Free Will

[Guest end3]

If you guys will read, it's really not out of context..

 

Get over it.

[Neverlandrut]

I re-read. I'm not taking it back. It's a valid observation for a believer. I will find Scripture to support this view if you wish.

No. Scriptures do not SUPPORT your views. They are your views! Your views are directly informed by scriptures, so to turn right back around and say that scripture supports your views is nothing more than circular reasoning! Your views = scriptural claims. They are the same claims. The scripture is what needs evidence. Your confirmation biased pseudoscience is not evidence.

[Guest end3]

 

I re-read. I'm not taking it back. It's a valid observation for a believer. I will find Scripture to support this view if you wish.

No. Scriptures do not SUPPORT your views. They are your views! Your views are directly informed by scriptures, so to turn right back around and say that scripture supports your views is nothing more than circular reasoning! Your views = scriptural claims. They are the same claims. The scripture is what needs evidence. Your confirmation biased pseudoscience is not evidence.

 

I had views prior to reading Scripture. And after reading, they correlate in my mind. To what standard you ask, that's subjective.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

I re-read. I'm not taking it back. It's a valid observation for a believer. I will find Scripture to support this view if you wish.

No. Scriptures do not SUPPORT your views. They are your views! Your views are directly informed by scriptures, so to turn right back around and say that scripture supports your views is nothing more than circular reasoning! Your views = scriptural claims. They are the same claims. The scripture is what needs evidence. Your confirmation biased pseudoscience is not evidence.

I had views prior to reading Scripture. And after reading, they correlate in my mind. To what standard you ask, that's subjective.

Regardless, the point still holds. Scripture is subjective view as well and still needs evidence. You citing a third party subjective view that correlated to your own subjective view proves nothing. Scripture still needs independent, verifiable evidence for it's claims. No amount of text can prove such extraordinary claims as supernatural claims. "Supernatural" by a caveat definition is "non-verifiable in nature." Therefore such claims are not provable. Therefore the only way to believe them is by faith. I would have much more respect or you of you would just admit this instead of making this implicit bull-shit claim that you are using science to somehow prove biblical claims.

[Roz]

Neverland, god glasses man, he can't see it because of his self imposed mental block.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

I re-read. I'm not taking it back. It's a valid observation for a believer. I will find Scripture to support this view if you wish.

No. Scriptures do not SUPPORT your views. They are your views! Your views are directly informed by scriptures, so to turn right back around and say that scripture supports your views is nothing more than circular reasoning! Your views = scriptural claims. They are the same claims. The scripture is what needs evidence. Your confirmation biased pseudoscience is not evidence.

 

I had views prior to reading Scripture. And after reading, they correlate in my mind. To what standard you ask, that's subjective.

 

Regardless, the point still holds. Scripture is subjective view as well and still needs evidence. You citing a third party subjective view that correlated to your own subjective view proves nothing. Scripture still needs independent, verifiable evidence for it's claims. No amount of text can prove such extraordinary claims as supernatural claims. "Supernatural" by a caveat definition is "non-verifiable in nature." Therefore such claims are not provable. Therefore the only way to sliver them is by faith. I would have much more respect or you of you would just admit this instead of making this implicit bull-shit claim that you are using science to somehow prove biblical claims.

 

Lol, fine, I'll call it soft science.

[Guest end3]

Neverland, god glasses man, he can't see it because of his self imposed mental block.

Roz, I find it difficult to believe you could even spell science....

[Roz]

 

Neverland, god glasses man, he can't see it because of his self imposed mental block.

Roz, I find it difficult to believe you could even spell science....

 

 

See, this is the christian's MO.  He's not mentally capable of anything else.  Remember when Ken Ham attempted to split science between observational and historical science?  How many scientists bought that?  Or changed their scientific method?  

 

It's impossible for End3, he's in too deep with christianity.  He's one of the fundamentalists I know who declared he will do what his god says, no matter what it is.  I can find the quote, but you all probably remember it.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

I re-read. I'm not taking it back. It's a valid observation for a believer. I will find Scripture to support this view if you wish.

No. Scriptures do not SUPPORT your views. They are your views! Your views are directly informed by scriptures, so to turn right back around and say that scripture supports your views is nothing more than circular reasoning! Your views = scriptural claims. They are the same claims. The scripture is what needs evidence. Your confirmation biased pseudoscience is not evidence.

I had views prior to reading Scripture. And after reading, they correlate in my mind. To what standard you ask, that's subjective.

Regardless, the point still holds. Scripture is subjective view as well and still needs evidence. You citing a third party subjective view that correlated to your own subjective view proves nothing. Scripture still needs independent, verifiable evidence for it's claims. No amount of text can prove such extraordinary claims as supernatural claims. "Supernatural" by a caveat definition is "non-verifiable in nature." Therefore such claims are not provable. Therefore the only way to sliver them is by faith. I would have much more respect or you of you would just admit this instead of making this implicit bull-shit claim that you are using science to somehow prove biblical claims.

Lol, fine, I'll call it soft science.

Call it what you want but what it is is pseudoscience, and it, again, can only lead to false conclusions because pseudoscience is based in confirmation bias which ignores that data it does not like or agree with. It is, therefore, impossible for "soft science" to come to any accurate conclusion.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

I re-read. I'm not taking it back. It's a valid observation for a believer. I will find Scripture to support this view if you wish.

No. Scriptures do not SUPPORT your views. They are your views! Your views are directly informed by scriptures, so to turn right back around and say that scripture supports your views is nothing more than circular reasoning! Your views = scriptural claims. They are the same claims. The scripture is what needs evidence. Your confirmation biased pseudoscience is not evidence.

 

I had views prior to reading Scripture. And after reading, they correlate in my mind. To what standard you ask, that's subjective.

 

Regardless, the point still holds. Scripture is subjective view as well and still needs evidence. You citing a third party subjective view that correlated to your own subjective view proves nothing. Scripture still needs independent, verifiable evidence for it's claims. No amount of text can prove such extraordinary claims as supernatural claims. "Supernatural" by a caveat definition is "non-verifiable in nature." Therefore such claims are not provable. Therefore the only way to sliver them is by faith. I would have much more respect or you of you would just admit this instead of making this implicit bull-shit claim that you are using science to somehow prove biblical claims.

 

Lol, fine, I'll call it soft science.

 

Call it what you want but what it is is pseudoscience, and it, again, can only lead to false conclusions because pseudoscience is based in confirmation bias which ignores that data it does not like or agree with. It is, therefore, impossible for "soft science" to come to any accurate conclusion.

 

Respectfully N, why would subjectivity not be an integral part of science? Isn't that the point of certainty calculations? I don't think it's invalid to question and test. It's still science.

[Roz]

This is too funny, trying to say that religion's equal to science

 

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I re-read. I'm not taking it back. It's a valid observation for a believer. I will find Scripture to support this view if you wish.

No. Scriptures do not SUPPORT your views. They are your views! Your views are directly informed by scriptures, so to turn right back around and say that scripture supports your views is nothing more than circular reasoning! Your views = scriptural claims. They are the same claims. The scripture is what needs evidence. Your confirmation biased pseudoscience is not evidence.

I had views prior to reading Scripture. And after reading, they correlate in my mind. To what standard you ask, that's subjective.

Regardless, the point still holds. Scripture is subjective view as well and still needs evidence. You citing a third party subjective view that correlated to your own subjective view proves nothing. Scripture still needs independent, verifiable evidence for it's claims. No amount of text can prove such extraordinary claims as supernatural claims. "Supernatural" by a caveat definition is "non-verifiable in nature." Therefore such claims are not provable. Therefore the only way to sliver them is by faith. I would have much more respect or you of you would just admit this instead of making this implicit bull-shit claim that you are using science to somehow prove biblical claims.

Lol, fine, I'll call it soft science.

Call it what you want but what it is is pseudoscience, and it, again, can only lead to false conclusions because pseudoscience is based in confirmation bias which ignores that data it does not like or agree with. It is, therefore, impossible for "soft science" to come to any accurate conclusion.

Respectfully N, why would subjectivity not be an integral part of science? Isn't that the point of certainty calculations? I don't think it's invalid to question and test. It's still science.

No! Wrong again! Subjectivity is NOT an integral part of science. Subjectivity is dangerous to science because it leads to false conclusions. That's why every measure is taken by scientists to weed it out. That's why scientific tests must be repeatable and the results verifiable for anyone who wants to put it to the test. The test must be repeated over and over in every applicable conceivable condition to see how well the hypothesis holds up. If it does hold up after this, then and only then might it be considered a viable theory. If any number of people conduct the same experiment you do and get the same results, then you have discovered something OBJECTIVE. The statistical probability of your assertions is literally 0% because you have no evidence, only your subjective view and an ancient book that may vaguely correlate to your views.

[Neverlandrut]

Certainty calculations in statistics are based on observable, verifiable evidence. What you are getting at is the fact that there are always varying degrees of uncertainty to any scientific theory. But the difference is the evidence. The more evidence there is for a theory, the more likely it is to be correct and less likely it is to be wrong. Nothing in science is known absolutely. The statistical likelihood of evolution, for example, is something like 99.99% certain due to the overwhelming evidence supporting it. You see, statistical certainty is not based on subjectivity. It is based in objectively verifiable evidence.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I re-read. I'm not taking it back. It's a valid observation for a believer. I will find Scripture to support this view if you wish.

No. Scriptures do not SUPPORT your views. They are your views! Your views are directly informed by scriptures, so to turn right back around and say that scripture supports your views is nothing more than circular reasoning! Your views = scriptural claims. They are the same claims. The scripture is what needs evidence. Your confirmation biased pseudoscience is not evidence.

 

I had views prior to reading Scripture. And after reading, they correlate in my mind. To what standard you ask, that's subjective.

 

Regardless, the point still holds. Scripture is subjective view as well and still needs evidence. You citing a third party subjective view that correlated to your own subjective view proves nothing. Scripture still needs independent, verifiable evidence for it's claims. No amount of text can prove such extraordinary claims as supernatural claims. "Supernatural" by a caveat definition is "non-verifiable in nature." Therefore such claims are not provable. Therefore the only way to sliver them is by faith. I would have much more respect or you of you would just admit this instead of making this implicit bull-shit claim that you are using science to somehow prove biblical claims.

 

Lol, fine, I'll call it soft science.

 

Call it what you want but what it is is pseudoscience, and it, again, can only lead to false conclusions because pseudoscience is based in confirmation bias which ignores that data it does not like or agree with. It is, therefore, impossible for "soft science" to come to any accurate conclusion.

 

Respectfully N, why would subjectivity not be an integral part of science? Isn't that the point of certainty calculations? I don't think it's invalid to question and test. It's still science.

 

No! Wrong again! Subjectivity is NOT an integral part of science. Subjectivity is dangerous to science because it leads to false conclusions. That's why every measure is taken by scientists to weed it out. That's why scientific tests must be repeatable and the results verifiable for anyone who wants to put it to the test. The test must be repeated over and over in every applicable conceivable condition to see how well the hypothesis holds up. If it does hold up after this, then and only then might it be considered a viable theory. If any number of people conduct the same experiment you do and get the same results, then you have discovered something OBJECTIVE. The statistical probability of your assertions is literally 0% because you have no evidence, only your subjective view and an ancient book that may vaguely correlate to your views.

 

Listen to me N. All I am saying is at some point, mechanisms, ideas for mechanisms, you name it, are subjective UNTIL they are tested.

[Guest end3]

Certainty calculations in statistics are based on observable, verifiable evidence. What you are getting at is the fact that there are always varying degrees of uncertainty to any scientific theory. But the difference is the evidence. The more evidence there is for a theory, the more likely it is to be correct and less likely it is to be wrong. Nothing in science is known absolutely. The statistical likelihood of evolution, for example, is something like 99.99% certain due to the overwhelming evidence supporting it. You see, statistical certainty is not based on subjectivity. It is based in objectively verifiable evidence.

Yes, I agree, but someone has to have an idea to test. And this is part of the scientific process.

[Neverlandrut]

 

Certainty calculations in statistics are based on observable, verifiable evidence. What you are getting at is the fact that there are always varying degrees of uncertainty to any scientific theory. But the difference is the evidence. The more evidence there is for a theory, the more likely it is to be correct and less likely it is to be wrong. Nothing in science is known absolutely. The statistical likelihood of evolution, for example, is something like 99.99% certain due to the overwhelming evidence supporting it. You see, statistical certainty is not based on subjectivity. It is based in objectively verifiable evidence.

Yes, I agree, but someone has to have an idea to test. And this is part of the scientific process.

Precisely End3. That's exactly what I'm saying! Your ideas fail the test! All you have is an idea and your saying it is verified by science and you are wrong. Until your claims are rigorously tested and consistently found correct, they fail.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I re-read. I'm not taking it back. It's a valid observation for a believer. I will find Scripture to support this view if you wish.

No. Scriptures do not SUPPORT your views. They are your views! Your views are directly informed by scriptures, so to turn right back around and say that scripture supports your views is nothing more than circular reasoning! Your views = scriptural claims. They are the same claims. The scripture is what needs evidence. Your confirmation biased pseudoscience is not evidence.

I had views prior to reading Scripture. And after reading, they correlate in my mind. To what standard you ask, that's subjective.

Regardless, the point still holds. Scripture is subjective view as well and still needs evidence. You citing a third party subjective view that correlated to your own subjective view proves nothing. Scripture still needs independent, verifiable evidence for it's claims. No amount of text can prove such extraordinary claims as supernatural claims. "Supernatural" by a caveat definition is "non-verifiable in nature." Therefore such claims are not provable. Therefore the only way to sliver them is by faith. I would have much more respect or you of you would just admit this instead of making this implicit bull-shit claim that you are using science to somehow prove biblical claims.

Lol, fine, I'll call it soft science.

Call it what you want but what it is is pseudoscience, and it, again, can only lead to false conclusions because pseudoscience is based in confirmation bias which ignores that data it does not like or agree with. It is, therefore, impossible for "soft science" to come to any accurate conclusion.

Respectfully N, why would subjectivity not be an integral part of science? Isn't that the point of certainty calculations? I don't think it's invalid to question and test. It's still science.

No! Wrong again! Subjectivity is NOT an integral part of science. Subjectivity is dangerous to science because it leads to false conclusions. That's why every measure is taken by scientists to weed it out. That's why scientific tests must be repeatable and the results verifiable for anyone who wants to put it to the test. The test must be repeated over and over in every applicable conceivable condition to see how well the hypothesis holds up. If it does hold up after this, then and only then might it be considered a viable theory. If any number of people conduct the same experiment you do and get the same results, then you have discovered something OBJECTIVE. The statistical probability of your assertions is literally 0% because you have no evidence, only your subjective view and an ancient book that may vaguely correlate to your views.

Listen to me N. All I am saying is at some point, mechanisms, ideas for mechanisms, you name it, are subjective UNTIL they are tested.

That's exactly what I'm saying! Yes ideas are subjective until tested. But your ideas are not even testable. Therefore, they fail as evidence/proof from the start. Therefore, they are nothing but subjective and can only ever be so.

[Roz]

Once again the christian misses entirely.  

 

Neverlandrut:  "If any number of people conduct the same experiment you do and get the same results, then you have discovered something OBJECTIVE. The statistical probability of your assertions is literally 0% because you have no evidence, only your subjective view and an ancient book that may vaguely correlate to your views."

 

christian dogma:  "All I am saying is at some point, mechanisms, ideas for mechanisms, you name it, are subjective UNTIL they are tested."

 

Just take a look at the Lion's Den.

 

IH's 'testing' leads him to conclusions that DIFFER from End3's

Thumbelina's 'testing' leads her to conclusions that DIFFER from both of them

Gus's 'testing' also DIFFER from all three

Wololo's 'testing' DIFFER from the previous four

 

And so on and so forth.  Just looking from the sampling of christians having different conclusions about all sorts of things in their own damn religion PROVES what they're doing is not science.  Just testing it once time does not make it science.  It has to be repeatable, demonstrable, having the same results every time.

[Roz]

With as many different dogmas, beliefs, and 100% truth that conflicts with other 100% truth as presented by religion...

 

If we accept the standards of evidence that religion offers and translate that to say, engineering, would you:

• board a plane built with those standards
• use a computer built with those standards
• drive a car built with those standards
• allow doctors to operate on you if they graduate from a med school using those standards

[LifeCycle]

What End3 and religion/Christianity/God essentially want us to do is disregard our minds, our abilities to reason the way we can and use the Bible as the sole source of truth and build off of that. The conclusion has already been made for us. If science contradicts it, we're doing it wrong. As one Christian recently said, "If the bible told me that 2+2 is 5, I would believe it."

 

This is the problem with Christians and people of other faiths. If we are to believe in things that do not make sense, then anything is fair game and why would anyone disbelieve anything at all, ever?

[Guest end3]

What End3 and religion/Christianity/God essentially want us to do is disregard our minds, our abilities to reason the way we can and use the Bible as the sole source of truth and build off of that. The conclusion has already been made for us. If science contradicts it, we're doing it wrong. As one Christian recently said, "If the bible told me that 2+2 is 5, I would believe it."

 

This is the problem with Christians and people of other faiths. If we are to believe in things that do not make sense, then anything is fair game and why would anyone disbelieve anything at all, ever?

No, I think your missing the point LC. Me personally, I think the "error" comes when we totally disregard ANY evidence, including the Bible. So I would appreciate you not lumping me in with other philosophy.

[Guest end3]

With as many different dogmas, beliefs, and 100% truth that conflicts with other 100% truth as presented by religion...

 

If we accept the standards of evidence that religion offers and translate that to say, engineering, would you:

• board a plane built with those standards
• use a computer built with those standards
• drive a car built with those standards
• allow doctors to operate on you if they graduate from a med school using those standards

To my understanding, the Ark proportions were used in modern day ship design. Don't know if this is a fact, but if it is, you must pull the foot from your mouth again Roz....

[LifeCycle]

 

What End3 and religion/Christianity/God essentially want us to do is disregard our minds, our abilities to reason the way we can and use the Bible as the sole source of truth and build off of that. The conclusion has already been made for us. If science contradicts it, we're doing it wrong. As one Christian recently said, "If the bible told me that 2+2 is 5, I would believe it."

 

This is the problem with Christians and people of other faiths. If we are to believe in things that do not make sense, then anything is fair game and why would anyone disbelieve anything at all, ever?

No, I think your missing the point LC. Me personally, I think the "error" comes when we totally disregard ANY evidence, including the Bible. So I would appreciate you not lumping me in with other philosophy.

 

But the bible provides no evidence except to disprove its own claims. There was no global flood (no geological evidence to support it), there is no evidence the Egyptians had large-scale slavery of any people throughout history so this makes the Exodus impossible which isn't an issue because there is no evidence of a people roaming the "wilderness" for centuries in that region anywhere. I mean, the bible, is really evidence against itself. It certainly isn't a historical book of the past.

[Guest end3]

 

 

What End3 and religion/Christianity/God essentially want us to do is disregard our minds, our abilities to reason the way we can and use the Bible as the sole source of truth and build off of that. The conclusion has already been made for us. If science contradicts it, we're doing it wrong. As one Christian recently said, "If the bible told me that 2+2 is 5, I would believe it."

 

This is the problem with Christians and people of other faiths. If we are to believe in things that do not make sense, then anything is fair game and why would anyone disbelieve anything at all, ever?

No, I think your missing the point LC. Me personally, I think the "error" comes when we totally disregard ANY evidence, including the Bible. So I would appreciate you not lumping me in with other philosophy.

 

But the bible provides no evidence except to disprove its own claims. There was no global flood (no geological evidence to support it), there is no evidence the Egyptians had large-scale slavery of any people throughout history so this makes the Exodus impossible which isn't an issue because there is no evidence of a people roaming the "wilderness" for centuries in that region anywhere. I mean, the bible, is really evidence against itself. It certainly isn't a historical book of the past.

 

That's fine, but supposing it to by myth still sheds insight/evidence.

[Neverlandrut]

 

What End3 and religion/Christianity/God essentially want us to do is disregard our minds, our abilities to reason the way we can and use the Bible as the sole source of truth and build off of that. The conclusion has already been made for us. If science contradicts it, we're doing it wrong. As one Christian recently said, "If the bible told me that 2+2 is 5, I would believe it."

 

This is the problem with Christians and people of other faiths. If we are to believe in things that do not make sense, then anything is fair game and why would anyone disbelieve anything at all, ever?

No, I think your missing the point LC. Me personally, I think the "error" comes when we totally disregard ANY evidence, including the Bible. So I would appreciate you not lumping me in with other philosophy.

The bible is a set of claims, not evidence. Only texts that describe real verifiable evidence can be cited as evidence in themselves. The issue is not the historical claims in the bible. Some of them are correct because they have been verified by archeological evidence, mostly New Testament historical details mentioned in passing. However, many have not. The issue is the supernatural claims about god and Jesus. These are SUPERNATURAL (by virtue of definition, not verifiable in nature) claims only. They are not evidence.