Quantum mechanics teaches a probabilistic, not deterministic, universe

[Nous]

Thank you, sincerely.

You're sincerely welcome. Thank you for your comments.

I've also noticed that all of jurisprudence says "Guilty of a crime when in one's right mind (able to exercise free will) and not guilty of a crime when under extreme duress (they couldn't help it, they were unable to act of free will)".

I agree completely. In the second post on the compatibility thread linked to above I briefly noted the "voluntary act" requirement of the Model Penal Code, which merely codifies the common law requirement.

 

[shmogie]

The big problem with these "numerous witnesses" is
the complete* lack of consistency.

To accept one particular version of "god" from among
the countless religions and inerrant readings of
so-called sacred texts is to admit to n objective
standards at all.

* well, not complete-complete.

The Gold Books
that Joseph Smith found, on which were the
Book of Mormon

These guys all same the same thing, to the word.


The Testimony of Eight Witnesses
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

Their statement are probably accurate.They were shown the plates, how they appeared to them, and what Smith reported to them they said. They probably weren't lying.

These statements have no bearing on the central issue, were the plates authentic ?

There are other forms of evidence we can use to answer this question.

The legal term best evidence is simply that. The best evidence would be an examination and interpretation of the plates, Mormonism has never and will never allow this. This in itself is to be considered evidence.

Smith got caught in a thoroughly documented trap whereby a bogus artifact with unknown writing on it was brought to him, with the story that it had been dug up. He interpreted the writing, which was random markings in grandiose terms, and gave the artifact great age, when it wasn't old at all. He was a fool here.

There are a myriad of other evidences that confirm that Smith made the plates, and duped the easily led with them.

 

[Audie]

Their statement are probably accurate.They were shown the plates, how they appeared to them, and what Smith reported to them they said. They probably weren't lying.

These statements have no bearing on the central issue, were the plates authentic ?

There are other forms of evidence we can use to answer this question.

The legal term best evidence is simply that. The best evidence would be an examination and interpretation of the plates, Mormonism has never and will never allow this. This in itself is to be considered evidence.

Smith got caught in a thoroughly documented trap whereby a bogus artifact with unknown writing on it was brought to him, with the story that it had been dug up. He interpreted the writing, which was random markings in grandiose terms, and gave the artifact great age, when it wasn't old at all. He was a fool here.

There are a myriad of other evidences that confirm that Smith made the plates, and duped the easily led with them.

Of all the explanations, that someone would for
reasons most peculiar patiently create these
gold books, with thehuge cost and effort, is probably the
second least likely, the least likely being that
they existed and were authentic.

J Smith did not have the means to have done
it himself. You risk being the sucker you speak
of, thinking there were ever any books..

The present lack of those books is deeply in
keeping what all of christianity and its complete
and total absence of anything resembling solid
physical evidence of claims.

For lo, with proof, of what use is faith?
Tough to prove the phony anyway.

In the event, that is a side issue to what I pointed
out about the value of witnesses.

IF in court, a number of witnesses independeltly
come up with the same observations, then, that
is something to consider.

IF, as with "witnesses" for "god", they all come
up with something different, well, not so much.

You kinda skipped over that for some apparently
low hanging fruit.

I do agree with you on "dupe the easily led".
That is the essence of all religions.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Correction: "YOU have no evidence of higher dimensional beings".

Neither, as it turns out, do YOU. Or else? You would BRING IT.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Close to the legal definition. The standard is that a person is, for whatever reason, unable to determine right from wrong.

Science is not so lax as to rely on "standard legal"-- this is due to the FACT that eyewitness "testimony" has been prove to be the most UNRELIABLE form of evidence.

So scientists take great pains to eliminate all "eyewitness" testimony from actual scientific studies.

This is why science works, whereas the legal system all too often, does not.

Proof? The fact that a drunken, serial abuser of women is now in a position to take away the rights OF women in the USA.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Their statement are probably accurate.They were shown the plates, how they appeared to them, and what Smith reported to them they said. They probably weren't lying.

These statements have no bearing on the central issue, were the plates authentic ?

There are other forms of evidence we can use to answer this question.

The legal term best evidence is simply that. The best evidence would be an examination and interpretation of the plates, Mormonism has never and will never allow this. This in itself is to be considered evidence.

Smith got caught in a thoroughly documented trap whereby a bogus artifact with unknown writing on it was brought to him, with the story that it had been dug up. He interpreted the writing, which was random markings in grandiose terms, and gave the artifact great age, when it wasn't old at all. He was a fool here.

There are a myriad of other evidences that confirm that Smith made the plates, and duped the easily led with them.

Irony: you requiring a much HIGHER level of proof from a rival religion.

But you let slide absolute garbage "evidence" when it suits your own religion.

Ain't that special? Or is it simply more religious hypocrisy? Who can say?

If god were real? God would let us know, without all the mumbo-jumbo, which one was "right".

The fact that god permits all these rival religions to flourish?

Is one of the strongest evidences yet, that there is no god at all, behind any. What sort of evil god would permit such chaos...?

 

[Audie]

Science is not so lax as to rely on "standard legal"-- this is due to the FACT that eyewitness "testimony" has been prove to be the most UNRELIABLE form of evidence.

So scientists take great pains to eliminate all "eyewitness" testimony from actual scientific studies.

This is why science works, whereas the legal system all too often, does not.

Proof? The fact that a drunken, serial abuser of women is now in a position to take away the rights OF women in the USA.

The legal system worked just fine. The star
"witness" had as many versions of the story.
and as little concrete evidence as a gaggle of
creationists.

Looks like the standards of evidence here
disappear just like those of the creationists
when ideology is at stake.

 

[Quintessence]

*** STAFF REMINDER ***​

Please knock it off with the personal attacks and trolling. Thanks.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
Five thousand years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how lightning exists".
Five thousand years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

Four thousand years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how our crops are dying".
Four thousand years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

Six hundred years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how so many people are dying".
Six hundred years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

GodDidIt has never been the right answer. So, yes, I wallow in my ignorant superiority knowing that science has and will provide knowledge whereas your non-existent god has provided nothing of value.​

Well, of course, Christianity has provided much of value. Most of the greatest scientists of history were Christians, and many today are.
Science offers you death and obliteration, ditto for the earth, ditto for the universe.

In one paragraph you boast that most of the greatest scientists of history were Christians, in the next you state that science offers you death and obliteration.

That means that you believe Christian scientists have led us to death and obliteration

That still doesn't refute:
GodDidIt has never been the right answer and your non-existent god has provided nothing of value.

Science has and is doing marvelous things. Nevertheless, it cannot and will not change those ultimate outcomes.

Of course you, in your infinite wisdom, know the ultimate outcomes. How marvelous.

Now, you state God doesn´t exist. You don´t know that, you can´t know that. That is pure hyperbole based in nothing.

So you admit that it is possible that Allah is the true God. You admit that it is possible that Shiva is the true God. You admit that it is possible that Pele is the true God. You admit that it is possible that Ogun is the true God. You admit that it is possible that Thor is the true God. You admit that it is possible that a Psychic Snowflake is the true God. You admit that it is possible that the true God created everything Last Thursday.

We all will ultimately know for sure, be patient, the time between now and your death will go by very quickly.

Yes it will. And then I will be as dead as the last ant you stepped on.

 

[ecco]

I was quoting a physicist from Quora. I found his comment interesting, proceeding from his belief in a doubled-universe timeline.

Is Quora a new peer reviewed magazine? I hadn't heard of it before. Perhaps you could tell me where I can get copies.

Thank you.

 

[ecco]

the scientific method is just a human construct, and as such, is limited.

Gods are the creations of man's imaginings, and, as such, are valueless.

 

[ecco]

There are a myriad of other evidences that confirm that Smith made the plates, and duped the easily led with them.

Hmm, sounds just like Moses' accounts of everything. Sounds like the mysteriously authored Gospels.

Write it and the sheeples will follow.

 

[gnostic]

I was quoting a physicist from Quora. I found his comment interesting, proceeding from his belief in a doubled-universe timeline.

Then you should have put the whole thing in quote (eg use the QUOTE button), and provided a link where you got it from.

 

[Audie]

Not angry dude. It's just that your very ugly attempts to paint me as someone less is tiring.

It's also tiring to hear the same old discredited horsesh888 over and over -- that's all you theists ever do, repeat the same old disproven "arguments" coupled with insulting tone and very patronizing attitude.

Like the above? Very patronizing of you it is. Nice. I just love how Judgmental you are.

Your hate for me does NOT make you strong.

Saying the other is getting all emotional
is a sneaky way of saying irrational.
It is a contemptible practice.

 

[shmogie]

Of all the explanations, that someone would for
reasons most peculiar patiently create these
gold books, with thehuge cost and effort, is probably the
second least likely, the least likely being that
they existed and were authentic.

J Smith did not have the means to have done
it himself. You risk being the sucker you speak
of, thinking there were ever any books..

The present lack of those books is deeply in
keeping what all of christianity and its complete
and total absence of anything resembling solid
physical evidence of claims.

For lo, with proof, of what use is faith?
Tough to prove the phony anyway.

In the event, that is a side issue to what I pointed
out about the value of witnesses.

IF in court, a number of witnesses independeltly
come up with the same observations, then, that
is something to consider.

IF, as with "witnesses" for "god", they all come
up with something different, well, not so much.

You kinda skipped over that for some apparently
low hanging fruit.

I do agree with you on "dupe the easily led".
That is the essence of all religions.

 

[shmogie]

Hmmmm, what do you mean by ´solid physical evidence´ ? As one trained and educated in the law, I know what the term means, but what do you mean ? Can archaeology produce ¨solid physical evidence ¨ ? How about document authentication studies ? How about historical records ? As to eyewitness testimony, there are a variety of established tests to test itś veracity. You need to be clearer in what constitutes physical evidence in your mind

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Saying the other is getting all emotional
is a sneaky way of saying irrational.
It is a contemptible practice.

Indeed. I do try (but sometimes fail) to avoid comments on someone's emotional state(s).

It adds nothing to the conversation, and only serves to further drive a wedge.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hmmmm, what do you mean by ´solid physical evidence´ ? As one trained and educated in the law, I know what the term means, but what do you mean ? Can archaeology produce ¨solid physical evidence ¨ ? How about document authentication studies ? How about historical records ? As to eyewitness testimony, there are a variety of established tests to test itś veracity. You need to be clearer in what constitutes physical evidence in your mind

In science? Eyewitness testimony is routinely discredited as irrelevant.

Since it's not measurable in any meaningful way. Thus? It's never valid as evidence.

Ooops! Maybe that's why the Legal System is so incredibly messed up... ?

 

[shmogie]

In science? Eyewitness testimony is routinely discredited as irrelevant.

Since it's not measurable in any meaningful way. Thus? It's never valid as evidence.

Ooops! Maybe that's why the Legal System is so incredibly messed up... ?

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ

My my my! Aren't YOU a fine, fine example of how to NOT be like Jesus!

LMAO! You are so cute in your passive-aggressive attempt to belittle other people.

That being said, I find your self-important holier than thou attitude so very, very typical of theists.

It's one of a multitude of reasons why I'm not a christian any longer: What sort of Evil god would permit such as you to be it's representative?