bornagainathiest Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I'm going out on a limb here, Prof. (Apologies in advance to End3 if I'm wrong, mistaken or have misrepresented you in any way.) I don't think End3 is a formally trained and qualified analytical scientist. I do think he's a formally trained and qualified analytical technician. Of course... you could just ask him. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 End, Regarding posts # 3, 5, 14 and 15, we are still no closer to knowing or understanding what you mean by, "the truth". Could you please define what you mean by those words? (Please note that I'm not asking about the method you use to get to the truth. I'm asking for your understanding of what the truth itself is.) Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 End, Regarding posts # 3, 5, 14 and 15, we are still no closer to knowing or understanding what you mean by, "the truth". Could you please define what you mean by those words? (Please note that I'm not asking about the method you use to get to the truth. I'm asking for your understanding of what the truth itself is.) Thanks, BAA. We have the Bible and creation, which are testable, but we have no methods for testing qualities like love, joy, hope, that I am aware. I am simply making a theoretical assertion that these untestable qualities point to the truths defined as or given to us by God. And I hear the consensus saying that our subjectivity negates any commonality we would have in the results have we adequate methods. Just an off the cuff thought....it seems that we are subject to an already existing truth, and should be open, not closed to faithfully accepting theoretical associations as they present themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I'm going out on a limb here, Prof. (Apologies in advance to End3 if I'm wrong, mistaken or have misrepresented you in any way.) I don't think End3 is a formally trained and qualified analytical scientist. I do think he's a formally trained and qualified analytical technician. Of course... you could just ask him. Thanks, BAA. Yes, I am lacking, but my point was that even with pretty rigid effort, we are still different....was just a reminder. Thanks for the effort though Prof, but I didn't really need the lecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Consider this great "experiment" called "life". Do the results seem reproducible to you? Does the "experiment" seem like it was designed by a competent scientist? Orange people become president while black people wonder if their lives matter? What kind of control group to we have? If you would but apply the scientific method, in its most basic form (observe, hypothesize, experiment, conclude), to the faith you so desperately cling to, you would easily see that faith is a failure. We've had this conversation....my theory is it is a genetic clusterf&*k and hence the array. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Love joy and hope are not truth End. They are emotions. And, I'm pretty sure they can be measured by looking at brain activity in the regions that are related to those emotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Love joy and hope are not truth End. They are emotions. And, I'm pretty sure they can be measured by looking at brain activity in the regions that are related to those emotions. Not sure those are accurate statements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 End, Regarding posts # 3, 5, 14 and 15, we are still no closer to knowing or understanding what you mean by, "the truth". Could you please define what you mean by those words? (Please note that I'm not asking about the method you use to get to the truth. I'm asking for your understanding of what the truth itself is.) Thanks, BAA. We have the Bible and creation, which are testable, but we have no methods for testing qualities like love, joy, hope, that I am aware. I am simply making a theoretical assertion that these untestable qualities point to the truths defined as or given to us by God. And I hear the consensus saying that our subjectivity negates any commonality we would have in the results have we adequate methods. Just an off the cuff thought....it seems that we are subject to an already existing truth, and should be open, not closed to faithfully accepting theoretical associations as they present themselves. Thanks for the reply, End. That clarifies things. However, you make this assertion because of your Christian faith, right? Your assertion isn't an unemotional and dispassionate inquiry into human emotion, is it? Instead, you deeply, urgently and passionately want your Christian faith to be verified by these tests, don't you? And therein lies a big, BIG problem. With your emotional need for your beliefs to be confirmed being so strong, how do you propose to counter the problem of confirmation bias, when you make these tests? After all, just two days ago you said to the Prof... "each person performing an "experiment" will have their own built in bias." Faith will be of no help to you in eliminating confirmation bias from the tests. In fact, you need to put aside your faith to make the tests as free from confirmation bias as possible. You agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I'm going out on a limb here, Prof. (Apologies in advance to End3 if I'm wrong, mistaken or have misrepresented you in any way.) I don't think End3 is a formally trained and qualified analytical scientist. I do think he's a formally trained and qualified analytical technician. Of course... you could just ask him. Thanks, BAA. Yes, I am lacking, but my point was that even with pretty rigid effort, we are still different....was just a reminder. Thanks for the effort though Prof, but I didn't really need the lecture. Thank you for being so candid, End. Years of experience in the Den tell me that you don't lack for strength of will, stubborns and steely resolve. Nor do you lack such things as drive, inner fire and passion. But, are these qualities really suited to the task of successfully minimizing your own emotion-driven biases and needs? Managing ones biases should always come before having our needs fulfilled and our beliefs confirmed. Wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 End, Regarding posts # 3, 5, 14 and 15, we are still no closer to knowing or understanding what you mean by, "the truth". Could you please define what you mean by those words? (Please note that I'm not asking about the method you use to get to the truth. I'm asking for your understanding of what the truth itself is.) Thanks, BAA. We have the Bible and creation, which are testable, but we have no methods for testing qualities like love, joy, hope, that I am aware. I am simply making a theoretical assertion that these untestable qualities point to the truths defined as or given to us by God. And I hear the consensus saying that our subjectivity negates any commonality we would have in the results have we adequate methods. Just an off the cuff thought....it seems that we are subject to an already existing truth, and should be open, not closed to faithfully accepting theoretical associations as they present themselves. Thanks for the reply, End. That clarifies things. However, you make this assertion because of your Christian faith, right? Your assertion isn't an unemotional and dispassionate inquiry into human emotion, is it? Instead, you deeply, urgently and passionately want your Christian faith to be verified by these tests, don't you? And therein lies a big, BIG problem. With your emotional need for your beliefs to be confirmed being so strong, how do you propose to counter the problem of confirmation bias, when you make these tests? After all, just two days ago you said to the Prof... "each person performing an "experiment" will have their own built in bias." Faith will be of no help to you in eliminating confirmation bias from the tests. In fact, you need to put aside your faith to make the tests as free from confirmation bias as possible. You agree? Really a good question. Going to have to think about it given adding emotions to the mix, painting a more complete interpretation of the truth. I know that sounds iffy, but it just is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 End, Regarding posts # 3, 5, 14 and 15, we are still no closer to knowing or understanding what you mean by, "the truth". Could you please define what you mean by those words? (Please note that I'm not asking about the method you use to get to the truth. I'm asking for your understanding of what the truth itself is.) Thanks, BAA. We have the Bible and creation, which are testable, but we have no methods for testing qualities like love, joy, hope, that I am aware. I am simply making a theoretical assertion that these untestable qualities point to the truths defined as or given to us by God. And I hear the consensus saying that our subjectivity negates any commonality we would have in the results have we adequate methods. Just an off the cuff thought....it seems that we are subject to an already existing truth, and should be open, not closed to faithfully accepting theoretical associations as they present themselves. Thanks for the reply, End. That clarifies things. However, you make this assertion because of your Christian faith, right? Your assertion isn't an unemotional and dispassionate inquiry into human emotion, is it? Instead, you deeply, urgently and passionately want your Christian faith to be verified by these tests, don't you? And therein lies a big, BIG problem. With your emotional need for your beliefs to be confirmed being so strong, how do you propose to counter the problem of confirmation bias, when you make these tests? After all, just two days ago you said to the Prof... "each person performing an "experiment" will have their own built in bias." Faith will be of no help to you in eliminating confirmation bias from the tests. In fact, you need to put aside your faith to make the tests as free from confirmation bias as possible. You agree? Really a good question. Going to have to think about it given adding emotions to the mix, painting a more complete interpretation of the truth. I know that sounds iffy, but it just is... Kudos and thanks to you End for being so straight about this. Maybe you can bring some of that steely resolve that I know you have to bear on this? And if you want input, advice and help, I'm sure that you'll get it here if you ask for it. Take your time over this, because what you are doing isn't easy. Wishing you strength to overcome, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts