From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hey chr0naut,

So am i to understand that your being facetious about atheism in your responses?

Coomba98

When I use the icon, the previous sentence or paragraph is facetious, flippant, sarcastic and whimsical.

So... sometimes.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hey chr0naut,

So am i to understand that your being facetious about atheism in your responses?

Coomba98

When I use the icon, the previous sentence or paragraph is facetious, flippant, sarcastic and whimsical.

So... sometimes.

a reply to: chr0naut

chr0naut,

Yeah i thought so digger.

Couldnt wrap my head around an intelligent person not understanding a simple concept.

Coomba98

originally posted by: chr0naut
Neither has beauty, love, evil or the inability to apply simple rational logic. Because unless you measure it, it obviously can't be real, right?

Actually love can be measured by the reactions inside the brain, and the actions of the person who loves. Evil is a man made concept, so of course you can't measure it. It's hypothetical BS. Beauty is a personal opinion, like your favorite color. Sorry, I know you were joking but none of that applies to the argument as usual. You said that god had been measured and confirmed.

Perhaps it's in the definition & I just missed it?

Full dictionary definition of word 'confirm':

transitive verb

1: to give approval to : ratify [i.e: confirm a treaty]
2: to make firm or firmer : strengthen [i.e: confirm one's resolve]
3: to administer the religious rite of confirmation
4: to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact [i.e: confirm a rumor or confirm an order]

Nope, it would seem the definitions don't make any explicit mention of 'science' at all.

LMAO. Definition #4 on the list. If somebody has confirmed god, they give assurance to the validity of god. plus you left a definition out, you know the one that is usually the #1 definition on the majority of sites.

Confirm - verb

to establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify:

: to state or show that (something) is true or correct

: to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen : to make (something) definite or official

So how does one establish the truth, accuracy, validity or genuineness without science or measurements? With philosophical "what if" statements? NOPE sorry. That doesn't work.

All evidence is subjective

No.

some subjective evidence is also objective, too.

No.

I know the difference, as I'm sure you also are quite aware. That you'd try and infer that I don't know, speaks volumes.

No, you don't know the difference, otherwise you are lying when claiming god has been measured and confirmed. Why won't you just post this measurement and confirmation?? Oh I know why. Because it's pure bull#.

At least I have things which may be objective evidences (depending upon interpretation).

No.

You, as you have pointed out before, have nothing. You quite literally have nothing to support your argument and you think that you are being rational and scientific!

No. My argument is simply that your argument is bunk. This is supported by YOUR FAILURE to provide the measurements or confirmation of god that you claimed existed.

Some things exist that defy measurement, they just do.

Nice cop out. So you claim that these measurements exist, but now you say some things defy measurement. Can you please name something else that is confirmed to exist yet "defies measurement"?

You are so locked into an irrational mindset that you think measurement and objectivity only, equates with reality. The concept that there are things which scale differently for different observers, or that defy any system of regular measurement, seems to be far too big for your head.

No, I just don't like being lied to. You claimed the measurements existed and that people have confirmed god. All I'm doing is asking you to post what you claimed existed, and all you have done was talked around it and dodged.

Please post a single logical line of reasoning that supports your argument and is not itself based upon some unreasoned and incognate nonsense.

Simple. You have not posted what I requested, therefor my argument stands that your argument is trash and you actually can't measure or confirm god. You made the positive claims, burden of proof is on you. I'm not even arguing for atheism here, I'm just saying your reasoning is very highly flawed and unless you have a rabbit in your hat that nobody has ever seen before, you are talking straight out of your ass with those statements.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Neither has beauty, love, evil or the inability to apply simple rational logic. Because unless you measure it, it obviously can't be real, right?

Actually love can be measured by the reactions inside the brain, and the actions of the person who loves.

Really, what is the unit that love is measured in?

How do you measure the reactions inside the brain that are specific to love? The brain is always reacting, to all sorts of things, while alive. How do we know we aren't measuring indigestion or indignation or sexual arousal or boredom at the tests' duration?

People who are in love will kill because of it, or will suicide because of it, will seek sexual expression because of it or will abstain from sex because of it, will be happy and euphoric because of it or will be sad and withdrawn because of it. There is no simple universal measurement that can be applied to love. It is unquantifiable objectively.

Evil is a man made concept, so of course you can't measure it. It's hypothetical BS.

ALL concepts that humans hold are neccesarily man made. Because a concept is man made does not mean its subject is not real. I have seen people on ATS argue that time is a man made concept. It doesn't make time any less real and physical.

Evil, (the concept that someone would intentionally wish to cause harm to others) is absolutely real and evidenced. There are people who exist with the psychological aberration that they draw specific pleasure from doing evil. It's real.

Beauty is a personal opinion, like your favorite color.

Then why do mathematicians see (and agree with each other) that some formulae is beatiful? Why is a sunset beautiful to most people? Why does music work at all?

Doesn't the idea that our ideals of 'the beautiful' can be communicated to everyone else, imply that the same concept is held universally? They know what we are talking about. Beauty is independent of the observer in that way.

Sorry, I know you were joking but none of that applies to the argument as usual. You said that god had been measured and confirmed.

People haven't measured God by putting a tape measure beside Him, but they have measured the evidences that they conclude have no other source. For instance, God speaks to many people, most by subtle means, but some by overt means. Then there are miraculous occurrences witnessed by many people (even skeptics) and objectively recorded. People take such things as confirmation that God exists.

I happen to be one of the people who have had overt revelations of God and also have witnessed, first hand, along with others, the occurrence of miracles.

LMAO. Definition #4 on the list.

You said "You can't use the word confirm unless you are referring to science". Definition #4 doesn't say that at all. Nor does the additional definition you supplied.

You cannot refute my answers by changing the subject to which i am replying. In this instance, you said something untrue and unsupported (and of course irrational) and I called you out on it.

No.

Evidence observed or observable by a single person is subjective evidence. The evidence is apparent to the subject.

Evidence observed or observable by many people is objective. The evidence is apparent to many subjects.

Objective evidence is a subset of 'all evidence' that exists.

All evidence is subjective, in that it requires at least one observer. In law, one cannot present as evidence, something that has not been observed to occur. Observation is critical, especially in the objective case.

So, rationally, objective evidence is a subset, or type, of subjective evidence.

No, you don't know the difference, otherwise you are lying when claiming god has been measured and confirmed. Why won't you just post this measurement and confirmation?? Oh I know why. Because it's pure bull#.

At least I have things which may be objective evidences (depending upon interpretation).

No. My argument is simply that your argument is bunk. This is supported by YOUR FAILURE to provide the measurements or confirmation of god that you claimed existed.

Some things exist that defy measurement, they just do.

But I never said I was going to supply any measurements - not at all. That is something that you have demanded from me.

I have said that it would be difficult for me to provide any such evidence, and that you would be likely reject it anyway.

I also asked for you in turn to provide a reasoned line of logical thought that supports your case, something that if you actually had one, would not be as difficult as me finding something that could prove the existence of God to you.

You have failed to deliver.

I'm not being disingenuous, I have already supplied some possible evidences, which are objective evidences, but as I guessed, you simply deny them. That is because you have not been not honest about accepting objective evidence if tendered.

Nice cop out. So you claim that these measurements exist, but now you say some things defy measurement. Can you please name something else that is confirmed to exist yet "defies measurement"?

That measurements exist for some things and that some things defy measurement are not mutually exclusive statements. Only if you are trying to suggest that I am applying both statements to the same object would they be absurd (and I'm not). This is yet another of your irrational responses.

No, I just don't like being lied to. You claimed the measurements existed and that people have confirmed god. All I'm doing is asking you to post what you claimed existed, and all you have done was talked around it and dodged.

Simple. You have not posted what I requested, therefor my argument stands that your argument is trash and you actually can't measure or confirm god. You made the positive claims, burden of proof is on you. I'm not even arguing for atheism here, I'm just saying your reasoning is very highly flawed and unless you have a rabbit in your hat that nobody has ever seen before, you are talking straight out of your ass with those statements.

No one is lying to you. Now you are acting paranoid, too!

The objective evidences which are measurable and repeatable, and which may evidence the existence of God, do actually exist! Some have been posted in this thread but to properly refute them, they have to be individually considered in depth and with great thought. I see no evidence of that from you. You just blindly quote stuff that others have said or written.

Purely subjectively, and on the basis of reason, I am personally quite sure that God exists.

There are many others (it has been suggested that this number is currently close to 6,020,000,000 people currently alive) who express similar beliefs, but many may not genuinely hold to that, so, I'm not really sure. Needless to say, an overwhelmingly large number.

... and the assertion that you have no belief based upon an absence of evidence is also a positive statement. The true null hypothesis is that you cannot make a determination based upon an absence of evidence (which is also the logical default) - another one that you got totally wrong.

originally posted by: chr0naut
How do you measure the reactions inside the brain that are specific to love? The brain is always reacting, to all sorts of things, while alive. How do we know we aren't measuring indigestion or indignation or sexual arousal or boredom at the tests' duration?

It has been extensively studied. Stop trying to mystify an emotion that is actually combination of 3 others. That's not even close the same level as god's existence. We know love exists, and the effects on humans are measurable.

neuro.hms.harvard.edu...

www.livescience.com...

Sorry, you can't compare it with god, hence your point is once again moot.

With evil, you have absolutely no evidence that evil exists beyond the opposite of the word "good", and even that is subjective. Evil exists as a concept, not as a physical thing that can be measured. It's an easier way to say "harmful, malevolent and detrimental" actions. The origin, however, comes from the devil in the bible and is treated like it's own force, which is what I was referring to. Red Herring when talking about god's existence.

Then why do mathematicians see (and agree with each other) that some formulae is beatiful? Why is a sunset beautiful to most people? Why does music work at all?

Because they like them??? It's a personal opinion, people don't universally like the same music, or look for the same characteristics in a mate (or same math equations LMFAO). Not everybody enjoys the sunset and even if they did, it's a fallacy. Appeal to popularity, does not make beauty anything more than an opinion. If beauty was a measurable fact, then everybody would universally agree on it, but they don't so that's reason enough. Your argument is seriously deteriorating, man. You are running on fumes now, and it's obvious you don't have anything to substantiate your claim that god has been measured and would rather focus on minor insignificant details.

People haven't measured God by putting a tape measure beside Him, but they have measured the evidences that they conclude have no other source. For instance, God speaks to many people, most by subtle means, but some by overt means. Then there are miraculous occurrences witnessed by many people (even skeptics) and objectively recorded. People take such things as confirmation that God exists.

Ok, so now you are changing the meaning of the word measure to mean going through possible supernatural explanations for something that can't be explained and using confirmation bias to decide the conclusion based on third party information assumed as true. Sorry, but no evidence has been measured unless you are changing the meaning of both words. Somebody made a claim and you blindly believed it. What miraculous events have been recorded objectively (you mean video recorded) and can be definitively linked to god? Taking a guess on an explanation for something unknown is not measuring god, and neither is cherry picking evidence.

The problem is you guys form your conclusion first and work your way down from there looking for evidence to support it. You don't take the evidence and study it to come up with explanations, you already have your conclusion made, and if something can't be explained you go to it, but that is illogical. That is not measuring evidence nor is it measuring god or confirming god's existence. I hate to break it to you, but people's guesses could be wrong. Humans have a tendency to lie and make mistakes. Just because somebody claims to have spoken with god, doesn't mean they actually did and that it counts as evidence. It counts as an unsubstantiated claim.

Definition #4 doesn't say that at all. Nor does the additional definition you supplied.

You obviously can't comprehend the scientific method and how it is used to establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; verify:. Alleged miraculous events from god have not been established as true, valid accurate or genuine. If you can show me this evidence that confirms god, I'll be on board, but guessing about what might have caused something is not measuring or establishing truth. End of story.

Just because something MAY BE evidence, does not mean it has been confirmed or measured. Come on, man.

I think by now we have established that no one is going to budge. Agree to disagree and wait for another rehash thread to rear its head? Or are there a few more circles to complete before puttering to an inconclusive finish?

a reply to: SLAYER69

If so, Then, wouldn't you agree that our finite amount of time here could be said to be very special in that you are presently totally animated, aware of your surroundings, able to think about things beyond Earth and envision multi dimensions?

I mean very special in what sense? That seems to be a totally subjective value that you applied to the situation. I mean if we are being honest, if we are taking atheism in the hard sense of naturalism, then you are nothing more than a bag of flesh chemically fizzing to the tune of your DNA. Whether you are here for two days or two hundred years you existence is fundamentally meaningless aside from the false sense of purpose we apply to our own lives. We are nothing but compacted star dust. Whether you move more matter around to have another being with a false sense of awareness and free will its existence will also be purposeless. So I don't really see what makes your existence in your current state actually special. That very thought would simply be the effect of a electro-chemical reaction in the brain. I just don't see why people think that atheism means your life is special...