Total Posts:602|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation

DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.
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
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 9:54:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The bible predicted there would be premature masturbaters like you.

Deuteronomy 23:10 New International Version
If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there.

Do you deny this is not an Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation and a fact?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 9:59:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it?

Mike, I think there's enough interest here to warrant a link and an attached explanation of your claim, and how the link supports it.

I don't think a hardcopy would add credibility, unless it also heals the sick.

[And Danne, with your indulgence I would like to put up definitions of objective and verifiable, unless you'd care to offer your own. It's my experience that people are nothing like rigorous about what they mean. :)]
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 10:03:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 9:59:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it?

Mike, I think there's enough interest here to warrant a link and an attached explanation of your claim, and how the link supports it.

I don't think a hardcopy would add credibility, unless it also heals the sick.

[And Danne, with your indulgence I would like to put up definitions of objective and verifiable, unless you'd care to offer your own. It's my experience that people are nothing like rigorous about what they mean. :)]

By all means, please do. (:
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
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 10:06:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).

I look forward to your objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 10:16:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 10:06:34 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).

I look forward to your objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation.

You mean the second objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation. I provided evidence of the first.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 10:27:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 10:16:31 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:06:34 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).

I look forward to your objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation.

You mean the second objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation. I provided evidence of the first.

Of course, how could I have forgotten?
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 10:38:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 10:27:51 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:16:31 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:06:34 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).

I look forward to your objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation.

You mean the second objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation. I provided evidence of the first.

Of course, how could I have forgotten?

Thanks. I am sure a few have called a timeout and clapped at your correction. I would have been a little more concerned if you said you couldn't read the verse. But it appears you are only losing your memory.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:07:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 10:03:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/23/2015 9:59:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it?

Mike, I think there's enough interest here to warrant a link and an attached explanation of your claim, and how the link supports it.

I don't think a hardcopy would add credibility, unless it also heals the sick.

[And Danne, with your indulgence I would like to put up definitions of objective and verifiable, unless you'd care to offer your own. It's my experience that people are nothing like rigorous about what they mean. :)]

By all means, please do. (:

Thanks, Danne.

For objectivity, I'll quote from the introductory chapter of the book Objectivity, by Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison: [http://www.amazon.com...]

To be objective is to aspire to knowledge that bears no trace of the knower -- knowledge unmarked by prejudice or skill, fantasy or judgement, wishing or striving. Objectivity is blind sight, seeing without inference, interpretation or intelligence.

What I like about this definition is that objectivity is defined aspirationally, recognising that our efficacy is limited by what we don't know about ourselves, the object and our methods. But it's also cast as diligent effort, which means we need to declare and make all reasonable efforts to eliminate prejudice, artifice, inference, interpretation or claims to prior knowledge prior to making an observation. Finally, it must be transparent: it's not enough that we satisfy ourselves we've done so -- we have to satisfy others that we could not do better.

Thus, the objectivity of our observations is never ours to assess, and it's not approved by consensus either. It's assessed by informed, accountable scrutiny. It's distinct from believing our observations true or right, and it's different to pleading that there's no objectivity because all efforts are potentially imperfect.

Boiling it down: objectivity is diligent, transparent, accountable effort to remove the observer from the observation.

For verification I'll use a definition generally accepted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and which is uncontroversial in the sciences too. [https://standards.ieee.org...] Verification is:

Evaluation of whether or not a product or activity complies with [pre] imposed conditions related to the consumer's needs.

In this case, since the observation purports to objectively prove an hypothesis, I think the verification conditions need to comprise:

* Objectivity -- all care has been taken to eliminate prejudice, interpretation, inference, imprecision and prior knowledge;
* Transparency-- the specific details of the observation, methods and circumstances are meticulously documented; and
* Corroboration -- the observation and its methods have been witnessed by credible, independent parties competent and diligent in understanding and applying objectivity and transparency; and finally
* Sufficiency -- must be sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt -- i.e. must be inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conjecture other than that claimed.

That's a very big deal.

For fifty years, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) offered a million dollar prize to anyone able to show objectively, transparently and with corroboration any evidence sufficient to demonstrate paranormal agency or insight beyond reasonable doubt. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (This activity has recently scaled back with Randi's retirement this year.) Most applicants weren't able to even show that they understood what objectivity, transparency, corroboration and sufficiency meant.

But there's still a million bucks up for grabs if scmike2 can offer objective, transparent, corroborated evidence sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that what was talking to him was God. :)

I hope that may be useful. :)
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:12:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 9:59:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it?

Mike, I think there's enough interest here to warrant a link and an attached explanation of your claim, and how the link supports it.

I don't think a hardcopy would add credibility, unless it also heals the sick.

With due respect, that sounds rather arbitrary (and biased). What is your objective basis for that particular standard of credibility you wish to employ here in evaluating the evidence presented to you? I admit I am very interested in this discussion too, so long as it can be conducted in a rational manner. I do hope that will be possible. I will await your response.

[And Danne, with your indulgence I would like to put up definitions of objective and verifiable, unless you'd care to offer your own. It's my experience that people are nothing like rigorous about what they mean. :)]
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:15:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 9:06:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
Waiting for a bible quote as 'objective verification'...

Sounds like you've already formed a conclusion here before examining the evidence, dhardage. Do you object to the Bible being used as evidence? If so, on what rational grounds do you reject it as such?
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:24:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 9:54:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The bible predicted there would be premature masturbaters like you.

Deuteronomy 23:10 New International Version
If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there.

Do you deny this is not an Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation and a fact?

Harikrish, this is your first and only warning. If the offensive tone of your comments continues, I will not respond to you. If you'd like to rephrase the question into something resembling a rational inquiry instead of a juvenile attempt at crude humor/insult, then I will be glad to take you seriously and respond. If not, thank you for your time.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:26:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 10:06:34 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).

I look forward to your objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation.

Sure thing! Same question to you as dannejerusse. Let me know which you prefer.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:28:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 10:27:51 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:16:31 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:06:34 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).

I look forward to your objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation.

You mean the second objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation. I provided evidence of the first.

Of course, how could I have forgotten?

Same goes for you as Harikrish, Joe. I am here for rational discussion. If you are not, then thank you for your time.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:31:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:12:08 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 9:59:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:
I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.
Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.
Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it?

Mike, I think there's enough interest here to warrant a link and an attached explanation of your claim, and how the link supports it.
I don't think a hardcopy would add credibility, unless it also heals the sick.

What is your objective basis for that particular standard of credibility you wish to employ here in evaluating the evidence presented to you?
A hardcopy that healed the sick would certainly be significant, but isn't necessary and anyway, the forum isn't really geared to test that. :)

In any case, I thought the questions of objectivity and verification might come up, so with Danne's consent I've proposed and justified some definitions of objectivity and verification that are accepted all through the STEM disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. [http://www.debate.org...]

(By way of disclosure, I'm a trained scientist who has researched, taught and managed research at the graduate and postgraduate levels. So this isn't just book-learning or philosophy, but applied practical knowledge, which I'm happy to explain further if you wish.)

I admit I am very interested in this discussion too, so long as it can be conducted in a rational manner. I do hope that will be possible. I will await your response.
I can do better than just rational discourse, Mike: while I can't speak for anyone else in-thread, I can promise a courteous interaction toward any respectful and intellectually honest dialogue. :)

[On the other hand, I can't promise the same if it's not. :)]
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:31:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:26:43 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:06:34 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).

I look forward to your objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation.

Sure thing! Same question to you as dannejerusse. Let me know which you prefer.

I would prefer a link.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:39:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:24:56 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 9:54:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The bible predicted there would be premature masturbaters like you.

Deuteronomy 23:10 New International Version
If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there.

Do you deny this is not an Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation and a fact?

Harikrish, this is your first and only warning. If the offensive tone of your comments continues, I will not respond to you. If you'd like to rephrase the question into something resembling a rational inquiry instead of a juvenile attempt at crude humor/insult, then I will be glad to take you seriously and respond. If not, thank you for your time.

Let he who is without soiled hands cast the first stone. Scriptural correctness!!!
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:45:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:07:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:03:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/23/2015 9:59:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it?

Mike, I think there's enough interest here to warrant a link and an attached explanation of your claim, and how the link supports it.

I don't think a hardcopy would add credibility, unless it also heals the sick.

[And Danne, with your indulgence I would like to put up definitions of objective and verifiable, unless you'd care to offer your own. It's my experience that people are nothing like rigorous about what they mean. :)]

By all means, please do. (:

Thanks, Danne.

For objectivity, I'll quote from the introductory chapter of the book Objectivity, by Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison: [http://www.amazon.com...]

To be objective is to aspire to knowledge that bears no trace of the knower -- knowledge unmarked by prejudice or skill, fantasy or judgement, wishing or striving. Objectivity is blind sight, seeing without inference, interpretation or intelligence.

What I like about this definition is that objectivity is defined aspirationally, recognising that our efficacy is limited by what we don't know about ourselves, the object and our methods. But it's also cast as diligent effort, which means we need to declare and make all reasonable efforts to eliminate prejudice, artifice, inference, interpretation or claims to prior knowledge prior to making an observation. Finally, it must be transparent: it's not enough that we satisfy ourselves we've done so -- we have to satisfy others that we could not do better.

Thus, the objectivity of our observations is never ours to assess, and it's not approved by consensus either. It's assessed by informed, accountable scrutiny. It's distinct from believing our observations true or right, and it's different to pleading that there's no objectivity because all efforts are potentially imperfect.

Boiling it down: objectivity is diligent, transparent, accountable effort to remove the observer from the observation.

For verification I'll use a definition generally accepted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and which is uncontroversial in the sciences too. [https://standards.ieee.org...] Verification is:

Evaluation of whether or not a product or activity complies with [pre] imposed conditions related to the consumer's needs.

In this case, since the observation purports to objectively prove an hypothesis, I think the verification conditions need to comprise:

* Objectivity -- all care has been taken to eliminate prejudice, interpretation, inference, imprecision and prior knowledge;
* Transparency-- the specific details of the observation, methods and circumstances are meticulously documented; and
* Corroboration -- the observation and its methods have been witnessed by credible, independent parties competent and diligent in understanding and applying objectivity and transparency; and finally
* Sufficiency -- must be sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt -- i.e. must be inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conjecture other than that claimed.

That's a very big deal.

For fifty years, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) offered a million dollar prize to anyone able to show objectively, transparently and with corroboration any evidence sufficient to demonstrate paranormal agency or insight beyond reasonable doubt. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (This activity has recently scaled back with Randi's retirement this year.) Most applicants weren't able to even show that they understood what objectivity, transparency, corroboration and sufficiency meant.

But there's still a million bucks up for grabs if scmike2 can offer objective, transparent, corroborated evidence sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that what was talking to him was God. :)

I hope that may be useful. :)

Very useful indeed! Not interested, though. Persuasion is determined by our respective presuppositions and is therefore very subjective since no one will find persuasive something they do not wish to (which is no doubt why Mr. Randi still has his million dollars). Unfortunately you will reject any evidence that does not fit your presupposition that God does not exist and the Bible is not true. Like it or not, you are not neutral with regards to this issue and neither am I. I hold the God of the Bible to be my ultimate Authority and the foundation of my (and all) human reasoning while you do not--hence, the impass when it comes to how we interpret any evidence presented to us as proof for the contrary position.

Of course, if you'd like to get to the heart of the matter and compare our respective presuppositions to see which are rationally defensible and which provide a logical, objective (i.e. non-arbitrary) basis for the things we claim to know to be true, then count me in. If not, thank you for your time as well.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:54:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:31:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:12:08 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 9:59:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:
I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.
Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.
Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it?

Mike, I think there's enough interest here to warrant a link and an attached explanation of your claim, and how the link supports it.
I don't think a hardcopy would add credibility, unless it also heals the sick.

What is your objective basis for that particular standard of credibility you wish to employ here in evaluating the evidence presented to you?

A hardcopy that healed the sick would certainly be significant, but isn't necessary and anyway, the forum isn't really geared to test that. :)

Still though, your arbitrary standard of evaluation concerns me. This is not looking very promising.

In any case, I thought the questions of objectivity and verification might come up, so with Danne's consent I've proposed and justified some definitions of objectivity and verification that are accepted all through the STEM disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. [http://www.debate.org...]

(By way of disclosure, I'm a trained scientist who has researched, taught and managed research at the graduate and postgraduate levels. So this isn't just book-learning or philosophy, but applied practical knowledge, which I'm happy to explain further if you wish.)

I admit I am very interested in this discussion too, so long as it can be conducted in a rational manner. I do hope that will be possible. I will await your response.

I can do better than just rational discourse, Mike: while I can't speak for anyone else in-thread, I can promise a courteous interaction toward any respectful and intellectually honest dialogue. :)

I appreciate the courtesy and hope to reciprocate IF we are able to proceed. To be honest, it's not looking very promising early on with regards to the rationality of the comments nor the proposed standards of argumentation and evaluation of evidence I have seen. Again, I do hope that changes.

Unfortunately,
[On the other hand, I can't promise the same if it's not. :)]
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:58:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:31:51 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:26:43 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:06:34 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).

I look forward to your objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation.

Sure thing! Same question to you as dannejerusse. Let me know which you prefer.

I would prefer a link.

Done!

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Looking forward to the logical discourse regarding the proof! Let me know of any rational objections you have to it and I will be happy to accommodate them.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 12:03:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:45:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:07:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Boiling it down: objectivity is diligent, transparent, accountable effort to remove the observer from the observation.

For verification I'll use a definition generally accepted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and which is uncontroversial in the sciences too. [https://standards.ieee.org...] Verification is:

Evaluation of whether or not a product or activity complies with [pre] imposed conditions related to the consumer's needs.

In this case, since the observation purports to objectively prove an hypothesis, I think the verification conditions need to comprise:

* Objectivity -- all care has been taken to eliminate prejudice, interpretation, inference, imprecision and prior knowledge;
* Transparency-- the specific details of the observation, methods and circumstances are meticulously documented; and
* Corroboration -- the observation and its methods have been witnessed by credible, independent parties competent and diligent in understanding and applying objectivity and transparency; and finally
* Sufficiency -- must be sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt -- i.e. must be inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conjecture other than that claimed.
Very useful indeed! Not interested, though. Persuasion is determined by our respective presuppositions and is therefore very subjective since no one will find persuasive something they do not wish to

That's why objectivity is required. And the people who most embrace objectivity change their minds best of all.

Stephen Hawking for example, famously lost nearly all of his scientific wagers, winning only one... and he has had the integrity to pay up every time. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Here's astronomer Carl Sagan saying the same:

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

What a pity that you blame others for your own low standard of intellectual honesty, Mike.

What a pity that you blame others for anticipating such dishonesty, only to disappoint them by fulfilling their expectations to the letter.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 12:14:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:58:39 PM, scmike2 wrote:

Done!

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Looking forward to the logical discourse regarding the proof! Let me know of any rational objections you have to it and I will be happy to accommodate them.

Well, that certainly was anti-climactic and disappointing.

At the very least, we did get an excellent explanation from Ruv regarding Objectivity and Verifiable. Kudos to him for making that effort.
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
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 12:28:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:58:39 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:31:51 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:26:43 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:06:34 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).

I look forward to your objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation.

Sure thing! Same question to you as dannejerusse. Let me know which you prefer.

I would prefer a link.

Done!

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Looking forward to the logical discourse regarding the proof! Let me know of any rational objections you have to it and I will be happy to accommodate them.

Please explain to me how your holy book is objective verifiable proof of divine revelation, because I really don't see it.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 12:29:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 9:06:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
Waiting for a bible quote as 'objective verification'...

Well, you got a lot more than that-- you got the whole KJV Bible in a convenient online format! I always wondered how to get one...

Hopefully no one here expected any more than THAT though. *(muted trumpet) wah, wah*

Here's how it works (and here's where Poe's Law kicks in pretty hard):

P1: The Bible claims to be the word of God
P2: The Bible claims to be infallible
C: The Bible is the infallible word of God and can be used as objective evidence of His divine revelation

QED
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 12:31:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 12:03:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:45:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:07:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Boiling it down: objectivity is diligent, transparent, accountable effort to remove the observer from the observation.

For verification I'll use a definition generally accepted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and which is uncontroversial in the sciences too. [https://standards.ieee.org...] Verification is:

Evaluation of whether or not a product or activity complies with [pre] imposed conditions related to the consumer's needs.

In this case, since the observation purports to objectively prove an hypothesis, I think the verification conditions need to comprise:

* Objectivity -- all care has been taken to eliminate prejudice, interpretation, inference, imprecision and prior knowledge;
* Transparency-- the specific details of the observation, methods and circumstances are meticulously documented; and
* Corroboration -- the observation and its methods have been witnessed by credible, independent parties competent and diligent in understanding and applying objectivity and transparency; and finally
* Sufficiency -- must be sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt -- i.e. must be inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conjecture other than that claimed.
Very useful indeed! Not interested, though. Persuasion is determined by our respective presuppositions and is therefore very subjective since no one will find persuasive something they do not wish to

That's why objectivity is required.

And unfortunately, it didn't take you long (your very first post to me in fact) to demonstrate that you do not (and cannot) possess it with regards to this issue. The comments that have followed from the others are certainly by and large devoid of it too. Hence, your (and their) presuppositional bias is exposed. Now, shall we get down to business, and find out which of our worldviews is internally consistent and can be rationally defended or shall we not?

Stephen Hawking for example, famously lost nearly all of his scientific wagers, winning only one... and he has had the integrity to pay up every time. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Here's astronomer Carl Sagan saying the same:

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

Bingo!! Your religious views versus mine is what this boils down to, since we both have presuppositions that we are bringing to the table which form the foundation of our worldview by which we interpret any and all evidence presented to us. Again, shall we compare to see whose is rational and whose is not?

What a pity that you blame others for your own low standard of intellectual honesty, Mike.

Alas, I see you have run out of arguments before you have even begun as the baseless allegations indicate. Again, your bias is showing.

What a pity that you blame others for anticipating such dishonesty, only to disappoint them by fulfilling their expectations to the letter.

Hahaha. I totally disagree with this unjustified allegation. However, if you were EXPECTING dishonesty, then you concede that you came to this discussion in a non-objective state of mind to begin with. As such, you have only served to confirm (again) the very thing that I have claimed about your inability to be objective here. No, I am not clairvoyant, folks! : D

Thanks for your time, RubDrava! Much has been accomplished in this short expose'. Take care.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 12:31:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm going to ruin his joke and reveal the punchline.
"Pop Goes The Weasel"
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 12:33:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 12:14:06 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:58:39 PM, scmike2 wrote:

Done!

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Looking forward to the logical discourse regarding the proof! Let me know of any rational objections you have to it and I will be happy to accommodate them.

Well, that certainly was anti-climactic and disappointing.

At the very least, we did get an excellent explanation from Ruv regarding Objectivity and Verifiable. Kudos to him for making that effort.

If only he could live consistently with what he professes. Pity.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 12:36:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 12:28:41 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:58:39 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:31:51 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:26:43 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:06:34 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:49:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:41:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:48:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:

I do, however, have an objectively verifiable, Divine Revelation which tells me that EVERYONE knows that God exists, such that I can be certain of it.

Oh yeah, this needs to be scrutinized. Go ahead scmike2, let's see your Objectively Verifiable Divine Revelation. I won't bother putting up the definitions of Objective and Verifiable as I assume you completely understand those terms.

Sure thing! Do you prefer a hard copy or a link to it? Also let me know if English is your first language of choice and if you would like it engraved with your initials or full name (only available on a hard copy, of course).

I look forward to your objectively verifiable evidence of divine revelation.

Sure thing! Same question to you as dannejerusse. Let me know which you prefer.

I would prefer a link.

Done!

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Looking forward to the logical discourse regarding the proof! Let me know of any rational objections you have to it and I will be happy to accommodate them.

Please explain to me how your holy book is objective verifiable proof of divine revelation, because I really don't see it.

Sure. It can be examined by all, is internally consistent, comports with reality and makes sense of the preconditions of intelligibilty (logic, truth, knowledge, morality, and the uniformity of nature) required for human beings to makes sense of the world around us. Hope that'll do for starters.