After we are agreed on the concept of evidence, then we can apply it to God, to prove by evidence present or absent, that He exists or doesn't exist.
I’ve already stated my concept of evidence. You refuse to acknowledge it because I used you own argument as a prime example. You want to discuss the concept of evidence, then use your nature god as an example. Skip the straw man
[quote]
yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage
Aren't you going to resume our dialogue on what is evidence?
Here, I will add that man suspects what is the target of his evidence, for example - the target of his evidence is a human and not something non-human.
Imagine this scenario:
An explorer landed on an island he knew to be un-inhabited, because there has never been any report by earlier explorers of an island in that geographical location. He says to himself, "If any human had already been on the island, then he certainly could have left anywhere on the island some man-made objects no longer useful to bring back home." Then he came upon a pair of broken eye-glasses. There, the pair of broken eye-glasses is evidence to the presence earlier of a human on the island.
yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage
We are not getting linked.
I am talking about evidence, without bringing in God for the present.
You keep on and on bringing in God, and there is no evidence for Him according to you.
Can you understand that there has got to be a concept of evidence that applies to every issue where evidence is invoked to prove something exist or not.
After we are agreed on the concept of evidence, then we can apply it to God, to prove by evidence present or absent, that He exists or doesn't exist.
That is why the issue cannot be settled with finality, because theists and atheists don't care to agree on the concept of evidence and how it works.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · 12 mins ago
yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage
We are not getting linked.
I am talking about evidence, without bringing in God for the present.
You keep on and on bringing in God, and there is no evidence for Him according to you.
Can you understand that there has got to be a concept of evidence that applies to every issue where evidence is invoked to prove something exist or not.
After we are agreed on the concept of evidence, then we can apply it to God, to prove by evidence present or absent, that He exists or doesn't exist.
That is why the issue cannot be settled with finality, because theists and atheists don't care to agree on the concept of evidence and how it works.
+ 1 · Reply · Translate · 5 hrs ago
DocSavage · M
You seem to be having trouble remembering what was asked, so I’m including the last few threads with each new one.
Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses
I live in Chicago. Around 100 years ago, one of the most famous trials in America, was centered on a pair of eyeglasses found on the ground.
No one ever questioned the fact that they were man made, or someone was at that place, and left them behind.
Suppose the person didn’t ware glasses. Does the fact he has 20/20 mean no one was there ?
M
So, now you want us to prove to you that humans exist too ?
When did anyone here claim that they didn’t ?
Bullshit
The target of the evidence is not Glasses-human
The target of the evidence is existence- god
Existence does not lead to the conclusion
God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger
You can skip the straw man, I’m not biting .
M
@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @BiasForAction @Abstraction @mcane @allygator18 [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] @jehova @TelegramSam
Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------
@DocSavage
Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.
You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.
Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.
You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?
Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
I say:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).
You say:
I’ve answered your question.
Now, I tell you again:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).
In concise words means not more than 35 words, else you are into malingering.
yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence.
---------------------
DocSavage · M
I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine. Why must your god be permanent. Once the process starts, it’s self running . It no longer requires a god to operate. Needs no guidance, or intent. Like random mutations.
You need both halves or the claim to make it work, we don’t need either.
-----------------------
DocSavage · M
your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence. -Yrger
That’s easy. In fact you are depending heavily on it. Evidence is information. Testable physical facts.
Non physical evidence is in the evaluation of that information.
Example: Something can not come from Nothing is an accepted conclusion. Ergo , god must have created it . Ergo : ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger . You are violating your own conclusion. Right from the start, without evidence.
The non physical evidence is the lack of physical evidence leading to that conclusion. You have one fact. The universe exist. You are unaware of the actual cause, and conclude there must be a god like being. That is not fact, because it cannot be shown to be physically possible. While other evidence shows that it is impossible.
If you follow the evidence, and exclude the unsupported, your chances of getting it right greatly improve. Since nothing can be proven 100% probability is the best you can have, until it is proven wrong. God is the biggest improbability there is.
What have you got to conclude god exist ? The same thing all religions have, faith and ignorance. There is however solid evidence for why chickens, babies , and roses exist, without ultimately a god. The non physical evidence is the most probable, and is against you.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · 8 hrs ago
DocSavage · M
[@yrger/bonehead
What’s the matter, too few brain cells to make it pass 35 words ? I noticed you’re down from 50. You’re sinking fast.
+ 0 · Reply · 3 hrs ago · Edit ·
DocSavage · M
I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine. Why must your god be permanent. Once the process starts, it’s self running . It no longer requires a god to operate. Needs no guidance, or intent. Like random mutations.
You need both halves or the claim to make it work, we don’t need either.
+ 0 · Reply · 54 mins ago · Edit · · Edited: 45 mins ago
DocSavage · M
Bullshit
The target of the evidence is not Glasses-human
The target of the evidence is existence- god
Existence does not lead to the conclusion
God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger
You can skip the straw man, I’m not biting .
M
@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @BiasForAction @Abstraction @mcane @allygator18 [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] @jehova @TelegramSam
Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------
@DocSavage
Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.
You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.
Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.
You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?
Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
+ 0 · Reply · 1 hr ago · Edit · · Edited: 1 hr ago
yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @BiasForAction @Abstraction @mcane @allygator18 [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] @jehova @TelegramSam
Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------
@DocSavage
Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.
You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.
Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.
You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?
Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · 1 hr ago
yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage
Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.
You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.
Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.
You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?
Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence. -Yrger
That’s easy. In fact you are depending heavily on it. Evidence is information. Testable physical facts.
Non physical evidence is in the evaluation of that information.
Example: Something can not come from Nothing is an accepted conclusion. Ergo , god must have created it . Ergo : ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger . You are violating your own conclusion. Right from the start, without evidence.
The non physical evidence is the lack of physical evidence leading to that conclusion. You have one fact. The universe exist. You are unaware of the actual cause, and conclude there must be a god like being. That is not fact, because it cannot be shown to be physically possible. While other evidence shows that it is impossible.
If you follow the evidence, and exclude the unsupported, your chances of getting it right greatly improve. Since nothing can be proven 100% probability is the best you can have, until it is proven wrong. God is the biggest improbability there is.
What have you got to conclude god exist ? The same thing all religions have, faith and ignorance. There is however solid evidence for why chickens, babies , and roses exist, without ultimately a god. The non physical evidence is the most probable, and is against you.
DocSavage · M
yrger/bonehead apparently has a short attention span. Now he can’t read threads over 35 words, last time it was 50.
That explains why he needs to copy every post. His mind, such as it is, seems to be losing more ground each day. Brain cells dying at an alarming rate.
Chances of getting anything out of him have gone from slim to none.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · 2 hrs ago
DocSavage · M
yrger/bonehead apparently has a short attention span. Now he can’t read threads over 35 words, last time it was 50.
That explains why he needs to copy every post. His mind, such as it is, seems to be losing more ground each day. Brain cells dying at an alarming rate.
Chances of getting anything out of him have gone from slim to none.
+ 0 · Reply · 3 hrs ago · Edit ·
+ 0 · Reply · 8 hrs ago · Edit · · Edited: 8 hrs ago
DocSavage · M
So, now you want us to prove to you that humans exist too ?
When did anyone here claim that they didn’t ?
Bullshit
The target of the evidence is not Glasses-human
The target of the evidence is existence- god
Existence does not lead to the conclusion
God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger
You can skip the straw man, I’m not biting .
M
@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @BiasForAction @Abstraction @mcane @allygator18 [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] @jehova @TelegramSam
Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------
@DocSavage
Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.
You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.
Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.
