There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[mikkel_the_dane]

You aren't addressing my replies. I'm not gonna do riddles with you. I don't mind a little flair to dialogue but I do expect the points in the replies you are quoting to be addressed.
You are welcome to re-reply to post #6816 if you want to continue this conversation.

Well, physical is not a description of the universe. It is a metaphysical definition in the end:
The physical universe is defined as all of space and time (collectively referred to as spacetime) and their contents.

It is not a description, it is a definition.
The reason it is not a description is that you can't describe any external experience of physical as you could with red, because you can see red and thus describe something with the property of being red, but you can't describe something with the property of being physical as you use it.

 

[an anarchist]

You aren't addressing my replies. I'm not gonna do riddles with you. I don't mind a little flair to dialogue but I do expect the points in the replies you are quoting to be addressed.
You are welcome to re-reply to post #6816 if you want to continue this conversation.

Well, physical is not a description of the universe. It is a metaphysical definition in the end:
The physical universe is defined as all of space and time (collectively referred to as spacetime) and their contents.

It is not a description, it is a definition.
The reason it is not a description is that you can't describe any external experience of physical as you could with red, because you can see red and thus describe something with the property of being red, but you can't describe something with the property of being physical as you use it.

You aren't addressing my replies. I'm not gonna do riddles with you. I don't mind a little flair to dialogue but I do expect the points in the replies you are quoting to be addressed.
You are welcome to re-reply to post #6816 if you want to continue this conversation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@an anarchist
Okay, you hold it against me that I am disorganized and have a scatterbrain.

Well, try for once to answer how physical is a description of what and how do you know that?

 

[Madsaac]

Your belief is that "Studies" show that all aspects of all migration are all good with no bad?

Yes, I'm sure it's not all good but my point is that you make decisions based on studies made (Evidence).

And this is what a large part of the thread is about, evidence.

And if your belief is supported by evidence, it gives it more credibility.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I'm sure it's not all good but my point is that you make decisions based on studies made (Evidence).

And this is what a large part of the thread is about, evidence.

And if your belief is supported by evidence, it gives it more credibility.

As the bold stands it is not a valid deduction and you should know that as you use critical thinking.

P1: your belief is supported by evidence
C: it gives it more credibility

Please tell me you can understand how C is not valid and without evidence?

 

[Audie]

Yes, I'm sure it's not all good but my point is that you make decisions based on studies made (Evidence).

And this is what a large part of the thread is about, evidence.

And if your belief is supported by evidence, it gives it more credibility.

Of course.

And HK has a very tough immigration policy.
Its not based on guesswork.
Or "beliefs".

Where the USA is flat out insane is immigration
policy / non policy.

Immigration good / bad is somehow related to
how many of what sort of people. Don't you think so?
" Studies" unnamed and unexamined that
make no reference to who the immigrants are
are worse than useless.

 

[joelr]

I believe you must be amazing to see back millions of years and know exactly what is happening. What you see is what remains after all that time.

Strawman, I didn't say I know "exactly what is happening".


But evolution is a slow gradual change, we can see this from countless fossils. The evidence for DNA consists of thousands upon thousands of biologists, anthropologists, genealogists, paleontologists, geologists, zoologists, botanists, embryologists, biochemists, and other fields of study have spent uncountable hours, days, weeks and years doing the hard work of compiling, studying, collating and testing millions of bits of disparate data from all over the world and the scientific spectrum, to arrive at such rigorously-tested and reviewed theories and facts that make up our current comprehension and understanding of the true state of human evolution.
Humans are great apes morphologically, behaviorally and genetically we are great apes.

And yet you believe stories from anonymous authors, changed by scribes an unknown times, mirroring all the religions that came before it and literally occupied their lands for centuries. The 40 other Gospels are gone (except the found Dead Sea Scrolls) and these authors were prone to making up miracles and fantastic supernatural stories for Emperors and and hero they wanted to push. The Church fathers did more editing, created 7 fake Epistles and added endings to Mark and other text. What you see is what remains after all that time. To make it work you have to invoke a magical being, who has no evidence, and one of 10,000 and say he is actually real and made them come out just right.

The biggest confirmation bias ever.
If science is wrong, it always has new grad students attempting to disprove theories to become instantly famous, it will always self correct because the goal is to debunk all your theories until you are sure they are solid and have massive evidence. Religion, nope, the exact opposite.

Each religions theology dept has members sign a "statement of faith" saying they will never say negative things about the movement or will be subject to termination.
It happened to Mike Licona when he suggested the dead saints rising up from the grave in one of the passion narratives (Matthew) was added flare.

He was let go of his teaching position at some fundamentalist university.

Way to get the truth. Not.

 

[joelr]

I believe you must be amazing to see back millions of years and know exactly what is happening. What you see is what remains after all that time.

Strawman, I didn't say I know "exactly what is happening".


But evolution is a slow gradual change, we can see this from countless fossils. The evidence for DNA consists of thousands upon thousands of biologists, anthropologists, genealogists, paleontologists, geologists, zoologists, botanists, embryologists, biochemists, and other fields of study have spent uncountable hours, days, weeks and years doing the hard work of compiling, studying, collating and testing millions of bits of disparate data from all over the world and the scientific spectrum, to arrive at such rigorously-tested and reviewed theories and facts that make up our current comprehension and understanding of the true state of human evolution.
Humans are great apes morphologically, behaviorally and genetically we are great apes.

And yet you believe stories from anonymous authors, changed by scribes an unknown times, mirroring all the religions that came before it and literally occupied their lands for centuries. The 40 other Gospels are gone (except the found Dead Sea Scrolls) and these authors were prone to making up miracles and fantastic supernatural stories for Emperors and and hero they wanted to push. The Church fathers did more editing, created 7 fake Epistles and added endings to Mark and other text. What you see is what remains after all that time. To make it work you have to invoke a magical being, who has no evidence, and one of 10,000 and say he is actually real and made them come out just right.

The biggest confirmation bias ever.
If science is wrong, it always has new grad students attempting to disprove theories to become instantly famous, it will always self correct because the goal is to debunk all your theories until you are sure they are solid and have massive evidence. Religion, nope, the exact opposite.

Each religions theology dept has members sign a "statement of faith" saying they will never say negative things about the movement or will be subject to termination.
It happened to Mike Licona when he suggested the dead saints rising up from the grave in one of the passion narratives (Matthew) was added flare.

He was let go of his teaching position at some fundamentalist university.

Way to get the truth. Not.

 

[Madsaac]

Immigration good / bad is somehow related to
how many of what sort of people. Don't you think so?
" Studies" unnamed and unexamined that
make no reference to who the immigrants are
are worse than useless.

Yes, governments would spend lots of resources on working out what immigration policy is best for their country.

And part of these resources would be certain types of studies being done to work out the best policies. They would have experts, (bureaucrats) giving the best advice, supported by evidence.

They need to justify their decisions. Otherwise it would purely subjective, like believing in god

 

[Madsaac]

As the bold stands it is not a valid deduction and you should know that as you use critical thinking.

P1: your belief is supported by evidence
C: it gives it more credibility

Please tell me you can understand how C is not valid and without evidence?

Yes I can understand however, it is widely agreed upon by nearly every human being on the planet that a belief supported by evidence is given more credibility.

I would be able to find studies and papers to support this but this 'thread' is not the place, you should just take this as a 'given'

Yes or No answer please. Is a belief supported by evidence given more credibility?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes I can understand however, it is widely agreed upon by nearly every human being on the planet that a belief supported by evidence is given more credibility.

I would be able to find studies and papers to support this but this 'thread' is not the place, you should just take this as a 'given'

Yes or No answer please. Is a belief supported by evidence given more credibility?

I reject your question as it is based on subjective assumptions that I do not share.

 

[Madsaac]

I reject your question as it is based on subjective assumptions that I do not share.

What does this mean? Its a simple yes or no question

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does this mean? Its a simple yes or no question

No, it has assumptions about what evidence is and how that matters.

Evidence matters where it works and shouldn't be used where the methodology don't apply.
That is my answer and it is neither yes or no.

 

[an anarchist]

Yes or No answer please. Is a belief supported by evidence given more credibility?

I'm assuming this is in the context of the God belief as that is the OP.
E.g. Creationism vs Evolution. There is evidence for evolution as opposed to the flavor of Creationism many Christians ascribe to. So evolution has more credibility than God poofing us into existence as Homo Sapiens.

I reject your question as it is based on subjective assumptions that I do not share.

No, it has assumptions about what evidence is and how that matters.

Evidence matters where it works and shouldn't be used where the methodology don't apply.
That is my answer and it is neither yes or no.

Think about it in the context of the God belief as per the OP.

Would you agree that Creationism (Christian version) has less credibility i.e. evidence than evolution?

You should be able to answer yes or no. No boltzmann brain or anything to point to and say "neither yes or no".

Yes or no please!

 

[Madsaac]

No, it has assumptions about what evidence is and how that matters.

Evidence matters where it works and shouldn't be used where the methodology don't apply.
That is my answer and it is neither yes or no.

Evidence works in many areas, it's used for justification

And it doesn't matter what the evidence is? It could be anything?

However, for an audience to accept a belief, a certain type of evidence would be required.

And its all subjective, these beliefs and forms of evidence are just opinions.

So what's your opinion. Answer Yes or No, please. Is a belief supported by evidence given more credibility?

 

[Madsaac]

I'm assuming this is in the context of the God belief as that is the OP.

No, any belief.

I believe the might Tigers are the best team because they have the best players. Italics is the evidence

 

[an anarchist]

No, any belief

Ah, I just assumed.

Mikkel was using similar reasoning for belief in the real world is no different than belief in God earlier in the thread in a conversation with me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

You should be able to answer yes or no. No boltzmann brain or anything to point to and say "neither yes or no".

Yes or no please!

I do have to do anything in this debate as long as it falls within the frame of a debate.
So I still don't answer as you want me to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence works in many areas, it's used for justification

And it doesn't matter what the evidence is? It could be anything?

However, for an audience to accept a belief, a certain type of evidence would be required.

And its all subjective, these beliefs and forms of evidence are just opinions.

So what's your opinion. Answer Yes or No, please. Is a belief supported by evidence given more credibility?

No yes or on. You have to learn that not all humans are a member of that we that you believe in.

 

[an anarchist]

So I still don't answer as you want me to.

I give up!

Me thinks that you just don't want to admit that I am making sense, as the question I am asking is just simple logic. You should be able to answer it, but you won't, because to say "yes, there is more evidence/credibility for evolution rather than Creationism" would be to "lose" the debate. Is "winning" debates that important?

Just how I am perceive it, as you refuse to answer simple questions and are making the whole thing more convoluted than it has to be in my opinion. Not just this thread but every conversation i have with you, you confuse me. Maybe you're just way smarter than me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯