Do you believe in God?

[Carbonox]

Governments need to have a law for citizens to have at least 2 children, I think, if a modern atheistic society were to maintain it's existence.

No... just no. I can already see the public backlash if anyone in power attempted to create a law like that. Reproduction is something that the state can't go and control, it's just as much of a private business as one's sexuality. I can't imagine unwilling parents having much love for their unwanted kids who only exist because the government said so.

Someone who likes kids can compensate for me by having 2 extra little ones, if they're that concerned about not allowing the population to shrink.

 

[dddsprayshop]

Governments need to have a law for citizens to have at least 2 children, I think, if a modern atheistic society were to maintain it's existence.

Non-belief has always excisted, only in this time and age it is more in the open.
It was just hidden all those years and ages, fear for agression if you "came out of the closet".
"Cause and effect".
Force "god", and you also create anti "god".
Humans don't like to be forced and some of them will stand up.
There will never be an UTOPIA. Human instinct stands in it's way.

 

[Imari]

Governments need to have a law for citizens to have at least 2 children, I think, if a modern atheistic society were to maintain it's existence.

One: We're a long, long way from having any problems with not enough humans on the planet to need that sort of draconian legislation.

Two: There's no need for every woman to have at least two children, as long as the average is above that. Making it mandatory for every woman is cruel and unusual punishment. Not to mention the list of exemptions necessary to make it work will mean that anyone who wants to get out of it will be able to anyway, if needed by the crude expedient of a little self-mutilation.

Three: There are conceivably (ha!) methods of producing children without parents, if so desired. It's beyond our current technical means, but possibly not that far beyond.

Four: Humans are generally pretty rational. Faced with a population of a billion where there was previously seven billion, most people will probably drop what they're doing and start getting jiggy. Because that's just sensible. And if they don't, then it's no loss to the universe anyway.

I don't think there's any need to mandate having children. Even if there is, it doesn't need to be done right away, there's plenty of time to see how things develop and go from there. I don't like jumping straight to conclusions when there's no real evidence that humans would ever breed themselves out of existence anyway.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

NO.

The onus is on you. You have been asked to back a claim, or point of view, up. You either do it or redact your comments about 'subjective' evidence, a term which is a complete oxymoron because the whole point of evidence is that it is objective, disinterested and impartial documentation of facts or events.

You do not tell someone "Prove me wrong". Let's put this on the other foot, shall we?

I think Jimmy Carter is a vile, bigoted murderer and a closet Muslim. I know this to be true. Prove me wrong.

See how ridiculous that is? If I want that claim to be taken seriously I have to be able to present facts and evidence which prove this to be true. I do not ask for someone to prove to me that Jimmy Carter isn't a bigoted Muslim murderer. Let's try another:

My god is real and he exists. (All the other gods totally don't count, btw). I know this to be true. Prove me wrong.

This is exactly what Russell's Teapot and burden of proof, both philosophic and legal, are about. This is something you either fail to understand or do understand and continue to be stubborn about due to being on the back foot.

The funny thing is, nobody here has any problem with the fact that you believe in god. You're perfectly entitled to. But what you are not entitled to is spouting that he's real and that he exists without being able to actually prove it. And that's before we get to @Imari's well written posts dissecting your arrogance about understanding and finding a god.

Swallow your pride and admit you cannot prove what you say to be true.

OH YES.

First you are mixing two different subjects.

You do not have to ask for a source for something universally known and accepted.
Which is the world wide acceptance by jurisdictional authorities of subjective evidence as "evidential".
Likewise you do not have to provide a source for the sun existing.
As far as my belief in God, I have already stated, it is only represented by subjective evidence.
It has already been established in this thread that the existence of God is non falsifiable.
So there isn't any objective evidence for, or against it.

Why would I provide a source to back up a claim I have never made. That would be absurd!
Now please back up your claim or retract it.

If you do not accept the universal fact that subjective evidence(testimony) is accepted and used worldwide, then it is up to you to refute it with a source, not me.

No you have not.
You have made a number of claims, none of which have been unique and you haven't explained why any of them make Christianity stand out aside from 'because I say so)

Failure on your part to comprehend the explanation, does not constitute failure on my part to have provided it.
But here it is again:

The "Holy Spirit" I have, is available through Jesus Christ, who was of Judaism.
As I've already pointed out more than once, and gave reference for, God clearly stated that promise would be made through Isaac, not Ishmael. The promise of Jesus Christ and all that goes with it, was exclusively reserved to, and preserved through, Judaism.

Is there a modern court of Law that disregards objective evidence in favour of subjective testimony?

The overwhelming point is, they do not disregaurd any evidence, objective or subjective.
All evidence is acceptable and submitted for evaluation.

 

[Scaff]

If you do not accept the universal fact that subjective evidence(testimony) is accepted and used worldwide, then it is up to you to refute it with a source, not me.

I've not stated anything close to that, and if you miss-attribute this to me again we will be heading down the same old road of you ignoring the AUP.

You stated that "worldwide legal and official recognition of subjective evidence" exists and the point I made was that "given that it subjective I don't think you will find a global agreement of what subjective evidence is, given that its subjective."

Highlighting the issue with what subjective evidence actually is, is a subjective standard in its own right. For you point to make sense a global agreement on what subjective evidence is would need to exists (hence my request that you provide that).

Failure on your part to comprehend the explanation, does not constitute failure on my part to have provided it.
But here it is again:

The "Holy Spirit" I have, is available through Jesus Christ, who was of Judaism.
As I've already pointed out more than once, and gave reference for, God clearly stated that promise would be made through Isaac, not Ishmael. The promise of Jesus Christ and all that goes with it, was exclusively reserved to, and preserved through, Judaism.

The overwhelming point is, they do not disregaurd any evidence, objective or subjective.
All evidence is acceptable and submitted for evaluation.

Are you Jewish?

No your not.

As such the holy spirit is not unique to Christianity. Judaism =/= Christianity, so unless you are happy to renounce Jesus stop claiming they are the same.

 

[zzz_pt]

The universe is a field of all possibilities. Any possibility can be the subject of a false accusation. Evidence is the key to determining in the Court room what "could have happened" from "what did happen." Defendants should only be sentenced for what actually happened.

Evidence can be of two types: Subjective and Objective. Subjective evidence is the testimony of what happened based on the statements of a witness, or Subject. The quality of the subjective evidence depends upon the honesty of the witness, and their ability to perceive reality. Unfortunately, subjective views are often inconsistent and biased. People may see what they want to see, or what they expect to see. Often, witnesses of the same traffic accident will report contradictory stories. People also may lie.

Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or Subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else's senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed.. The judge and jury is totally dependent upon the reliability of the Subject, in the absence of any Object of perception in the Court room.

Objective evidence is truly deserving of the word "evidence." Objective evidence does not lie. The interpretation of Objective evidence may vary, and that is the purpose of a court room discussion - What can we infer from the objects. Objects are the objects of perception, things that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. They include videos, pictures, fingerprints, DNA, foot prints, tire tracks, tape recordings, phone calls, physical objects, liquids, and gases. Recently, objective evidence can include electronic information, such as emails or files on a computer.

Objective evidence does not change, as long as it is not tampered with. It is what it is. It is unbiased. It has no motives. It has no feelings. It does not care what the outcome of the court trial is. It simply speaks the truth.

Objective evidence takes more effort. It must be retrieved, stored, protected, recorded, and presented. Subjective testimony is easier - just put the witness on the stand and ask some questions. But, if all Courts would remember to return to be based on Objective evidence, there would be far fewer falsely convicted people, and more justice.


Reliable Witness

Evidence is A
Perceives A
Testifies A

Mistaken Witness

Evidence is A
Perceives B
Testifies B

False Witness - a Liar

Evidence is A
Perceives A
Testifies B

The judge and jury must evaluate the Knower (Subject), his or her ability to Know (consciousness, intelligence, awareness, ability to perceive reality), and Truthfulness (willingness or ability to accurately convey what was perceived to the best of their ability). But if the judge and jury can perceive the Object or Known (the A) themselves, right in the Court room, then they are much closer to the truth as it appears to them.

source

God and supernatural claims DEMAND objective evidence. These claims are huge (if not the biggest) claims one can make. Depending on subjectivity (or interpretations) is a very unreasonable thing to do.


Not a single person would accept "subjective evidence" (or testemony) in a court of law if someone accused him of murder without any objective evidence. What if the Jury and the Police believed the accuser instead of demanding objective evidence? Would you be happy to go to jail? I don't think so. The person making the claim has to prove it. Otherwise he can't be taken seriously.

 

[Famine]

Ah, I see we're back on "I can prove God exists because the justice system accepts subjectivity in determining facts".

That one's always fun.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You stated that "worldwide legal and official recognition of subjective evidence" exists and the point I made was that "given that it subjective I don't think you will find a global agreement of what subjective evidence is, given that its subjective."

Highlighting the issue with what subjective evidence actually is, is a subjective standard in its own right. For you point to make sense a global agreement on what subjective evidence is would need to exists (hence my request that you provide that).

Global agreement is in the universal use of testimony(subjective evidence) as evidential.
That does not preclude individual jurisdictional rules regaurding subjective evidence.
Niether does that agreement have to be an official document of collaboration.
In the same way, If I believe in God, and someone else says they do too, we are in agreement.
Even though we maybe geographically seperated, and may not know each other.
However, considering any details beyond that, we may or may not, be in agreement on them.

Are you Jewish?

No your not.

Your right, no I'm not.
Thats irrelevant.
I do not need to be.

As such the holy spirit is not unique to Christianity. Judaism =/= Christianity, so unless you are happy to renounce Jesus stop claiming they are the same.

Forgive me in advance, but you should read the Bible, as well as my posts, more carefully.
They are of the same God and therefore, the same Holy spirit, but of two different Covenants.
That is why the the Bible is also referred to as "The Old Covenant"(Testament) and "The New Covenant"(Testament).
Jesus was a Jew born under Judaism, which he observed up until he was crucified(sacrificed).
Once the sacrifice was established, he also established the New Covenant(Christianity) which was not exclusive to Jews only.
But was open to, or available to, Jew and Gentile alike.

 

[zzz_pt]

@SuperCobraJet Have you read my last post?

 

[Scaff]

Global agreement is in the universal use of testimony(subjective evidence) as evidential.
That does not preclude individual jurisdictional rules regaurding subjective evidence.
Niether does that agreement have to be an official document of collaboration.
In the same way, If I believe in God, and someone else says they do too, we are in agreement.
Even though we maybe geographically seperated, and may not know each other.
However, considering any details beyond that, we may or may not, be in agreement on them.

And?

The point is that no universally agree standard exists for subjective evidence (which is why I asked you to provide one - do that and you will have a point - fail to do so and it turns to the noise that it is), as such it falls well below the standard set for objective evidence.

Your right, no I'm not.
Thats irrelevant.
I do not need to be.

Actually its rather relevant.

They are two separate religions, the fact you are not Jewish makes that clear.

Forgive me in advance, but you should read the Bible, as well as my posts, more carefully.
They are of the same God and therefore, the same Holy spirit, but of two different Covenants.
That is why the the Bible is also referred to as "The Old Covenant"(Testament) and "The New Covenant"(Testament).
Jesus was a Jew born under Judaism, which he observed up until he was crucified(sacrificed).
Once the sacrifice was established, he also established the New Covenant(Christianity) which was not exclusive to Jews only.
But was open to, or available to, Jew and Gentile alike.

Great.

Still makes them two separate religions and as such means the Holy Spirit is not unique to Christianity.

Nor does does it change the fact that you have to further refine it to rule out two other religions (and you have presented no evidence as to why your one is 'right' in this regard either other than the normal 'because I say so').

Nor does it change the fact that you still haven't then specified why that make Christianity the 'right' one.

And to think you said it was obvious!

 

[kennylmao]

No... just no. I can already see the public backlash if anyone in power attempted to create a law like that. Reproduction is something that the state can't go and control, it's just as much of a private business as one's sexuality. I can't imagine unwilling parents having much love for their unwanted kids who only exist because the government said so.

Someone who likes kids can compensate for me by having 2 extra little ones, if they're that concerned about not allowing the population to shrink.

You are correct. I never thought how it must be like China.

 

[Imari]

You do not have to ask for a source for something universally known and accepted.

If it's universally known and accepted, you won't have any trouble finding a source then, will you?

Likewise you do not have to provide a source for the sun existing.

But you could, if asked to, right? Photographic evidence, tables of declination, sunrise and sunset times, spectral charts, sunspot counts, etc. etc.

So there isn't any objective evidence for, or against it.

And your complete misunderstanding of Russell's Teapot means that you think that because there is no evidence contrary to a statement, then that statement can be assumed to be true.

The overwhelming point is, they do not disregaurd any evidence, objective or subjective.
All evidence is acceptable and submitted for evaluation.

And subjective evidence is rarely accepted as conclusive when there is no objective evidence supporting the same conclusion.

This is why rapists get off without charge so often. Because it's often very difficult to get objective evidence to tie them to the crime, and subjective testimony is rarely enough.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

If it's universally known and accepted, you won't have any trouble finding a source then, will you?

The pertinent question is, why would anyone insist on it, when it is commonly practiced, known and accepted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court
https://web.archive.org/web/20110616081114/http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states parties/
http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

And your complete misunderstanding of Russell's Teapot means that you think that because there is no evidence contrary to a statement, then that statement can be assumed to be true..

No.
If there is no objective evidence for or against, the matter with regaurd to objective evidence is of complete neutral status.
Determination can only be made with regaurd to the evidence that is available.
Namely subjective evidence, or testimony.

And subjective evidence is rarely accepted as conclusive when there is no objective evidence supporting the same conclusion.

I agree, except it is not that rare.
And it does not mean it cannot be determined.
What it does mean, is that it will not be easy.

And?

The point is that no universally agree standard exists for subjective evidence (which is why I asked you to provide one - do that and you will have a point - fail to do so and it turns to the noise that it is), as such it falls well below the standard set for objective evidence.

See the references made above.

Actually its rather relevant.

They are two separate religions, the fact you are not Jewish makes that clear.

Great.

Still makes them two separate religions and as such means the Holy Spirit is not unique to Christianity.

In a temporal sense, sort of yes.
In reality, no.
Christianity, by the authority and purpose of God and pronounced as extending to Jesus Christ,
was established as the fullfillment of, or end to Judaism.
Consequently it superceded Judaism.
However, since as Jesus said, they(Jewish nation) did not recognize him or know who he was,
they are still stuck in the Judaism mode, so to speak.
And actually, true Judaism has not been practiced in entirety, since the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple.
Although many Jews, some of which refer to themselves as Messianic Jews, have accepted Christ and are now Christians.
Christianity is a direct extension of Judaism, and as such it is practically impossible to sever the two.
Therefore, arguably it can be said, they are actually one religion.
At any rate, the same Holy Spirit is extended from Judaism to Christianity.

Nor does does it change the fact that you have to further refine it to rule out two other religions (and you have presented no evidence as to why your one is 'right' in this regard either other than the normal 'because I say so').

Nor does it change the fact that you still haven't then specified why that make Christianity the 'right' one.

And to think you said it was obvious!

I can only testify to it, along with millions of others.
I know of no other Holy Spirit, authenticated and established by the God of the Bible, but the one defined therein.

@SuperCobraJet Have you read my last post?

Yes I have, and contrary to your statements, the fact is people are convicted on "circumstantial evidence" on a somewhat regular basis.

And as a matter of fact, under the term "smoking gun" reliance is based completely on testimonial evidence.
Objective evidence may be established in conjunction with the testimony, but that can only result from the subjective evidence of the testimony.
And as another matter of fact, all objective evidence is dependant on testimony, or subjective evidence.
A person has to testify in order to establish all objective evidence.
Therefore, objective evidence is an agreed upon term, also derived from subjective collaboration.
In reality, even objective evidence is a product of, subjective consensus.

 

[Scaff]

The pertinent question is, why would anyone insist on it, when it is commonly praticed, known and accepted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court
https://web.archive.org/web/20110616081114/http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states parties/
http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

And every single one of those agree on every area do they?

Right now in the UK we have a political debate going on regarding the differentiating interpretations of the European Human Rights act, that a large difference on the subjective nature of two bodies on a single piece of legislation.

And you expect us to believe that global agreement exists on how subjective laws and evidence is accepted?

This alone disproves any such claim:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29466113

If that's not the point you are trying to make then quite frankly what are you going on about and why are you wasting everyone time? As if its not an agreed standard then it is both unreliable and falls a long way short of the standard offered by objective evidence.

No.
If there is no objective evidence for or against, the matter with regaurd to objective evidence is of complete neutral status.

No its not.

Determination can only be made with regaurd to the evidence that is available.
Namely subjective evidence, or testimony.

Which is of isuffiecent standard to establish anything if that is all you have.

I agree, except it is not that rare.
And it does not mean it cannot be determined.
What it does mean, is that it will not be easy.

See the references made above.

Name ten items that have been proven to exist using subjective evidence alone.

In a temporal sense, sort of yes.
In reality, no.
Christianity, by the authority and purpose of God and pronounced as extending to Jesus Christ,
was established as the fullfillment of, or end to Judaism.
Consequently it superceded Judaism.
However, since as Jesus said, they(Jewish nation) did not recognize him or know who he was,
they are still stuck in the Judaism mode, so to speak.
And actually, true Judaism has not been practiced in entirety, since the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple.
Although many Jews, some of which refer to themselves as Messianic Jews, have accepted Christ and are now Christians.
Christianity is a direct extension of Judaism, and as such it is practically impossible to sever the two.
Therefore, arguably it can be said, they are actually one religion.
At any rate, the same Holy Spirit is extended from Judaism to Christianity.

And Islam is a direct extension of Christianity and its impossible to separate the two.

I hope you will be praying toward Mecca five times today and have stopped eating pork.

They are different religions of the same root, they are not the same religion.

I can only testify to it, along with millions of others.
I know of no other Holy Spirit, authenticated and established by the God of the Bible, but the one defined therein.

Odd as I'm quite certain that an almost equal number of Muslims say the same thing in regard to there texts (and every other religion, ever).

Now just to recap you claimed that "Although if you read the New Testament, it is clearly evident it offers something totally unique, and as far as I can tell, apart from any other religion. " and the unique happens to be something that is shared by three other religions (which are the same but not depending on what you feel like) and you still have not show why "it is clearly evident" that it sets it apart from "from any other religion".

Yes I have, and contrary to your statements, the fact is people are convicted on "circumstantial evidence" on a somewhat regular basis.

And as a matter of fact, under the term "smoking gun" reliance is based completely on testimonial evidence.
Objective evidence may be established in conjunction with the testimony, but that can only result from the subjective evidence of the testimony.

Bollocks.

"The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_gun

Conclusive (as in objective - has been shown to not be false) not subjective.

And as another matter of fact, all objective evidence is dependant on testimony, or subjective evidence.
A person has to testify in order to establish all objective evidence.
Therefore, objective evidence is an agreed upon term, also derived from subjective collaboration.
In reality, even objective evidence is a product of, subjective consensus.

Bollocks again.

Objective evidence has to be put into context and is often presented to show that subjective testimony is untrue.

In addition if the objective evidence does not support a subject claim a person is making then the subjective evidence will and does show the inaccuracy of that evidence.

A women could accuse a man of fathering her child, his subjective testimony could be that he is not the father, however an objective DNA test (and for the sake of argument here lets say a number have been run by a range of different labs all with the exact same result) shows he is the father.

The Objective evidence will either support or disprove the Subjective evidence, but not the other way around, and any legal system that will convict on subjective evidence only needs looking at in a rather big way, which is exactly why the scientific method requires a much, much higher standard.

You however seems would be quite happy to jail someone for murder if enough people said he did it, no matter how much the testimony they gave differed, no matter how long a period it was complied over and no matter if we couldn't truly establish who all the sources were, even when not a shred of objective evidence of a crime can be shown. After all you are happy to base the existence of a deity on that, which is a much bigger deal than a murderer.

As such you either have no idea how evidence works (more than possible given the track record) or you are once again attempting to redefine to suit your own needs.

 

[zzz_pt]

As @Imari said: Bollocks. You @SuperCobraJet are pulling things out of your hat.

 

[Imari]

Namely subjective evidence, or testimony.

Objective evidence may be established in conjunction with the testimony, but that can only result from the subjective evidence of the testimony.
And as another matter of fact, all objective evidence is dependant on testimony, or subjective evidence.
A person has to testify in order to establish all objective evidence.

You need to be very careful with your words now.

In the first quote, you're using "testimony" as equivalent in meaning to "subjective evidence". Sure, that's reasonable.

In the second, you say that all objective evidence must be established by testimony. This is completely false.

You're getting stuck in your "court of law" mindset, and we're not proving God exists to a court of law. We're proving it in the real world.

And in the real world, the cool thing about objective evidence is that anyone can go and look at it.

Let's take your example of the sun from earlier. I can testify to the existence of the sun and explain what I've seen. But maybe you think my testimony is unreliable (for whatever reason). So you can go and experience the same things that I've seen for yourself. You can stand outside at noon and view this fiery orb. You can look at it through a pinhole camera and see the detail. You can calculate the distance to the sun using parallax, and calculate it's size if you want.

The point is, you don't have to take my word for any of it. Anything that I tell you that is an objective experience, you can go and experience for yourself.

That same is not true of testimony based on subjective experiences. Anything you tell me that is a subjective experience, I cannot go and experience for myself. Subjective experiences change depending on the viewer, and I'm not you. This is why some people see aliens in the sky at night, and some people see helicopters.

Therefore, objective evidence is an agreed upon term, also derived from subjective collaboration.

No, it's really not. Objective evidence is something that anyone can go and see for themselves firsthand.

In reality, even objective evidence is a product of, subjective consensus.

No, it is not. The conclusions that are drawn from the experience may be subject to groupthink, but the experience itself is not. If the experience is subject to perceptual changes depending on the people who view it, then it's not objective.

I rather sense that you're trying to redefine objectivity again. Please stop.

 

[GBO Possum]

Dear Believer, I challenge you to ask yourself some questions which will lead you to the truths you so want to achieve.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And every single one of those agree on every area do they?

By signing on to the agreement, it is clearly established that, yes they unequivically and absolutely do.
Otherwise if they did not, they could have abstained from signing.
A simple fact of reality.

So now, even though it was not necessary, I have provided formal documentation of Global agreement on the use of subjective evidence, which, you repeatedly insisted upon, yet you still will not admit it is a fact of reality.
Citation definitely required.

Right now in the UK we have a political debate going on regarding the differentiating interpretations of the European Human Rights act, that a large difference on the subjective nature of two bodies on a single piece of legislation.

And you expect us to believe that global agreement exists on how subjective laws and evidence is accepted?

This alone disproves any such claim:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29466113

Sorry, that disproves absolutely nothing.
Political debate rages on about everything under the sun.
It has no relevance to the facts of reality concerning the already established definition, practice, and authoritative use of subjective evidence.
And as has been clearly proven by formal documented agreement.
At such time a consensus is reached and something is formally established, then it maybe relevant. Or it may not be.

If that's not the point you are trying to make then quite frankly what are you going on about and why are you wasting everyone time? As if its not an agreed standard then it is both unreliable and falls a long way short of the standard offered by objective evidence.

There is someone attempting to waste time here, but you appear hopelessly confused on who it is.
Now it is your turn.
Where is your source to show what I have clearly established regaurding subjective evidence, is not a fact of reality?

No its not.

And on what basis, do you claim this?

Which is of isuffiecent standard to establish anything if that is all you have.

That is up to the individual to decide.

And Islam is a direct extension of Christianity and its impossible to separate the two.

I hope you will be praying toward Mecca five times today and have stopped eating pork.

They are different religions of the same root, they are not the same religion.

And where is your source for this claim?

Odd as I'm quite certain that an almost equal number of Muslims say the same thing in regard to there texts (and every other religion, ever).

Now just to recap you claimed that "Although if you read the New Testament, it is clearly evident it offers something totally unique, and as far as I can tell, apart from any other religion. " and the unique happens to be something that is shared by three other religions (which are the same but not depending on what you feel like) and you still have not show why "it is clearly evident" that it sets it apart from "from any other religion".

No, you just continue to ignore it, so there is no reason to continue reiterating it.

Bollocks.

"The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_gun

Conclusive (as in objective - has been shown to not be false) not subjective.

Tell me how it can be established apart from testimony?
I'll save you some time.
It can't be.

Bollocks again.

Objective evidence has to be put into context and is often presented to show that subjective testimony is untrue.

In reality, it may show support for true, or untrue.

In addition if the objective evidence does not support a subject claim a person is making then the subjective evidence will and does show the inaccuracy of that evidence.

A women could accuse a man of fathering her child, his subjective testimony could be that he is not the father, however an objective DNA test (and for the sake of argument here lets say a number have been run by a range of different labs all with the exact same result) shows he is the father.

The Objective evidence will either support or disprove the Subjective evidence, but not the other way around, and any legal system that will convict on subjective evidence only needs looking at in a rather big way, which is exactly why the scientific method requires a much, much higher standard.

Yes, and you can write your government representative about how you would like it changed.
In the mean time and from practically time eternal, it is what it is.
BTW, I have previously already stated the obvious.
That being that objective evidence is better than subjective evidence.

You however seems would be quite happy to jail someone for murder if enough people said he did it, no matter how much the testimony they gave differed, no matter how long a period it was complied over and no matter if we couldn't truly establish who all the sources were, even when not a shred of objective evidence of a crime can be shown. After all you are happy to base the existence of a deity on that, which is a much bigger deal than a murderer.

As such you either have no idea how evidence works (more than possible given the track record) or you are once again attempting to redefine to suit your own needs.

I have not implied or indicated I would be happy to jail someone, on any evidential basis.
So I would appreciate you not inferring that I would.

Well first you have to know what evidence is, before you can know how it works.
Apparently, I'm ahead of you in that respect.

In fact of reality, you could be chosen to serve on a jury, to judge a primarily circumstantial case.
That does not absolve you of the responsibility to scrutinize and weigh the evidence accordingly, even if it is circumstantial.

Likewise the only objective evidence for what I am testifying too, is personally, or individually attainable.
But is subjective in any relatability.
As discussed previously, there is no physical objective evidence for spiritual phenomenon.

 

[Famine]

Cutting through all the dross:

As discussed previously, there is no physical objective evidence for spiritual phenomenon.

That's a concession of everything that has been said to you over the last three years...

 

[Scaff]

By signing on to the agreement, it is clearly established that, yes they unequivically and absolutely do.
Otherwise if they did not, they could have abstained from signing.
A simple fact of reality.

31 countries have signed but not ratified the Treaty of Rome, 3 who have signed are withdrawing (one of which is the US) and a further 41 have not signed it Including China and India).

As such its a long way from global (its not global agreement if 40+ countries don't agree and two of them account for a third of the worlds population) and what is more stunning is that information is in the source you provided!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#Ratification_status

Did you not bother to read it? As you own source is evidence of how incorrect your claim was!

Now either provide a source that shows every nation on earth agreeing to (singed and ratified) in regard to subjective evidence, what it is and how it is applied or concede this point.

And in future fact check what you post, as while its a fine example of your subjective bull being countered by objective fact, your roughshod approach to factual discussion has reached a point that it will no longer be tolerated.

So now, even though it was not necessary, I have provided formal documentation of Global agreement on the use of subjective evidence, which, you repeatedly insisted upon, yet you still will not admit it is a fact of reality.
Citation definitely required.



Sorry, that disproves absolutely nothing.
Political debate rages on about everything under the sun.
It has no relevance to the facts of reality concerning the already established definition, practice, and authoritative use of subjective evidence.
And as has been clearly proven by formal documented agreement.
At such time a consensus is reached and something is formally established, then it maybe relevant. Or it may not be.



There is someone attempting to waste time here, but you appear hopelessly confused on who it is.
Now it is your turn.
Where is your source to show what I have clearly established regaurding subjective evidence, is not a fact of reality?



And on what basis, do you claim this?



That is up to the individual to decide.



And where is your source for this claim?

And give the above this is now just noise.

No, you just continue to ignore it, so there is no reason to continue reiterating it.

I've not ignored it at all, I've addressed every point you have made in this regard.

Don't post what you know to be untrue.

Tell me how it can be established apart from testimony?
I'll save you some time.
It can't be.

Objective vs Subjective. AGAIN.

In reality, it may show support for true, or untrue.

No it allows it to be established.

Yes, and you can write your government representative about how you would like it changed.
In the mean time and from practically time eternal, it is what it is.
BTW, I have previously already stated the obvious.
That being that objective evidence is better than subjective evidence.

At what? Fishing?

Context.

I have not implied or indicated I would be happy to jail someone, on any evidential basis.
So I would appreciate you not inferring that I would.

Well first you have to know what evidence is, before you can know how it works.
Apparently, I'm ahead of you in that respect.

In fact of reality, you could be chosen to serve on a jury, to judge a primarily circumstantial case.
That does not absolve you of the responsibility to scrutinize and weigh the evidence accordingly, even if it is circumstantial.

In a court of law, which doesn't have a global standard (still waiting on that one from you) and is not the same standard used in the scientific method. This was covered in the past and you failed to support the argument then, just as you have now.

Likewise the only objective evidence for what I am testifying too, is personally, or individually attainable.

Then its not objective (well unless you redefine objective)

But is subjective in any relatability.

Then its subjective not objective - as everyone but you has said all along.

As discussed previously, there is no physical objective evidence for spiritual phenomenon.

Correction. Their is no objective evidence for spiritual phenomenon, period.

 

[huskeR32]

As far as my belief in God, I have already stated, it is only represented by subjective evidence.
It has already been established in this thread that the existence of God is non falsifiable.
So there isn't any objective evidence for, or against it.

That you put the "against it" part in bold, as if it establishes any sort of valid point at all, shows how badly off the mark you are.

-----------------

And as a matter of fact, under the term "smoking gun" reliance is based completely on testimonial evidence.
Objective evidence may be established in conjunction with the testimony, but that can only result from the subjective evidence of the testimony.
And as another matter of fact, all objective evidence is dependant on testimony, or subjective evidence.
A person has to testify in order to establish all objective evidence.

Bollocks.

"The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_gun

Conclusive (as in objective - has been shown to not be false) not subjective.

Tell me how it can be established apart from testimony?
I'll save you some time.
It can't be.

If I'm following this correctly, you're trying to say that a claim supported by objective evidence isn't actually objectively known, because somebody has to say that it's true, which then makes it a personal testimony, which is subjective?

That's absurd. This might be the most ridiculously twisted logic you've shown yet, and that's truly saying something.

 

[Dotini]

Their is no objective evidence for spiritual phenomenon, period.

After lengthy investigation, the Catholic church certified the October 13, 1917, Fatima events as a miracle. I call it a UFO event. Whatever it was, objectively it happened. Too many people, including skeptical doctors and policemen saw it happen. Subjective interpretations may vary.

I think there is sometimes blurring between physical events and spiritual events. Physical events can have spiritual effects. As a result of Fatima, faith was increased in Portugal and Europe, and Russia was eventually consecrated by the church.

 

[orimarc]

Whatever it was, objectively it happened. Too many people, including skeptical doctors and policemen saw it happen. Subjective interpretations may vary.

There's a difference between "objectively, something happened" and "objectively, something happened and it's evidence of spiritual phenomenon".

Why doesn't that happen these days? If the figure of a woman "brighter than the sun, shedding rays of light clearer and stronger than a crystal goblet filled with the most sparkling water and pierced by the burning rays of the sun" appeared to a crowd of 70000, there would be photos and videos EVERYWHERE.

Tell me how it can be established apart from testimony?
I'll save you some time.
It can't be.

Testimony can be proven wrong by a "smoking gun", but a "smoking gun" can't be proven wrong by a testimony (or other kinds of evidence), otherwise it wouldn't be "Conclusive (as in objective - has been shown to not be false)"

 

[Imari]

After lengthy investigation, the Catholic church certified the October 13, 1917, Fatima events as a miracle. I call it a UFO event. Whatever it was, objectively it happened. Too many people, including skeptical doctors and policemen saw it happen. Subjective interpretations may vary.

I think there is sometimes blurring between physical events and spiritual events. Physical events can have spiritual effects. As a result of Fatima, faith was increased in Portugal and Europe, and Russia was eventually consecrated by the church.

You seem like you'd give a straight answer, so I'll ask you a question I asked SCJ a while back.

How do you know what is a physical event and what is a spiritual event? (Or a physical effect and a spiritual effect, if that's easier.)


I agree that in cases like you're describing there is almost always something that has happened. It may or may not be what people think happened, but there was something there. Very rarely do large groups of people just make stuff up.

What I don't understand is where people draw the line between the physical and the spiritual. I don't understand clearly the difference between the two, and as such don't understand the value in using those labels.

To me, stuff just happens. Calling it physical or spiritual doesn't aid understanding at all. I find that generally when an event is labelled as spiritual, it's actually shorthand for "we don't understand this and we'd really rather people didn't probe into it too deeply, lest they prove that it's not what we think it is".

As someone who is deeply curious about the way that everything works, I find that sort of attitude distressing.

 

[LeMansAid]

For some people it might be as simple as an ill or unconsidered term they're using, rather than how they truly view it. Stuff from different dimensions could very well line up with "spiritual" experiences. Then, there's still the chance that the strictest definition of what's called spiritual may be in play as well. I really don't know, but I do know that working from the answer backwards is hardly going to encourage objectivity or a genuine search for truth.

 

[Scaff]

After lengthy investigation, the Catholic church certified the October 13, 1917, Fatima events as a miracle.

The Catholic churches standard for a miracle have far more to do with politics that any objective investigation.

I call it a UFO event. Whatever it was, objectively it happened. Too many people, including skeptical doctors and policemen saw it happen. Subjective interpretations may vary.

Yes it objectively happened, that doesn't make it a supernatural event. The subjective accounts of what happened vary massively from seeing Jesus to nothing at all, given that many of these people (and we are talking about a very religious country here) will also be throwing in a massive amount of confirmation bias.

What we know objectively happened (based on the images from the event) is that the sun dimmed and colours were seen around it, all of which have perfectly valid explanations.

As such I have not yet seen (feel free to provide any you have) objective evidence of anything supernatural about it.

I think there is sometimes blurring between physical events and spiritual events. Physical events can have spiritual effects. As a result of Fatima, faith was increased in Portugal and Europe, and Russia was eventually consecrated by the church.

Misinterpretation can indeed cause an increase in faith, if supernatural claims are made about perfectly explainable occurrences. That doesn't make them supernatural at all, based on the objective evidence that exists this is on par with images of Jesus in windows and bread, etc.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Cutting through all the dross:That's a concession of everything that has been said to you over the last three years...

It is not a concession, because it is not being contested.
What has been contested and still is, is the fact of reality, that subjective evidence is clearly evidence by definition and jurisdictional authoritative practice.
And the reason it is, is the simple fact it can be true and reliable.
And secondly, that all evidence, regaurdless of category, is established by testimony.
Being the science buff you appear to be, I'm sure you know that is the reason the guidelines for the scientific method have the stringencies attached, such as peer review. It is a concession that the whole process is at the mercy of testimony and therefore subjectivity.

And again, there is no objective evidence against the existence of God,
so there is no basis for the non-existent stance based on objective evidence.
Obviously, there is none for existence as well, so likewise, there is no basis for an existence stance as well.
So the only position available from an objective evidence basis would be one of complete neutrality.
That leaves only subjective evidence from which to judge.
The established reality of the matter is, God's existence is a clear cut, circumstantial evidence case.
And just as that type of case is prosecuted by jurisdictional authority from time to time, it is being prosecuted upon all mankind.

 

[Liquid]

"we don't understand this and we'd really rather people didn't probe into it too deeply, lest they prove that it's not what we think it is".

As someone who is deeply curious about the way that everything works, I find that sort of attitude distressing.

Quoted for the truth.

This is a mantra I find incredibly frustrating, worrying and a little bit arrogant. We wouldn't be where we are without people breaking those shackles and moving forward in technology, knowledge, chemistry, biology, politics, law and logic.

 

[Famine]

It is not a concession, because it is not being contested.

Actually, you tried to redefine objective last time to mean subjective.

Glad you're now conceding that objective means objective and that there is no objective evidence for your deity - or any other.

And again, there is no objective evidence against the existence of God,
so there is no basis for the non-existent stance based on objective evidence.
Obviously, there is none for existence as well, so likewise, there is no basis for an existence stance as well.

Except your deity is non-falsifiable. This means that not only is there no evidence, there cannot be any evidence.

This renders your deity to the same level as Russell's Teapot. This too has been patiently explained to you.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And secondly, that all evidence, regaurdless of category, is established by testimony.

Correct... so it follows that one cannot establish through testimony that for which there can be no evidence.