Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

What objective evidence is.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
SamStevens,

Michio Kaku said:
and so nuns were put into the God Helmet and they were asked, "Doesn"t this disprove the existence of God?" And these nuns said, "No, because this simply is a telephone system to God. God wanted us to have a telephone system by which we can communicate with him, and that"s why God created our brain with this hookup to God." And so I think this does not disprove the existence of God, but it basically shows that physics can create disturbances in the brain to allow us to understand how the brain is wired.
http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com...

C.S. Lewis wrote:
That there can be several people confronted with the evidence for God yet they can interpret that evidence quite differently.

Presentation of evidence does not conclude the existence or case for anything.

Every assertion has an amount of doubt in it. Such as Cartesian Doubt and there are other types. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just like in a trial the prosecutor presents evidence to persuade the jury to a conclusion of guilt. (by the way the persecutor has burden of proof because it is established by Law, not logic, that people are innocent till proven guilty.) From the evidence available (key point available), if the persecutors explanation for the evidence is possible, reasonable, and likely then the verdict the jury gives is Guilty (haha well in a perfect world)

2 different incompatible explanations can account for the same evidence. It is never enough to just "show me the evidence", there must also be an argument for a conclusion to be inferred by the evidence.

Heuristics do not determine "truth" they are "short cuts" to determine likelihood of one explanation over another in a world of doubt and unknowns. heuristics are like Occam's Razor and Null-hypothesis. For instance the Null-hypothesis is a statistical tool to discern if evidence can be explained by chance, just as well as another explanation. If chance is just as likely then we tend to reject the opposing explanation.

There is objective evidence for God. They are called observations of reality. One example I gave was the universe being influenced by forces from outside this universe [1]. Some say this is evidence for Multiverse. One can equally say it is evidence for God. Why is that you may ask?

Because you can not explain something outside this universe with something in this universe. There is nothing about the evidence that can logically be inferred to be another universe. It's not like you can see galaxies and other stuff in it to say "yep that's a universe" It could be ANYTHING. literally anything at All. Maybe if something we can not imagine.[2]

When someone presents evidence it can be a variety of evidence. It does not need to be scientific experimental evidence. There is no scientific experimental evidence to prove what you ate last week for Wednesday lunch.

Logical positivism attempts to be all "truths" accepted on empirical data. And yet it could not stay consistent with reality without a weak verification standard. Ayer concluded, "A proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established by experience", but is verifiable in the weak sense "if it is possible for experience to render it probable. [3]

[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[2]http://www.nature.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Conclusion there is No "show me the evidence" that can convince everyone of anything.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:49:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
SamStevens,

Michio Kaku said:
and so nuns were put into the God Helmet and they were asked, "Doesn"t this disprove the existence of God?" And these nuns said, "No, because this simply is a telephone system to God. God wanted us to have a telephone system by which we can communicate with him, and that"s why God created our brain with this hookup to God." And so I think this does not disprove the existence of God, but it basically shows that physics can create disturbances in the brain to allow us to understand how the brain is wired.
http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com...
Yes, leave it to nuns (people who think they're married to God), to completely ignore the actual mechanism (interfering with brain operation), and still try to couch the results in the explanation they prefer. That's no different than the American Indians who remained convinced that peyote gave them access to the spirit world.

Objective evidence twisted to a subjective interpretation, requiring the avoidance of the objective mechanisms.

C.S. Lewis wrote:
That there can be several people confronted with the evidence for God yet they can interpret that evidence quite differently.
Because all so-called "evidence of God" is ALWAYS subjective.

Presentation of evidence does not conclude the existence or case for anything.
Because people can deny anything, just as flat-earthers deny the obvious and objective conclusion provided by the evidence of a spherical Earth. Sadly, you seem to promote this.

Every assertion has an amount of doubt in it. Such as Cartesian Doubt and there are other types. http://en.wikipedia.org...
That which involves the least doubt is the most objective.


Conclusion there is No "show me the evidence" that can convince everyone of anything.
Which is PRECISELY why I keep telling you that there is no such thing as proof (aside from maths and alcohol), and yet you keep arguing with me and insisting that there is. Now you find yourself wanting to promote the other side of that argument (the side you keep arguing against), and you don't even recognize what you're doing.

As for objective evidence; close your eyes. Tell me what you think the temperature is in the room.
Now, go check a functioning digital thermometer.
Understand?

Is there a speedometer in your car, or is an objective measure of your speed less accurate than your assessment of your speed? We have objective measuring devices all around us, each and every day and put them to great use. But when a theist wants to deny an obvious truth, they attempt to blur the real separation between "objective" and "subjective", and the result is no different or more intelligent than the Indians who thought getting high from an mind-altering drug was evidence for the spiritual.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:09:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 10:49:05 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
SamStevens,

Michio Kaku said:
and so nuns were put into the God Helmet and they were asked, "Doesn"t this disprove the existence of God?" And these nuns said, "No, because this simply is a telephone system to God. God wanted us to have a telephone system by which we can communicate with him, and that"s why God created our brain with this hookup to God." And so I think this does not disprove the existence of God, but it basically shows that physics can create disturbances in the brain to allow us to understand how the brain is wired.
http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com...
Yes, leave it to nuns (people who think they're married to God), to completely ignore the actual mechanism (interfering with brain operation), and still try to couch the results in the explanation they prefer. That's no different than the American Indians who remained convinced that peyote gave them access to the spirit world.

Objective evidence twisted to a subjective interpretation, requiring the avoidance of the objective mechanisms.

C.S. Lewis wrote:
That there can be several people confronted with the evidence for God yet they can interpret that evidence quite differently.
Because all so-called "evidence of God" is ALWAYS subjective.

Presentation of evidence does not conclude the existence or case for anything.
Because people can deny anything, just as flat-earthers deny the obvious and objective conclusion provided by the evidence of a spherical Earth. Sadly, you seem to promote this.

Every assertion has an amount of doubt in it. Such as Cartesian Doubt and there are other types. http://en.wikipedia.org...
That which involves the least doubt is the most objective.


Conclusion there is No "show me the evidence" that can convince everyone of anything.
Which is PRECISELY why I keep telling you that there is no such thing as proof (aside from maths and alcohol), and yet you keep arguing with me and insisting that there is. Now you find yourself wanting to promote the other side of that argument (the side you keep arguing against), and you don't even recognize what you're doing.

No your argument about "proof" is sophistry and semantics.

You side track the post with it when everyone on here understands what "Burden of proof", "mathematical proof", and such are. When every one understands the terms then why put up a fit about their meaning? Don't answer that was rhetorical.


As for objective evidence; close your eyes. Tell me what you think the temperature is in the room.
Now, go check a functioning digital thermometer.
Understand?

Actually I am good at judging the temperature when it is below 60 degrees. And when I ask myself what time it is, I am generally with in 5 minutes of the time on the clock. It freaks some people at work when in mid sentence I'll stop and say okay time to do so so... and be on time.


Is there a speedometer in your car, or is an objective measure of your speed less accurate than your assessment of your speed? We have objective measuring devices all around us, each and every day and put them to great use. But when a theist wants to deny an obvious truth, they attempt to blur the real separation between "objective" and "subjective", and the result is no different or more intelligent than the Indians who thought getting high from an mind-altering drug was evidence for the spiritual.

Hey Beastt, you do the same. I seen you accept scientific theories like dark energy and quantum gravity because it suits the conclusion you want. this manner of weighing evidence is because people weigh evidence on "Utility"; how it benefits themselves.

My post is to show that evidence is data, argument plus data equals information.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:57:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

There is objective evidence for God. They are called observations of reality. One example I gave was the universe being influenced by forces from outside this universe [1]. Some say this is evidence for Multiverse. One can equally say it is evidence for God. Why is that you may ask?

What I would like to ask is where and what are these alleged "forces from outside this universe"? Considering you have just claimed this is objective evidence for God, you have some serious evidence to produce.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:23:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 11:57:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

There is objective evidence for God. They are called observations of reality. One example I gave was the universe being influenced by forces from outside this universe [1]. Some say this is evidence for Multiverse. One can equally say it is evidence for God. Why is that you may ask?

What I would like to ask is where and what are these alleged "forces from outside this universe"? Considering you have just claimed this is objective evidence for God, you have some serious evidence to produce.

The observable evidence is potentially http://www.technologyreview.com...

And I already stated why discerning this as another universe is logically a leap of faith. You can't describe something outside this universe as entities observed from inside this universe. I could just as easily assert these concentric rings are the fingerprint of God. I'm not because that is just blatantly anthropomorphic.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 9:50:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:23:57 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:57:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

There is objective evidence for God. They are called observations of reality. One example I gave was the universe being influenced by forces from outside this universe [1]. Some say this is evidence for Multiverse. One can equally say it is evidence for God. Why is that you may ask?

What I would like to ask is where and what are these alleged "forces from outside this universe"? Considering you have just claimed this is objective evidence for God, you have some serious evidence to produce.

The observable evidence is potentially http://www.technologyreview.com...

So, the hypothesis that other universes have bumped into each other leaving "cosmic bruises" in the CMB is "objective evidence for the existence of God"

Wow, you are one piece of work, dude.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:59:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 9:50:34 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:23:57 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:57:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

There is objective evidence for God. They are called observations of reality. One example I gave was the universe being influenced by forces from outside this universe [1]. Some say this is evidence for Multiverse. One can equally say it is evidence for God. Why is that you may ask?

What I would like to ask is where and what are these alleged "forces from outside this universe"? Considering you have just claimed this is objective evidence for God, you have some serious evidence to produce.

The observable evidence is potentially http://www.technologyreview.com...

So, the hypothesis that other universes have bumped into each other leaving "cosmic bruises" in the CMB is "objective evidence for the existence of God"

Wow, you are one piece of work, dude.

What evidence and reasoning do you have that it is another universe bumping into us?

It is evidence of something outside of this universe having an effect on it. Period.

Its perfectly logical to assert this something is God.

In fact it takes less assumptions for it to be God than a multiverse.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:08:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:59:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:50:34 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:23:57 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:57:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

There is objective evidence for God. They are called observations of reality. One example I gave was the universe being influenced by forces from outside this universe [1]. Some say this is evidence for Multiverse. One can equally say it is evidence for God. Why is that you may ask?

What I would like to ask is where and what are these alleged "forces from outside this universe"? Considering you have just claimed this is objective evidence for God, you have some serious evidence to produce.

The observable evidence is potentially http://www.technologyreview.com...

So, the hypothesis that other universes have bumped into each other leaving "cosmic bruises" in the CMB is "objective evidence for the existence of God"

Wow, you are one piece of work, dude.

What evidence and reasoning do you have that it is another universe bumping into us?

So, you didn't even read the article? That is what they are hypothesizing. They claim the other universes most likely have different laws of physics, which is something that I and others have tried to explain to you, showing that the fine tuned argument isn't an argument at all.

It is evidence of something outside of this universe having an effect on it. Period.

Its perfectly logical to assert this something is God.

No, it is confirmation bias to assert that and ignores completely any science at all.

In fact it takes less assumptions for it to be God than a multiverse.

Sure, if you're an ignorant, indoctrinated believer that has no clue about science and how it works, then yes, it would be the one and only assumption.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:21:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:08:43 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/4/2015 11:59:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:50:34 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:23:57 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:57:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

There is objective evidence for God. They are called observations of reality. One example I gave was the universe being influenced by forces from outside this universe [1]. Some say this is evidence for Multiverse. One can equally say it is evidence for God. Why is that you may ask?

What I would like to ask is where and what are these alleged "forces from outside this universe"? Considering you have just claimed this is objective evidence for God, you have some serious evidence to produce.

The observable evidence is potentially http://www.technologyreview.com...

So, the hypothesis that other universes have bumped into each other leaving "cosmic bruises" in the CMB is "objective evidence for the existence of God"

Wow, you are one piece of work, dude.

What evidence and reasoning do you have that it is another universe bumping into us?

So, you didn't even read the article? That is what they are hypothesizing. They claim the other universes most likely have different laws of physics, which is something that I and others have tried to explain to you, showing that the fine tuned argument isn't an argument at all.

It is evidence of something outside of this universe having an effect on it. Period.

Its perfectly logical to assert this something is God.

No, it is confirmation bias to assert that and ignores completely any science at all.

In fact it takes less assumptions for it to be God than a multiverse.

Sure, if you're an ignorant, indoctrinated believer that has no clue about science and how it works, then yes, it would be the one and only assumption.

Too bad your probably too old and set in your ways to understand reason.

It is something outside this universe. It is like seeing a bruise on someones arm. From that bruise can you tell what happened? A bump, a hit, an accident, injection site.

The universe bruise is all we can see is the effect we can not see the cuase. Its logically impossible to discern what is outside this universe.

Thats what this post talks about. There is this evidence. I interpret it as God. You read what few scientist interpret as multiverse.

And you have made no attempt to distinguish the facts and evidence, from the interpretation,explaination, argument. Which is foolishness
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:54:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:21:53 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Too bad your probably too old and set in your ways to understand reason.

LOL. Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle.

Here's a hint: Reasonable people do not automatically jump to the conclusions of gods.

It is something outside this universe. It is like seeing a bruise on someones arm. From that bruise can you tell what happened? A bump, a hit, an accident, injection site.

The universe bruise is all we can see is the effect we can not see the cuase. Its logically impossible to discern what is outside this universe.

And yet, you continue to invoke your God, quite the contradiction on your part.

Thats what this post talks about. There is this evidence. I interpret it as God. You read what few scientist interpret as multiverse.

Yes, that is your confirmation bias and your inability to understand science.

And you have made no attempt to distinguish the facts and evidence, from the interpretation,explaination, argument. Which is foolishness

LOL. Yeah, your confirmation bias is the distinguishing factor.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:09:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:54:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:21:53 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Too bad your probably too old and set in your ways to understand reason.

LOL. Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle.

Here's a hint: Reasonable people do not automatically jump to the conclusions of gods.

It is something outside this universe. It is like seeing a bruise on someones arm. From that bruise can you tell what happened? A bump, a hit, an accident, injection site.

The universe bruise is all we can see is the effect we can not see the cuase. Its logically impossible to discern what is outside this universe.

And yet, you continue to invoke your God, quite the contradiction on your part.

Thats what this post talks about. There is this evidence. I interpret it as God. You read what few scientist interpret as multiverse.

Yes, that is your confirmation bias and your inability to understand science.

And you have made no attempt to distinguish the facts and evidence, from the interpretation,explaination, argument. Which is foolishness

LOL. Yeah, your confirmation bias is the distinguishing factor.

The one time I thought you could discuss things maturely was a post you started by copying and pasting anothers argument.

Your responces quickly showed me you were as much a troll as ever.

And all I've said is one could just as easily and with the same amount of validity say this was cuased by God. Heuristically conclude more likely God.

You can't just reply with (blank) fallacy. No one should take that as an effective rebuttal. I could just as easily go behind your posts and reply non sequitur. And the discusion goes no where.

If you have show how what I said matches with the fallacy. And informal fallacies do not garantee a negation of the conclusion. They don't even garantee the inferrence is illogical or unfounded.

I think this is like the third time I have pointed this out. You are just being trollish and that is a bad thing.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:15:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Conclusion there is No "show me the evidence" that can convince everyone of anything.

That's really all that needed to be said. Evidence is defined by its ability to convince someone, so the phrase "objective evidence" makes no sense. What we can (almost) unanimously agree on is the validity of the laws of logic, so at least with that we have a metric to determine whether evidence leads to a conclusion, or whether people who don't accept the conclusion should be discredited for failing to abide by those laws.

Just like in a trial the prosecutor presents evidence to persuade the jury to a conclusion of guilt. (by the way the persecutor has burden of proof because it is established by Law, not logic, that people are innocent till proven guilty.)

The BoP is established by logic because the proposition being discussed in a court room is "the defendant is guilty" which is an assertion, placing the BoP on the side making the assertion.

Innocent until proven guilty is just a phrase the legal system uses to help layman's not versed in logic or philosophy understand how the BoP works.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:18:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 1:09:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

The one time I thought you could discuss things maturely was a post you started by copying and pasting anothers argument.

Of which you were also incapable of understanding or responding.

Your responces quickly showed me you were as much a troll as ever.

Sure, go ahead and make accusations, they do nothing to support your lack of being able to reason.

And all I've said is one could just as easily and with the same amount of validity say this was cuased by God. Heuristically conclude more likely God.

Yes, a biased believer who doesn't understand science may very well come to that ridiculous conclusion, as you have done.

Of course, we're still waiting for you to provide the "objective evidence for the existence of God" you keep claiming.

You can't just reply with (blank) fallacy. No one should take that as an effective rebuttal. I could just as easily go behind your posts and reply non sequitur. And the discusion goes no where.

But, that's all your capable of offering are fallacies. My suggestion would be to read the list of fallacies, try to understand them if you can, and simply stop using them all the time.

If you have show how what I said matches with the fallacy. And informal fallacies do not garantee a negation of the conclusion. They don't even garantee the inferrence is illogical or unfounded.

I think this is like the third time I have pointed this out. You are just being trollish and that is a bad thing.

Yes, your accusations show you have nothing to say, yet again.

Is it entirely possible for you to come to a conclusion that isn't... "Goddunnit"? LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:31:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
'evidence' means very little other than "that which makes evident." At issue is the methods by which evidence is evaluated.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:45:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 1:15:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Conclusion there is No "show me the evidence" that can convince everyone of anything.

That's really all that needed to be said. Evidence is defined by its ability to convince someone, so the phrase "objective evidence" makes no sense. What we can (almost) unanimously agree on is the validity of the laws of logic, so at least with that we have a metric to determine whether evidence leads to a conclusion, or whether people who don't accept the conclusion should be discredited for failing to abide by those laws.


The Laws of Logic

The law of identity states that A is A.
The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense
The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false.

All apply to the predicate. The establish the predicate in a logical sense. They have nothing to do with weighing evidence. Merely if a statement is sensical enough to be discussed logically.

Just like in a trial the prosecutor presents evidence to persuade the jury to a conclusion of guilt. (by the way the persecutor has burden of proof because it is established by Law, not logic, that people are innocent till proven guilty.)

The BoP is established by logic because the proposition being discussed in a court room is "the defendant is guilty" which is an assertion, placing the BoP on the side making the assertion.


Wrong. no where in the laws of logic or common sense is "innocent till proven guilty" a default position. IN FACT other legal systems have "guilty till proven innocent"

These base rules of what is the default position is established by the LAW written down by men.

IN some courts the defense has the BoP to prove the default position "guilty" is false.

How many times does this erroneous use of "default position" as a logical axiom have to be shown to be a misuse of legal conditions.

Innocent until proven guilty is just a phrase the legal system uses to help layman's not versed in logic or philosophy understand how the BoP works.

You continue to understand BoP. BoP is a responsibility by the person making a claim to support that claim when challenged. THERE ARE NO FREAKING STATEMENTS THAT ARE AUTOMATICALLY TRUE IN LOGIC OR PHILOSOPHY.

You want to change your positions into a "default position" as if they are axioms. you are NO different from presuppositional Theist!!!!!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:49:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 1:18:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:09:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

The one time I thought you could discuss things maturely was a post you started by copying and pasting anothers argument.

Of which you were also incapable of understanding or responding.

Your responces quickly showed me you were as much a troll as ever.

Sure, go ahead and make accusations, they do nothing to support your lack of being able to reason.

And all I've said is one could just as easily and with the same amount of validity say this was cuased by God. Heuristically conclude more likely God.

Yes, a biased believer who doesn't understand science may very well come to that ridiculous conclusion, as you have done.

Of course, we're still waiting for you to provide the "objective evidence for the existence of God" you keep claiming.

You can't just reply with (blank) fallacy. No one should take that as an effective rebuttal. I could just as easily go behind your posts and reply non sequitur. And the discusion goes no where.

But, that's all your capable of offering are fallacies. My suggestion would be to read the list of fallacies, try to understand them if you can, and simply stop using them all the time.

If you have show how what I said matches with the fallacy. And informal fallacies do not garantee a negation of the conclusion. They don't even garantee the inferrence is illogical or unfounded.

I think this is like the third time I have pointed this out. You are just being trollish and that is a bad thing.

Yes, your accusations show you have nothing to say, yet again.

Is it entirely possible for you to come to a conclusion that isn't... "Goddunnit"? LOL.

Derision does not make a conclusion of "God did it" unreasonable or illogical.

Your use of mockery stems from a viscous circular logic you hold at the core of your skepticism.

I won't respond to your trolling any longer. Please don't reply in my posts or to my posts, so that people who want to discuss the issue can do so without trash whitespace between replies. Thank you sir.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:50:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:THERE ARE NO FREAKING STATEMENTS THAT ARE AUTOMATICALLY TRUE IN LOGIC OR PHILOSOPHY.

In deductive reasoning, the premise is by definition presumed true.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:55:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:50:24 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:THERE ARE NO FREAKING STATEMENTS THAT ARE AUTOMATICALLY TRUE IN LOGIC OR PHILOSOPHY.

In deductive reasoning, the premise is by definition presumed true.

My understanding is the premise is presumed true until challenged or evaluated for truth value.

That presumption is just to reach the conclusion and evaluate the argument for logical inference, not necessarily evaluate the conclusion for true or false.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:07:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:49:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:18:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:09:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

The one time I thought you could discuss things maturely was a post you started by copying and pasting anothers argument.

Of which you were also incapable of understanding or responding.

Your responces quickly showed me you were as much a troll as ever.

Sure, go ahead and make accusations, they do nothing to support your lack of being able to reason.

And all I've said is one could just as easily and with the same amount of validity say this was cuased by God. Heuristically conclude more likely God.

Yes, a biased believer who doesn't understand science may very well come to that ridiculous conclusion, as you have done.

Of course, we're still waiting for you to provide the "objective evidence for the existence of God" you keep claiming.

You can't just reply with (blank) fallacy. No one should take that as an effective rebuttal. I could just as easily go behind your posts and reply non sequitur. And the discusion goes no where.

But, that's all your capable of offering are fallacies. My suggestion would be to read the list of fallacies, try to understand them if you can, and simply stop using them all the time.

If you have show how what I said matches with the fallacy. And informal fallacies do not garantee a negation of the conclusion. They don't even garantee the inferrence is illogical or unfounded.

I think this is like the third time I have pointed this out. You are just being trollish and that is a bad thing.

Yes, your accusations show you have nothing to say, yet again.

Is it entirely possible for you to come to a conclusion that isn't... "Goddunnit"? LOL.

Derision does not make a conclusion of "God did it" unreasonable or illogical.

Your use of mockery stems from a viscous circular logic you hold at the core of your skepticism.

I won't respond to your trolling any longer. Please don't reply in my posts or to my posts, so that people who want to discuss the issue can do so without trash whitespace between replies. Thank you sir.

LOL. Yes, I understand you're incapable of supporting your silly claims, just say so rather than using a long list of fallacies.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:48:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why are people dancing around the obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence to reject or accept theories?
Could it be, *gasp*, that they don't have rational reasons?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:53:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:15:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Conclusion there is No "show me the evidence" that can convince everyone of anything.

That's really all that needed to be said. Evidence is defined by its ability to convince someone, so the phrase "objective evidence" makes no sense. What we can (almost) unanimously agree on is the validity of the laws of logic, so at least with that we have a metric to determine whether evidence leads to a conclusion, or whether people who don't accept the conclusion should be discredited for failing to abide by those laws.


The Laws of Logic

The law of identity states that A is A.
The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense
The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false.

All apply to the predicate. The establish the predicate in a logical sense. They have nothing to do with weighing evidence. Merely if a statement is sensical enough to be discussed logically.

They are the basis of all rational thought. I would say that has something to do with weighing evidence.

Just like in a trial the prosecutor presents evidence to persuade the jury to a conclusion of guilt. (by the way the persecutor has burden of proof because it is established by Law, not logic, that people are innocent till proven guilty.)

The BoP is established by logic because the proposition being discussed in a court room is "the defendant is guilty" which is an assertion, placing the BoP on the side making the assertion.


Wrong. no where in the laws of logic or common sense is "innocent till proven guilty" a default position. IN FACT other legal systems have "guilty till proven innocent"

These base rules of what is the default position is established by the LAW written down by men.

IN some courts the defense has the BoP to prove the default position "guilty" is false.

How many times does this erroneous use of "default position" as a logical axiom have to be shown to be a misuse of legal conditions.

Are you reading anything I write, or just looking for trigger words? No where anywhere have I said anything about the default position. You are attacking an argument of your own creation.

The reason why some justice systems require innocence to be proven is because they have decided to address the proposition "the defendant is innocent" as opposed to addressing the proposition "the defendant is guilty". They are different propositions that need to be addressed separately. In most if not all civilized societies we have decided that "the defendant is guilty" is the proposition we should address, and because the prosecution is the side that must necessarily be asserting it, and because the side that makes the assertion has the BoP, the BoP falls onto the prosecution.

Innocent until proven guilty is just a phrase the legal system uses to help layman's not versed in logic or philosophy understand how the BoP works.

You continue to understand BoP. BoP is a responsibility by the person making a claim to support that claim when challenged. THERE ARE NO FREAKING STATEMENTS THAT ARE AUTOMATICALLY TRUE IN LOGIC OR PHILOSOPHY.

You want to change your positions into a "default position" as if they are axioms. you are NO different from presuppositional Theist!!!!!

Who are you talking too?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 4:37:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:53:25 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:15:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Conclusion there is No "show me the evidence" that can convince everyone of anything.

That's really all that needed to be said. Evidence is defined by its ability to convince someone, so the phrase "objective evidence" makes no sense. What we can (almost) unanimously agree on is the validity of the laws of logic, so at least with that we have a metric to determine whether evidence leads to a conclusion, or whether people who don't accept the conclusion should be discredited for failing to abide by those laws.


The Laws of Logic

The law of identity states that A is A.
The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense
The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false.

All apply to the predicate. The establish the predicate in a logical sense. They have nothing to do with weighing evidence. Merely if a statement is sensical enough to be discussed logically.

They are the basis of all rational thought. I would say that has something to do with weighing evidence.

Just like in a trial the prosecutor presents evidence to persuade the jury to a conclusion of guilt. (by the way the persecutor has burden of proof because it is established by Law, not logic, that people are innocent till proven guilty.)

The BoP is established by logic because the proposition being discussed in a court room is "the defendant is guilty" which is an assertion, placing the BoP on the side making the assertion.


Wrong. no where in the laws of logic or common sense is "innocent till proven guilty" a default position. IN FACT other legal systems have "guilty till proven innocent"

These base rules of what is the default position is established by the LAW written down by men.

IN some courts the defense has the BoP to prove the default position "guilty" is false.

How many times does this erroneous use of "default position" as a logical axiom have to be shown to be a misuse of legal conditions.

Are you reading anything I write, or just looking for trigger words? No where anywhere have I said anything about the default position. You are attacking an argument of your own creation.

The reason why some justice systems require innocence to be proven is because they have decided to address the proposition "the defendant is innocent" as opposed to addressing the proposition "the defendant is guilty". They are different propositions that need to be addressed separately. In most if not all civilized societies we have decided that "the defendant is guilty" is the proposition we should address, and because the prosecution is the side that must necessarily be asserting it, and because the side that makes the assertion has the BoP, the BoP falls onto the prosecution.

You said this was established by logic. It is established by consensus when formalizing the system known as law.


Innocent until proven guilty is just a phrase the legal system uses to help layman's not versed in logic or philosophy understand how the BoP works.

You continue to understand BoP. BoP is a responsibility by the person making a claim to support that claim when challenged. THERE ARE NO FREAKING STATEMENTS THAT ARE AUTOMATICALLY TRUE IN LOGIC OR PHILOSOPHY.

You want to change your positions into a "default position" as if they are axioms. you are NO different from presuppositional Theist!!!!!

Who are you talking too?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 6:39:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 4:37:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:53:25 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:15:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:34:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just like in a trial the prosecutor presents evidence to persuade the jury to a conclusion of guilt. (by the way the persecutor has burden of proof because it is established by Law, not logic, that people are innocent till proven guilty.)

The BoP is established by logic because the proposition being discussed in a court room is "the defendant is guilty" which is an assertion, placing the BoP on the side making the assertion.


Wrong. no where in the laws of logic or common sense is "innocent till proven guilty" a default position. IN FACT other legal systems have "guilty till proven innocent"

These base rules of what is the default position is established by the LAW written down by men.

IN some courts the defense has the BoP to prove the default position "guilty" is false.

How many times does this erroneous use of "default position" as a logical axiom have to be shown to be a misuse of legal conditions.

Are you reading anything I write, or just looking for trigger words? No where anywhere have I said anything about the default position. You are attacking an argument of your own creation.

The reason why some justice systems require innocence to be proven is because they have decided to address the proposition "the defendant is innocent" as opposed to addressing the proposition "the defendant is guilty". They are different propositions that need to be addressed separately. In most if not all civilized societies we have decided that "the defendant is guilty" is the proposition we should address, and because the prosecution is the side that must necessarily be asserting it, and because the side that makes the assertion has the BoP, the BoP falls onto the prosecution.

You said this was established by logic. It is established by consensus when formalizing the system known as law.

I said it was established by logic because the proposition being discussed in a court room is "the defendant is guilty". Consensus can of course dictate an alternative proposition, but where the BoP is established is clear from that point.