1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The Binding of Satan

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by sooda, Feb 26, 2019.

  1. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,174
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    The part about bad evidence, and good evidence.
    What is bad evidence, and, how do you determine that evidence is bad, or good?

    So there was no objective evidence of water temperature, until the thermometer was invented? What's the difference between the thermometer and the finger?
    If someone catches on fire, at what point is it evident the person was burnt... only when they are taken to the hospital, and put under an imaging device?

    So finding a hair, and saying it looks similar to the hair on my head, therefore it must be from my head, is not objective at all, correct?


    I was in a hurry, so I didn't have time to be more specific.
    Objective evidence for a creator, would be what gives evidence of creation - like a Boeing 747 having hinges, rivets, and other designed features. The design features in nature is objective evidence of a designer.... though unidentified.


    It is known that evil acts strike us, by their very nature, as being horrifying and reprehensible, and deeply puzzling. Evil has often been seen as mysterious, demonic and beyond our human powers of under-standing.
    Why evil exist, is not something that can be objectively verified by any scientific method, since it is more a moral issue, in my view.
    However, my objective evidence for Satan being a figure of evil is based on the evidence that the Bible gives credible.testimony.


    So you accept that there is objective evidence that Jesus Christ existed as a real person. Only you don't believe there is evidence that he was who he and others claim him to be.
    Again, I go by the evidence that the witness and testimony given in the Bible, is credible.

    So, as you can see, much of my evidence is based on the credibility of the Bible.


    The list is all subjective evidence, based on your explanation - which I don't agree with, and will wait for you to address - of sticking the finger in the glass of water.
    All in that list are like looking at a hair, and saying it looks like the hair on my head, therefore it must be from my head. That's not objective.


    I wasn't on the topic of evolution here. I was asking you to prove your claim that "All of Christiany is cults, each church is it's own cult." Can you prove that claim?
     
  2. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,174
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Thank you for that.
    At least I am not the only one thinking it.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. syo

    syo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    2,855
    Ratings:
    +721
    Religion:
    pagan
    It's his task. God obeyed Satan to tempt people.
     
  4. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    3,534
    Ratings:
    +2,535
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Did I?
    Perhaps you can point where I supposedly said that the supernatural can't exist.

    Because things that can't be tested, can't rationally be believed. That's why.
    Untestable means unverifiable. Unverifiable means that you can't distinguish it from things that don't exist.

    Dude, ancient greeks knew about this and even proved it.



    That information would have come in handy in medieval Europe when the black plaque was running amok. Kind of strange that they didn't know it, while the bible, which supposedly contains this information, was pretty much the only book they were allowed to read...... :rolleyes:

    At no point in history did science think this. What a load of bs.

    I've always said this. I'm an agnostic atheist.

    That makes them not relevant.


    No, because they are just talking about what christians believe. These aren't independent accounts.
    When a muslim tells you that Mohammed split the moon in half and you then write that down, you are not validating that claim. You are instead just repeating what people tell you.

    And as I said, when it comes to such extra-ordinary claims, no amount of mere words is EVER sufficient to support such claims.

    Which turned out to be the case for every supernatural claim that was tackled and studied.

    The point.
     
  5. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    3,534
    Ratings:
    +2,535
    Religion:
    Atheist
    A thermometer is an objective measurement. A finger is not.

    Those are extremes.

    If the water is for example 29°C, you won't be getting burned. Neither will you get frostbite.
    One person might feel a cold sensation. Another might think it's hot. A third might consider it regular room tempurature.

    It's completely subjective.

    There are also rare disorders where people will feel like being on fire while the stuff they are touching isn't anywhere near that hot.

    With a thermometer, there is no discussion. It gives you the exact tempurature. No matter who puts the themometer in.

    I can't believe I need to explain this.

    Obviously.
    I'm quite certain that there are millions of people that have hair very "similar" to yours.

    You're stil engaging in an assumed conclusion by calling them "design features".
    Again, you need to actually demonstrate it, not just assert it.

    The parts of a boeing being the result of manufacturing, is very very demonstrable.
    So what features in the universe are you talking about and how have you determined that they were the result of design / manufacturing?

    Remember to actually demonstrate it - and not just assert it.

    I don't care how people have perceived it and what they labeled it and what folklore religious things they made up about it.

    I don't think there's anything "mysterious" about someone engaging in immoral acts at all.

    Now you seem to be claiming that "evil" is an entity in and of itself that independently exists regardless of human activity.
    I disagree again. Rather, evil is a label that we use to attach to certain actions of humans.
    When Hitler was brushing his teeth, he wasn't doing any evil, for example.

    So what is your justification for talking about "evil" as if it is an entity that exists independently of humans?

    Seems you are, once again, assuming your conclusion.
    You're just asserting it because you are asserting it because you already believe it.

    As we have just seen with the example of using a finger to determine tempurature, "testimony" is not objective, but subjective.

    It tells you what the person giving the testimony believes.
    It does not tell you what is actually the case.

    No, actually. Not in the sense of conclusive evidence.
    However, I consider it quite likely due to circumstantial evidence, which isn't always that objective, and common sense.


    Yep, just like I (and you) don't believe that Julius Ceasar was a descendend of the Roman gods, like he and others claimed him to be. And there is much better evidence for the historical existance of Ceasar then Jesus.

    Which is just what you believe, as explained above.
    And what you believe, is the claims of others. Which in turn is just what they believed.
    Which is not necessarily accurate.

    I know. Your evidence is that you just believe what others (= the authors of the bible) just believed. That's pretty bad evidence.

    Not at all.
    These are all objective measurements.
    It's not an opinion that there are no rabbits in the pre-cambrian.
    It's not an opinion that kangaroo's are only found in Australia.
    It's not an opinion that comparative genomics results in phylogenetic nested hierarchies.
    It's not an opinion that comparative anatomy results in the same hierarchies.
    It's not an opinion that tracking a single genetic marker matches the same hierarchies.
    it's not an opinion that speciation happens.

    All these are objective facts.
    When evolution theory predicts that humans will share more ERV's with chimps then with cats and then objective analysis of these genomes reveals exactly that, then this gives objective confirmation of the theory.

    All this is objective evidence. All of it is objectively, independently verifiable. None of it depends on the opinion or beliefs of any biologist. At no point here, is it required that one "just believes" whatever a biologist says or claims.

    No. It rather is the equivalent of extracting DNA from said hair and then matching it with your DNA, thereby determining, objectively, that the hair comes from your head.


    It seems you also don't understand that common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.
    The theory is about the process that explains said fact. HOW does that happen? How is the diversity of species accomplished. The theory is descend with modification + natural selection.

    You must be confusing me with someone else. I don't remember ever saying that. I don't really care about how you label any christian denomination. I'm fine calling it a religion like any other.
     
    #145 TagliatelliMonster, Mar 1, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2019
  6. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,174
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    We disagree in our understanding of what is objective.
    Why is a finger not an objective measurement?


    I'm being extreme? Here I am, thinking of being able to use my finger to detect heat and cold, and you are thinking about a thermometer. It seems like you want to set the bar for a home run. If objective evidence is only useful with specific situations, then it seems objective evidence is subjective... which renders it useless.


    This is your situation you created for convenience, it seems. I have never come across a cold fire.
    If your thermometer is frozen, the reading you get will be different to if it is just refrigerated, and if it is at room temperature. No different to the finger - completely subjective.
    So objective evidence is such, based on what one views a a good gauge then. Sounds subjective to me.


    Believe it. See above for why the explanation is flawed.


    Sure.
    How are the parts in the Boeing being the result of manufacturing, very very demonstrable?
    Also, let's include an android robot - the one resembling us. [​IMG]
    Its design is based off of us, It's a copy. Its joints, hinges, etc., are designed to allow it to function like the real deal.
    The parts in us, as well as other more complex working mechanism and structural components require specifications, needed to perform their function. This is very very demonstrable.


    Evil is not an entity, imo. I didn't say it was.


    Any witness or testimony can be examined to verify its credibility. It is evidence that can be objective.


    Okay


    A claim is not a belief.
    A person might say, I saw a flying saucer. You may say it's a belief, and you may well be dead wrong. In fact, your saying its a belief, is just what you believe. If the person did see a flying saucer, then you definitely have a wrong belief.



    That a pretty bad belief system you have imo.


    This highlights my earlier example of using the frozen thermometer.
    If you start with an inaccurate gauge, then the evidence that's referred to as objective, is really subjective - base on what you feel... what's in the mind.


    If there is no match, then the thing to do is admit there was no match. However, to pluck a hair from my head, and claim that there is a match, is certainly the case that there is no objection evidence.


    Oh. You're right. Sorry.
     
  7. Timothy Spurlin

    Timothy Spurlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2019
    Messages:
    377
    Ratings:
    +127
    Religion:
    Atheist
    A finger can't tell you how hot or cold something is, so it's subjective. A thermometer can tell you how hot or cold something is, the thermometer is objective.
     
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,174
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Can a finger tell me if something is hot or cold, and is that objective or subjective?
     
  9. Timothy Spurlin

    Timothy Spurlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2019
    Messages:
    377
    Ratings:
    +127
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The finger is subjective.
     
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,174
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Can a finger tell me if something is hot or cold? If yes, how is that subjective?
     
  11. Timothy Spurlin

    Timothy Spurlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2019
    Messages:
    377
    Ratings:
    +127
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The finger let's the brain know something is hot or cold. That is subjective, coming from the mind. The thermometer can tell the temperature, that makes it objective.
     
  12. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,174
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Comparative anatomy, Stratigraphy, etc. etc., etc,, are all like that finger - all subjective.
     
  13. Timothy Spurlin

    Timothy Spurlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2019
    Messages:
    377
    Ratings:
    +127
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The thermometer is objective, it can tell you the temperature.
     
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,174
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Why do you repeat that? What relevance does it have, to what was said in the last post?
     
  15. Timothy Spurlin

    Timothy Spurlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2019
    Messages:
    377
    Ratings:
    +127
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You seem to not understand the difference between subjective and objective.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,174
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    How is parroting yourself going to make me understand.
    I am tying to reason with you, so reason with me, if I am wrong.
    You said... The finger let's the brain know something is hot or cold. That is subjective,
    I said... Comparative anatomy, Stratigraphy, etc. etc., etc,, are all like that finger - all subjective.

    So reason with me.
    Do you know what Comparative anatomy, and Stratigraphy are?
    Is my statement false, or true, and why?
     
    #156 nPeace, Mar 2, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2019
  17. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    3,534
    Ratings:
    +2,535
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Comparative anatomy is a comparision of anatomical structures based on objective parameters and objective measurements.

    Your statement is false.
     
  18. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    3,534
    Ratings:
    +2,535
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Clearly.

    Because you are going by sensation, which a subjective assessment of things.
    Your conclusion is the result of how it feels to you.

    It is not an objective measurement, but an opinion.
    Case in point, we ate soup yesterday. My wife thought it was too hot. I didn't.

    The weather was a disaster and my wife felt it was cold inside and we should put the heat on. "It's definatly less then 19°C in here", she said. I was like "no, it's definatly 22 or more, I'm not cold at all".

    Turns out I was wrong. It was 18.5
    You know how I found out? I looked on the thermometer.

    No.

    It is rather the exact situation that you would expect when talking about something subjective. 3 persons doing the "measurement" and all 3 coming up with a different answer.

    When all 3 would use a thermometer, they will all agree.

    It's the difference between subjective and objective.

    If you use tools correctly, you won't have such problems.


    The only flawed thing here, is your understanding of the difference between objective and subjective.


    :rolleyes:

    It uses bolts, plastics, unnaturally occuring materials,...
    Not to mention that you can actually visit boeing manufacturing facilities and the fact that many parts have serial numbers, company logo's, brand names,....

    Function is not an indicator of design.

    It seems to me that you did. You invoked it as if it is a thing on its own.
    Perhaps you didn't mean it like that. It sounded like that to me when I read it.

    Only if the claims of the testimony are verifiable.


    No. The independent verification, if at all possible, might be objective.
    The testimony itself is always subjective, since that is always, by definition, just what the witness believes or thinks to remember.

    Why would one make a claim that (s)he does not believe?
    To believe = to accept as accurate.

    If you claim something, you accept that claim as accurate. Why else would you claim it?
    Making claims, implies belief of those claims.
    Believing something, implies a claim that is being believed.

    Can't have one without the other, it seems to me.

    Which is a claim. And that person would be implying belief in said claim.
    Why else would (s)he make such a statement?


    ????

    You don't believe what the authors of the bible believed and wrote down?

    Your example was stupid since it assumes wrong use of tools.
    Obviously when tools are not properly used, they won't give accurate results.

    So you're now claiming that thousands, if not millions, of independent scientists working in loads of various independent fields, are all incorrectly applying the tools they use for the loads of various independent studies and experiments?

    :rolleyes:

    It seems you have your work cut out for you to demonstrate how that is the case. You might want to get to work... you have over 200.000 papers to review and discuss how their methods were invalid.

    But there are matches.


    Next time you're in a court case where DNA is used to demonstrate the identity of someone, don't forget to tell the judge that that's subjective evidence and not valid. :rolleyes:
     
  19. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,174
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    What are the objective parameters and objective measurements of comparative anatomy?
     
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,174
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    If we go by how something feels to us, it it the same as going by how something looks to us, and are both therefore subjective?
    What was the "thermometer" used to determine that evolution happened?
    Without going into tons of them, including the two I previously mentioned, I'll refer to just one... from the science textbooks.
    I am not even going to touch on the debates over the so-called objective evidence... unless I am pressed to.

    The evolution of whales
    Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

    These first whales, such as
    Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorousteeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.

    Compared to other early whales, like
    Indohyus and Pakicetus, Ambulocetus looks like it lived a more aquatic lifestyle. Its legs are shorter, and its hands and feet are enlarged like paddles. Its tail is longer and more muscular, too. The hypothesis that Ambulocetus lived an aquatic life is also supported by evidence from stratigraphy — Ambulocetus's fossils were recovered from sediments that probably comprised an ancient estuary — and from the isotopes of oxygen in its bones. Animals are what they eat and drink, and saltwater and freshwater have different ratios of oxygen isotopes. This means that we can learn about what sort of water an animal drank by studying the isotopes that were incorporated into its bones and teeth as it grew. The isotopes show that Ambulocetus likely drank both saltwater and freshwater, which fits perfectly with the idea that these animals lived in estuaries or bays between freshwater and the open ocean.

    Probably I don't understand what you are saying TagliatelliMonster.

    Where did you read that I said function is an indicator of design. As far as I can see, you haven't really addressed what I said.
    As regard the question, it does not focus on Boeing, it involved a robot, and it can be any robot - no brand name; Just rivets, screws, and other components.
    You know it's designed by the parts, being in place, at the precise location, to allow for those parts to function, in a particular way, to a particular end, or goal.
    That's a way you tell design. Correct?


    So therefore, the verification of the testimony of the witnesses, may be in harmony with objective evidence.
    What therefore, would the objective evidence be, in the case of the witnesses testimony in the Bible?


    I don't believe you can rightly, and verifiable refer to a claim, as a belief.
    That is your belief.
    Until you can show that the claim is a belief, it (the eyewitness' claim) is an objective opinion.


    Thus highlighting my point about the absurdity of people believing they have objective evidence, even though using faulty tools - in other words inaccurate measuring instruments.


    We can look closely at those tools, individually after I hear your response on my above questions.


    It appears to me, you misunderstood me.
    I'm not saying that it has been demonstrated. Note the word claim.
    To demonstrate, is to show. To claim, is to say. Both are different, as I am sure you are aware. :)
     
Loading...