good and evil, according to their own subjective understanding of those terms.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why is "looking to appearances" weak? Also, can you point to anyone notable who shares your beliefs about this subject?

Billions of people. As before, you can read in the wiki on free will the standard religious concept of the soul or spirit doing the choosing. It is not mentioned there explicitly that the existence of the soul is a matter of opinion, but it does mentio that the soul is not evidenced.

And I already told you that 3 times before also ....

 

[leibowde84]

Billions of people. As before, you can read in the wiki on free will the standard religious concept of the soul or spirit doing the choosing. It is not mentioned there explicitly that the existence of the soul is a matter of opinion, but it does mentio that the soul is not evidenced.

And I already told you that 3 times before also ....

Ok. I agree with this, so why do you think I reject the soul doing the choosing? We don't disagree about human subjectivity. We disagree about the subjectivity of inanimate objects. Who can you point to who agrees with you about that?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I do believe that people choose between being good and evil, according to their own subjective understanding of those terms.

But of course you reject the creationist meaning of subjectivity, so that is just your nonsense definition of subjectivity which equates with objectivity.

 

[leibowde84]

But of course you reject the creationist meaning of subjectivity, so that is just your nonsense definition of subjectivity which equates with objectivity.

No it doesnt. Objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity. One deals with consciousness and the other deals with the outside universe. So, the wiki article uses your definition of subjectivity, because I'm not seeing it?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ok. I agree with this, so why do you think I reject the soul doing the choosing? We don't disagree about human subjectivity. We disagree about the subjectivity of inanimate objects. Who can you point to who agrees with you about that?

Is nonsense we don't agree on anything, you always say you agree with everybody, but the actual fact is that you reject subjectivity and regard good and evil as fact. This is obviously why you deny there is any freedom in the universe except in human skulls. Your idea of choosing is based on sorting out the best result using the facts of what is good and evil as sorting criteria. And you have a lot of petfidity around that view, which view is basically just ego production.

 

[leibowde84]

Is nonsense we don't agree on anything, you always say you agree with everybody, but the actual fact is that you reject subjectivity and regard good and evil as fact. This is obviously why you deny there is any freedom in the universe except in human skulls. Your idea of choosing is based on sorting out the best result using the facts of what is good and evil as sorting criteria. And you have a lot of petfidity around that view, which view is basically just ego production.

Do you actually consider this to be a valid argument? It is literally just baseless claims about my own beliefs, and you refuse to cite any of my comments to back it up. This makes it a worthless argument by definition. It doesn't help to prove anything.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Have we not already established that something cannot be factually good or evil?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Obviously it would require effort to search your comment and when it is found you would just have some meaningless statement about it, and take no consrquence.

Well then why do you even bother talking to people?

 

[leibowde84]

Is nonsense we don't agree on anything, you always say you agree with everybody, but the actual fact is that you reject subjectivity and regard good and evil as fact. This is obviously why you deny there is any freedom in the universe except in human skulls. Your idea of choosing is based on sorting out the best result using the facts of what is good and evil as sorting criteria. And you have a lot of petfidity around that view, which view is basically just ego production.

No, we do agree in the belief that the soul exists. And, I certainly do not believe that "good" and "evil" are objective, as there is absolutely no evidence that would suggest this. Things are "good" and/or "evil" to different people and at different times throughout history.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Do you actually consider this to be a valid argument? It is literally just baseless claims about my own beliefs, and you refuse to cite any of my comments to back it up. his makes it a worthless argument by definition. It doesn't help to prove anything.

The only reason anybody would say that only things in skulls are chosen in the universe, is that they regard choosing in terms of sorting out an optimum with the facts about what is good and evil. This is perfectly valid argumentation with lots of evidence and reasonability.

Your idea that only the physics in the brain can turn out several different ways is ridiculous garbage.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well then why do you even bother talking to people?

To point out that evolutionists reject subjectivity altogether, which is evil, for instance.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Your idea that only the physics in the brain can turn out several different ways is ridiculous garbage.

Chemistry and biology - not physics...

 

[Deathbydefault]

To point out that evolutionists reject subjectivity altogether, which is evil, for instance.

Two opinions in one sentence.
Bravo.

 

[leibowde84]

The only reason anybody would say that only things in skulls are chosen in the universe, is that they regard choosing in terms of sorting out an optimum with the facts about what is good and evil. This is perfectly valid argumentation with lots of evidence and reasonability.

Your idea that only the physics in the brain can turn out several different ways is ridiculous garbage.

But, even if "choosing" is seen to mean that an individual uses "good" and "evil" to weigh decisions in no way means that "good" and "evil" are objective measurements. It doesn't speak to that at all, actually, as the individual might see "good" as being completely different than how another individual would see it. How could it be seen differently? I guess I'm asking you to explain what you claim to be my own position, as it makes no sense to me how anyone could adhere to it. Please and thank you.

 

[leibowde84]

To point out that evolutionists reject subjectivity altogether, which is evil, for instance.

Haha. This sentence demonstrates YOUR belief that "evil" is objectively measured or "factual". The hypocrisy is astounding, my friend. You've been going on for days claiming that I think that "good" and "evil" are objective, then you go ahead and label the rejection of subjectivity as "evil". That means that you consider it "evil" apart from your own opinion of the matter. That is a clear rejection of the subjective nature of "good" and "evil", isn't it?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, we do agree in the belief that the soul exists. And, I certainly do not believe that "good" and "evil" are objective, as there is absolutely no evidence that would suggest this. Things are "good" and/or "evil" to different people and at different times throughout history.

See your idea about subjectivity does not depend on choosing, but depends on objective differences like different times, dufferent people......different genes etc. Your idea of subjectivity is simply objectivity.

 

[jonathan180iq]

To point out that evolutionists reject subjectivity altogether, which is evil, for instance.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Haha. This sentence demonstrates YOUR belief that "evil" is objectively measured or "factual". The hypocrisy is astounding, my friend. You've been going on for days claiming that I think that "good" and "evil" are objective, then you go ahead and label the rejection of subjectivity as "evil". That means that you consider it "evil" apart from your own opinion of the matter. That is a clear rejection of the subjective nature of "good" and "evil", isn't it?

That's nonsense, it only shows you interpret evil as objective. I simply expressed my opinion.

 

[Deathbydefault]

That's nonsense, it only shows you interpret evil as objective. I simply expressed my opinion.

My opinion is that you can't prove a single claim you've made.
Oh wait, that's a fact.