Sara_Ks personal experience as evidence

20:24	Octavian	Sara_Ks: subjective personal experience is indeed worthless as evidence
20:24	Zumarraga	I believe that the Father gives His "to love" that He expects the same "to love" from us, no?
20:25	Octavian	Sara_Ks: and trying to say it is 'valid' or whatnot doesn't help
20:25	Octavian	Sara_Ks: furthermore, there is a great deal of difference between basing my worldview and my ideas about what laws to implement and what things to forbid versus basing my choice of restaurants to go to
20:25	Toph	I've never heard of 'storge'  I don't think it is used in the bible
20:25		*** larr-y joined #christiandebate
20:25		+++ BibleBot has given voice to larr-y
20:25	Sara_Ks	Octavian That is an odd comment and in reality unworkable in life
20:25	larr-y	yo
20:26	larr-y	is it
20:26	Sara_Ks	Octavian Yes there is that difference but the concept is the same and in your denial, you deny a huge part of science
20:26	Sara_Ks	To do as you say, ignore it, would cause untold damage to humanity
20:26	whoknowsnotu	Science says nothing about types of love
20:26	Scrappy	My personal experience is more valid in defining my faith than any objective evidence you could ever present.  Christianity is quite literally a relationship with the living Christ.  It's supposed to be personal.  It's supposed to be experienced.
20:26	Octavian	lol
20:27	Octavian	I don't deny a large part of science
20:27	Sara_Ks	Octavian In your words, you do
20:27	Octavian	Sara_Ks: More like "In Sara_Ks's strawman, I do."
20:27	Sara_Ks	You claim personal experience is of no value
20:27		*** larr-y quit (Quit: what sad retarded cunts)
20:27	Octavian	no *evidentiary* value.
20:27	mugz-bbiab	amen Scrappy!
20:27	Octavian	not no value period.
20:27	Sara_Ks	Octavian Nice try but false
20:27		*** mugz-bbiab is now known as mugz
20:28	Octavian	Sara_Ks: You deliberatley misrepresent me in this.
20:28	whoknowsnotu	Scrappy: a Muslim could say the same which is very interesting
20:28	Octavian	Sara_Ks: I state that it is of no *evidentiary* value.
20:28	Octavian	Sara_Ks: Which is not the same as an unqualified it "is of no value"
20:28	mugz	whoknowsnotu no Muslim would ever say that - they dont have a personal relationship with Allah
20:28	Sara_Ks	Octavian ALL and I mean ALL you know came from personal experience in some way. What you and others have experienced IS evidence.
20:28	whoknowsnotu	Their faith is very personal to them
20:28	Octavian	Sara_Ks: maybe in your opinion because it certainly isn't in mine
20:29	mugz	whoknowsnotu its not the same, Chrstians have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside them
20:29	Sara_Ks	Octavian In the opinion of science, it is and in other disciplines
20:30	whoknowsnotu	mugz: could hear the same lovey dovey poetic explanations about how much Islam means to a Muslim
20:30	whoknowsnotu	You're not special
20:30	Octavian	Sara_Ks: actually, science works with empirical observations
20:30	Octavian
20:30	mugz	whoknowsnotu no, I never heard such a thing from a Muslim
20:30	Scrappy	whoknowsnotu, Muslims have no relationship with Jesus Christ, so they cannot claim to have such personal experience.
20:30	whoknowsnotu	Oh well
20:30	mugz	whoknowsnotu and I have debated many for many years
20:31	whoknowsnotu	Me too
20:31		*** SirOsOriS joined #christiandebate
20:31		+++ BibleBot has given voice to SirOsOriS
20:31	SirOsOriS	 America is in a proxy war against the whole wide world!!!
20:31	Sara_Ks	Octavian I think you goal is to try to discredit any reason for beief in God. Its a fallacy on your part. Take for example the definition of evidence, "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."  This shows you wrong. As for your claim about empirical observations, The definition of emperical...based on, concerned with, or
20:31	Sara_Ks	verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.. Both discredit your claims
20:32	whoknowsnotu	Your personal relationship with God is like when that kid in school says he has a girlfriend but she goes to another school and there's no evidence of the relationship and never will
20:32	whoknowsnotu	Be
20:32	whoknowsnotu	Because they don't exist
20:32	Sara_Ks	Octavian Your claim sounds more like you trying to say only quantitative evidence is valid. Is THIS what you meant?
20:32	mugz	whoknowsnotu do you know what Islam teaches about Ishmael?
20:33	Zumarraga	oh, layla  as you are a muslim by faith, our christian way of love, or as Christ expects us to understand His way of "to love" is not feelings. It is the spiritual act what "to love" is meant. It is painful for us the sinner creatures to carry out "to love". It is the whole giving of all of oneself for the well being of the object of love, or the beloved.  God loves us not by feeling, but by His nature of to
20:33	Zumarraga	tally giving. He gave us even His Son to us the sinners.
20:33	Octavian	Sara_Ks: No that's not what I meant.
20:33	Octavian	Sara_Ks: My claim was that subjective personal experience has no evidentiary value.
20:33	Sara_Ks	Octavian Then my comment stands
20:33	Sara_Ks	Octavian Lets examine that
20:33	Octavian	By all means.
20:33		*** TrollT quit (Quit: Leaving)
20:34	whoknowsnotu	mugz: not interested
20:34	whoknowsnotu	I'm a big picture guy and it sounds like a tiny irrelevant pixel
20:34		*** Scrappy quit (Read error: Input/output error)
20:35	layla-	whoknowsnotu the pope is from france and jesus is english
20:35	Sara_Ks	Octavian When a scientist does a study he has to conduct the study under controlled means, the actions, the reporting have to meet certain standards. However, when he is doing the study, he may be the only one observing it, he reports what he finds. This is a personal experience as well, subject to peer review, but it is still a personal experience..you can't get away from it and you
20:35	mugz	whoknowsnotu Arab Muslims consider themselves to be the descendants of Ishmael - Ishmael is one of the main characters of the Quran - here is what Moses said of Ishmael:
20:35	Sara_Ks	have claimed its not valid
20:35	mugz	!kjv niv gen 16:12
20:35	mugz	er
20:35	mugz	!niv gen 16:12
20:35	BibleBot	Ge16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." (NIV)
20:36	mugz	self fulfilling?
20:36	Sara_Ks	Octavian Show me HOW it is not a personal experience
20:36	layla-	the pope.is from france and jesus is english. its a new world order
20:36	whoknowsnotu	mugz: you're wasting your time I don't care about the details of the stories really
20:36	Octavian	Sara_Ks: actually you'll find that what the scientist in this hypothetical is doing, is collecting empirical data.
20:37	Sara_Ks	Octavian By personal experience
20:38	Sara_Ks	Octavian The difference is in the methodology, not that it is personal
20:38	Octavian	IF you are trying to conflate *subjective* personal experience with *empirical* *data* then I am afraid that I not see any merit in this line of argument.
20:38	whoknowsnotu	Lol
20:38	Sara_Ks	Octavian I'm not doing anything of the sort
20:38	whoknowsnotu	Lol
20:38	Sara_Ks	Octavian We are looking ONLY at how the data is experienced
20:39		*** Hatu joined #christiandebate
20:39	whoknowsnotu	Science has a method that makes experience jump from subjective to objective
20:39	Octavian	Hmm
20:39		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Hatu
20:39	Octavian	Sara_Ks: maybe that's the difficulty, here.
20:39	whoknowsnotu	Your relationship with Christ doesn't make the jump
20:39	Octavian	Sara_Ks: I'm not only looking at that.
20:39	Octavian	Sara_Ks: I take a broader approach.
20:40	Sara_Ks	Octavian I can take a broader approach as well, but we don't escape the fact that ALL we know comes from personal experiences
20:40	Sara_Ks	Or at leat the vast amount of what we know
20:40	Sara_Ks	least
20:41	Zumarraga	Mohammed was not a true prophet of the Allah. He was a counterfeit. And so is the Koran. It is a counterfeit of Holy Scriptures. and so is the allah that the muslims present to their believers. the kind of allah they are presenting is a counterfeit of the divine. their allah is a creature made up by the minds of men  the whole of islam is a counterfeit of religiousness.
20:41	Octavian	As the importance of the topic increases, the likelihood that we should value subjective experience approaches 0.
20:41	whoknowsnotu	All gods are man made
20:42	Octavian	Therefore I have no problem valuing subjective personal experience when talking about which places have the best sandwiches.
20:42	Octavian	But I have a huge problem valuing subjective personal experience when talking about whether or not a deity exists. Or basing my worldview on such testimony.
20:42	O`Puck	Sara_Ks: It's a truism that we access facts in the world through /personal experience/ since we're living in a world governed by indirect realism. However, don't conflate personal inner experience with shared communal experience of publicly accessible, verifiable facts (empiricism). The crucial difference here is that others can verify scientific claims,
20:42	O`Puck	because there are objective referents involved in those claims, i.e. they contain pointers to things/phenomena which are observable by everyone in principle.
20:42	Sara_Ks	Octavian In science, there are field which use qualitative methods. We use, in science, many techniques which are not quantitative. They are based on personal observations, they are quite valid. Sure, we would love to use something better, but we use what we can. In qualitative work, we come to those conclusions and often try to follow it up with some sort of quantitative test
20:43	Zumarraga	The christian God is the revealed God by a Jesus who has provided us His credentials for His authority on the matters of the supernatural.
20:43	SirOsOriS	unfortunately with science any result is often confused with the desired result
20:43	SirOsOriS	particularly in psychiatry
20:44	Sara_Ks	O`Puck We can verify the personal experiences as well.  Its done all the time. Trying to dismiss personal experience is folly. You would be better served by accepting it with the understanding of its limitations.
20:44	Octavian	Sara_Ks: which fields would those be
20:44	Sara_Ks	Octavian In ALL fields in one way or another. In our space program for example, in medicine, its in all places.
20:45	Zumarraga	What God that this Jesus revealed to us was not made up by the minds of men. It is beyond the understanding and intellectual senses of men who and how this God is that Jesus revealed.
20:46	Sara_Ks	Octavian BTW, I'm not claiming personal experience is anything more than a form of evidence and as such, we have to look at it closely, review it. We can be skeptical, but at some point it can be accepted
20:46	O`Puck	Sara_Ks: No one is dismissing anything, but personal inner experience does not have the same claim to truth, simply because there are no independent referents which everyone can observe so that they can agree what's waht. They are not reliable. It only becomes reliable and valuable information in the interpersonal sphere when a phenomenon has revealed itself
20:46	O`Puck	so that everyone can clearly observe it and agree to what is seen
20:46	Sardaukar	wualitative evidence like this is not testable or verifiable, its based on feelings and opinions far too much
20:47	Sara_Ks	O`Puck HUH? What do you mean "No one is dismissing anything?" Thats the comment that started all this, scroll back
20:47	Sardaukar	qualitative
20:47		*** whoknowsnotu quit (Quit: whoknowsnotu)
20:47	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar Your opinion but not based on anything BUT opinion
20:47	Octavian	O`Puck and Sardaukar well stated!
20:47	O`Puck	Put quite simply, personal subjective unverifiable experience is uninteresting to others.
20:48	O`Puck	Or should be.
20:48	Sara_Ks	O`Puck Many have observed it, have done the same things and had the same result
20:48	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks im not offering my opinion as a fact like you do
20:48	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar Sure you are and mine is not an opinion, its found in science, commonly
20:48	Octavian	erm
20:49	Sara_Ks	O`Puck Personal experience is fine, you just have to keep it in the proper perspective
20:49	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks (Many have observed it) In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
20:49	Octavian	I don't think opinion means what you apparently think it means, Sara_Ks
20:49	Sara_Ks	But it was totally dismissed earlier, that is wrong
20:49	Octavian	it was not totally dismissed eralier
20:49	Sardaukar	they claim they have observed god
20:49	Sardaukar	thats unverifiable
20:50	Octavian	Sara_Ks: if you misrepresent me like that again I may have to use an accurate but unpleasant description of what you are doing
20:50	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar Ok, you win, that means that scientists who find and report the same things, rely on the findings of others are committing a fallacy...got it but don't really buy it
20:51	Sardaukar	This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi), and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the
20:51	Sardaukar	clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
20:51	Sara_Ks	Octavian I'm going by what you said [20:24] <Octavian> Sara_Ks: subjective personal experience is indeed worthless <<<<< That is YOUR comment, thats what I am responding to and that is an erroneous comment
20:51	O`Puck	Sara_Ks: When we allow ideas and claims drawn from a persons inner mental life, unverifiable by others to enter the public sphere of ideas and when we allow those ideas to shape our reality, and guide our actions etc. we're heading for disaster. It's impossible to verify doctrines based upon some guru's claims, or some religious people's accounts of mystical
20:51	O`Puck	states, and in such a system all kinds of lies and falsehoods can proliferate freely. And does, as is the case with Christianity
20:51	Sardaukar	"three men make a tiger"
20:52	Octavian	20:24	Octavian	Sara_Ks: subjective personal experience is indeed worthless as evidence <-- You liar. Don't leave out the QUALIFICATION.
20:52	SirOsOriS	science is a type of religion
20:53	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks you can only appeal to qualitative evidence, since there is no quantitative yet provided for any god or gods
20:53	Sara_Ks	O`Puck That is a dangerous view, scarey, in fact. Sure we have to be careful of what we accept, but your claim seems to imply its wrong to EVER do that..and that is unworkable and a bad premise
20:53	Octavian	Sara_Ks: you are *intentionally* making false statements about me.
20:53	Sara_Ks	Octavian Stop this. I posted your entire quote, the WHOLE line.
20:53	Octavian	Sara_Ks: no you didn't.
20:53	Octavian	Sara_Ks: 20:24	Octavian	Sara_Ks: subjective personal experience is indeed worthless as evidence is the entire quote and you know it.
20:53	Sara_Ks	I left nothing out of the lien
20:53	Octavian	Sara_Ks: you intentionally left out the last two words.
20:54	Octavian	20:24	Octavian	Sara_Ks: subjective personal experience is indeed worthless *as* *evidence* <-- you left out those last two words
20:54	Octavian	20:24	Octavian	Sara_Ks: subjective personal experience is indeed worthless as evidence
20:54	Octavian	As evidence.
20:54	O`Puck	Sara_Ks: Well, that seems to be the rational attitude, to regard all such claims as false until there is actual material evidence for them. So yes, categorically deny the validity of such subjective claims seems to be the way to go.
20:54	O`Puck	Sara_Ks: If you are rational that is.
20:54	Octavian	Worthless as evidence. not "utterly worthless" or 'wholly worthless" or "worthless"
20:55	Sardaukar	Octavian exactly
20:55	Sara_Ks	Octavian Here is your quote..with the line before it and the line after it. You owe me an apology.
20:55	Sara_Ks	[20:24] <Scrappy> (kidding)
20:55	Sara_Ks	[20:24] <Octavian> Sara_Ks: subjective personal experience is indeed worthless as evidence
20:55	Sara_Ks	[20:24] <Zumarraga> I believe that the Father gives His "to love" that He expects the same "to love" from us, no?
20:55	Octavian	Sara_Ks: Why did you leave out two of the words of it when you quoted it earlier?
20:56	Octavian	20:51	Sara_Ks	Octavian I'm going by what you said [20:24] <Octavian> Sara_Ks: subjective personal experience is indeed worthless <<<<< That is YOUR comment, thats what I am responding to and that is an erroneous comment
20:56	Sara_Ks	Octavian I posted your quote, this is the one I addressed
20:56	Octavian	Sara_Ks: You misrepresented it just then. You left out two words of it when you posted it.
20:56	Octavian	Sara_Ks: words that conveniently destroyed your narrative.
20:56	Octavian	Or, should I say, inconveniently.
20:56	Sara_Ks	Nah, its still the same
20:57	Sara_Ks	We are talking about evidence
20:57	Sara_Ks	And you know it
20:57	O`Puck	Sara_Ks: If your aim is truth, you should not take subjective big materially false claims about other dimensions, afterlife, and experienced divinities by other people seriously. The only reason to entertain such claims is the irrational impulse that you would like them to be true. But if you can see no evidence for them, taking them on faith rather than
20:57	O`Puck	dismissing them is irrational.
20:57	Octavian	"worthless" is the same as 'worthless as evidence" ?
20:57	Octavian	Hmm.
20:57	Octavian	Interesting.
20:57	Octavian	Sara_Ks: As you have demanded, so shall you receive your apology. I am sorry.
20:57	Sara_Ks	O`Puck The only reason to dismiss it is to get where you want to go. For me, for most people, we will use ALL evidence available
20:57		*** Frost quit (Ping timeout)
20:58	Octavian	I don't care what most people do.
20:58		*** Toph quit (Quit: Leaving)
20:58	Octavian	I think that it is irrational to ascribe evidential value to subjective personal claims.
20:58	Octavian	And so I will not do it.
20:58	Octavian	And I will, when the opportunity represents itself, argue in favor of my position.
20:59	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks the only evidence you have for a god is "stories" not repeatable, testable, verifiable quantitative evidence
20:59	Sara_Ks	Octavian Thats your choice, but I doubt you do as you say. I would be willing to bet you use the experiences of others as evidence in all areas of your life
20:59		+++ AppleGirl set the channel to mode +l 62
20:59	Octavian	Sara_Ks: Not as evidence.
20:59	O`Puck	Sara_Ks: Subjective experiences by others, a claim by person X that s/he saw incredible unbelievable phenomenon Y at some time T is not evidence for you.
20:59	Octavian	Sara_Ks: but yes, I use it quite a lot.
20:59	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar You don't necessarily need quantitative evidence
21:00	Sara_Ks	O`Puck Sure it is, with examination
21:00	Sardaukar	in your case its not available this is why you rely on peoples religions statements
21:00	Sara_Ks	Octavian Then you use it as evidence, as evidence is defined
21:00	O`Puck	Until you have actual material evidence of Y you must remain agnostic.
21:00	Octavian	Sara_Ks: *shrug*
21:00	O`Puck	otherwise you will be easily led astray and duped. (which you have been already heh)
21:01	Sara_Ks	O`Puck You can always be agnostic.  I never claim absolute evidence, there is always room for error
21:01	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks if the only evidence for evolution was personal recolections, peoples dreams and feelings, you would laugh off evolution at every mention of it
21:02	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar It depends on what it was. People can look at specimens and perhaps come to conclusions, granted, its weak but not non existant
21:03	Sara_Ks	Cladistics at its roots is a classification like that, its not really evolutionary evidence, but you can draw some valid conclusions
21:05	O`Puck	Sara_Ks: Well, you're not convincing anyone with your obfuscation of 'evidence' or that we ought to include subjective personal experience unverifiable by others in the category evidence. Rational people immediately recognizes why this is not an acceptable methodology. Therefore, it's quite simple: only actual public empirical evidence can count as /real/
21:05	O`Puck	evidence. No personal encounters with God, while deep in prayer will EVER be evidence for God
21:06	acidrain	doesnt that depend on the person?
21:06	O`Puck	I'm talking about evidence as it enters the interpersonal sphere.
21:07	O`Puck	Things we can meaningfully talk about.
21:07	O`Puck	and share with each other.
21:07	Sara_Ks	O`Puck The obfuscation is in denying it, trying to place it outside of any scientific value when its clearly used in some areas of science. That is the objection, you are making a category error. you are trying to judge evidence for god which people experience in the same category of quantitative work. Thats a mistake, you have to view it for what it is, qualitative evidence
21:08	O`Puck	Sara_Ks: No, no, no. False, false false. It's never acceptable in science. Only hard data, ultimately.
21:08		*** urMuslimneighbor joined #christiandebate
21:08		+++ BibleBot has given voice to urMuslimneighbor
21:08	O`Puck	That's why it's reliable and works incidentally.
21:08	SirOsOriS	how many years must a mountain exist.. before it is washed to the sea?
21:09	Sara_Ks	O`Puck Thats incorrect. Hard data is a vauge term. I can have hard data out of a qualitative study. While its hard data, its not the same TYPE of data as derived from a quantitative test
21:09	O`Puck	And we know enough by know, after millions of years of existence that what we see and experience and can verify is pretty much all there is, since it's the only ideas and facts which have proven themselves useful and which work
21:10	Sara_Ks	O`Puck There is MUCH more than what we s"see and experience and verify" MUCH more.
21:10	Octavian	Good night, all.
21:10	O`Puck	Subjective unverifiable ideas drawn from the introspective hat has never amounted to anything.
21:10	O`Puck	have*
21:10	Sara_Ks	We know little, I think, of the whole body of knowledge
21:11		*** Hatu quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
21:11	acidrain	human knowledge seems pretty limit atm
21:11	acidrain	limited
21:11		*** whoknowsnotu joined #christiandebate
21:11	Sara_Ks	O`Puck Sure it has, without it science would stagnate. Thinking, dreaming, being creative is a core of science growth
21:11		+++ BibleBot has given voice to whoknowsnotu
21:12	Octavian	what do any of those things have to do with evidential standards?
21:12	Octavian	o_____O
21:12	Octavian	I mean, I'm sorry.. but what?
21:13	Sara_Ks	Octavian They work in conjunction with science. Evidential standards are more complex than you let on. There are many types of evidence
21:14	Sara_Ks	Here is something which may help you
21:14	Sara_Ks	"An anecdote is one sort of example. How does anecdotal evidence really work? Obviously an anecdote, or another kind of example, cannot prove a general statement, so avoid treating a single case as proving a general point. On the other hand, a single anecdote or counterexample is alone sufficient to disprove a general statement. One successful anecdote will show that one must modify
21:14	Sara_Ks	one's claim. An anecdote will not count as weighty evidence, however, either in support of or in opposition to a more limited, narrower claim, which is not intended to apply generally."
21:14		*** chalcedony joined #christiandebate
21:14		+++ BibleBot has given voice to chalcedony
21:15	Sara_Ks	But its not worthless in any way
21:15		*** Jedi_Knight joined #christiandebate
21:15		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Jedi_Knight
21:16		+++ AppleGirl set the channel to mode +l 65
21:16	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks you have always retreated to "qualitative evidence" you cant rely on quantitative evidence repeatable testable verifiabloe evidence becuase NONE has been presented in 1000s of years
21:16	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar I'm not retreating
21:17	Octavian	Jedi_Knight: pop quiz time. Yoda or Obiwan?
21:17	Jedi_Knight	Qui Gonn Jinn
21:17	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar Its as I have always said and have always dismissed your view of "Only quantitative evidence."
21:17	Sardaukar	Jar-Jar Binks
21:18	Octavian
21:18	Jedi_Knight	Princess Leia
21:18	Octavian	I wanted to know which of those two you preferred!
21:18		*** whoknowsnotu quit (Quit: whoknowsnotu)
21:18	Sardaukar	what verifiable testable repeatable OTHER evidence do you have? id love to review it
21:18	Sara_Ks	I've never seen a star wars movie
21:19	Jedi_Knight	ah, well Yoda is do or do not there is no try. Obiwan is only a sith deals in absolutes,,, ponders...
21:19	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar Define verifiable
21:19	Jedi_Knight	Yoda
21:19		*** Mitino joined #christiandebate
21:19		--- QRT has banned *!*[email protected]
21:19		*** Mitino was kicked by QRT ([ Reason: ban evasion barabbas` ])
21:19	Jedi_Knight	Yoda sounds more biblically Hebrew
21:19	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks if you tell me you saw a UFO and we only have your word for it, its unverifiable, you can extrapolate from that point
21:19	Sara_Ks	Jedi_Knight I did go to one starwars movie but left after a short time
21:20	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar Suppose 40 billion people claim to have seen the same ufo?
21:20	Sara_Ks	Not believable?
21:20	Jedi_Knight	Sara_Ks ive watched all 6 Star Wars movies out so far , many many times. havent watched any of them in a while though.
21:20	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks thats an ad populum fallacy
21:21	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar lol, no it isn't
21:21	Sardaukar	but if they all saw it at the SAME TIME then its worth investigation
21:21	Jedi_Knight	i saw a UFO September 5th at 8:28 pm
21:21	Sara_Ks	It doesnt have to be at the same time Sardaukar
21:21	Sardaukar	In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
21:22	Sardaukar	yes it does or there is no verification possible
21:22	Sardaukar	you need independant wittnesses or recordings
21:22		*** Abheera joined #christiandebate
21:22		--- QRT has banned *!*@175.110.242.105
21:22		*** Abheera was kicked by QRT ([ Reason: perm whitepearll trying to proselyte islam.. trolling and insulting nathanael ])
21:22	Sara_Ks	Jedi_Knight I went to a starwars movie, the one where the captain had somthing attached to his head. I was pretty young, it scared me, I cried, they took me out, lol
21:23	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar That is a shallow view of science
21:23	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks sorry you fel that way
21:23	Sardaukar	but its true
21:23	Sara_Ks	actually no
21:23	Sardaukar	yes
21:24		*** Grey_fox2 joined #christiandebate
21:24		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Grey_fox2
21:24	Sardaukar	you can handwave and make claims and opinions but you have no verifiable testable, repeatable evidence that is SHALLOW science
21:24	Jedi_Knight	Sara_Ks im trying to think what episode that was, probably 1) A new hope, but as much as you are younger than i am, im thinking maybe 2) Empire Strikes Back, or 3) Return of the Jedi
21:24	Grey_fox2	hi all
21:24	Jedi_Knight	i was 13 when the first Star Wars movie came out in 1977
21:25	O`Puck	Emprically (in the classical inductive sense) we've been reminded again and again of how unreliable systems of ideas (like religions) based purely on non-scientific justifications (mystical experience, anecdotal accounts etc., faith in authority or ad populum) are. Such systems of ideas are not reliable. They have either proven themselves to be substantial
21:25	O`Puck	by becoming empirically verifiable leading to useful testable claims, or they have been abandoned as useless, and false. When it comes to Christianity's 2000 year old long tradition of not providing a single substantial piece of evidence of means of empirically verify it, it has survived because people think it's comfortable to escape into the dream that
21:25	O`Puck	there is an afterlife etc.
21:25	Jedi_Knight	Hi Grey_fox2
21:25	Sara_Ks	Jedi_Knight I don't know, it was a movie and it had the borg in it
21:25		*** ChuckWagon joined #christiandebate
21:25		+++ ChanServ has given op to ChuckWagon
21:25		+++ BibleBot has given voice to ChuckWagon
21:25	Sardaukar	;lol
21:25	Jedi_Knight	oh Star Trek
21:25	Sara_Ks	Hello ChuckWagon
21:25	ChuckWagon	Hi, Sara_Ks.
21:25	Jedi_Knight	Star Trek Generations
21:25	Sardaukar	star wars movie with a borg in it
21:25	Jedi_Knight	lol Sardaukar
21:26	Sardaukar	thats bordering on coimmunism Sara_Ks
21:26	Jedi_Knight	Star Trek where Capt Piccard had a thing on his head was part of the episodes, wasnt a movie
21:26	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar Communism?
21:26	Jedi_Knight	sounds more like an advertisement
21:27	Jedi_Knight	Borg = Collective , Collectivism primary definition = Soviet Communism
21:27	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks no good american dosent know the difference between star trek and star wars
21:27	O`Puck	Again, boil it down, there probably is no God, because after thousands of years there is yet no acceptable empirical evidence that there is a God. Ergo, belief in a God despite this absence is not rational.
21:28	ChuckWagon	O`Puck: Your statement lacks only one thing ... support.
21:28	Jedi_Knight	evidently Sara_Ks isnt much of a sci fi buff
21:28	O`Puck	ChuckWagon: How so?
21:29	Sardaukar	ChuckWagon what empirical evidence is there for the existnace of god?
21:29	SirOsOriS	do you have any evidence of that Jedi_Knight?
21:29	Jedi_Knight	O`Puck there are many things unseen that cannot be proved that they don't exist
21:29	Jedi_Knight	SirOsOriS evidence of what?
21:29	O`Puck	Jedi_Knight: LoL, an absurd claim.
21:29	Jedi_Knight	!define collectivism
21:29	CancelBot	collectivism in WordNet (r) 2.0
21:29	CancelBot	collectivism n 1: Soviet communism [syn: {Bolshevism}, {sovietism}] 2: a political theory that the people should own the means ofproduction
21:30	ChuckWagon	O`Puck: First of all, "acceptable empirical evidence" is subjective. Who decides what is "acceptable?" Second, can you prove no such evidence exists? That statement cannot be supported. Finally the statement implies that only empirical evidence (which someone-don't know who-finds "acceptable) can be the source of rationality. Can you support that implication?
21:30	Jedi_Knight	i think that 2nd definition is very good
21:30	O`Puck	Jedi_Knight: What cannot be proven is whether your absurd claim is true or false.
21:30		*** barabbas`bbl is now known as barabbas`
21:30	ChuckWagon	Sardaukar: Sure - as soon as you show me where I said there was some.
21:30	Jedi_Knight	collectivism is opposition to individualism
21:30		*** Kalamity joined #christiandebate
21:30		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Kalamity
21:30	ChuckWagon	Sardaukar: Got that post for me? Or are you just playing?
21:31	Jedi_Knight	O`Puck well just because i didnt see a UFO until September of this year, didnt mean they dont exist.
21:31	O`Puck	ChuckWagon: Not really. I knew you would say that, obfuscate and blur what we mean by evidence. I've played that game with Sara_Ks for a while now. But it's not subjective, at least not as I've come to understand evidence.
21:31		*** ProfessorPony joined #christiandebate
21:31		*** ProfessorPony_ quit (Ping timeout)
21:31		+++ BibleBot has given voice to ProfessorPony
21:31	ChuckWagon	O`Puck: In other words, run run run run run
21:31	Jedi_Knight	dark matter exists but how many centuries went by before they discovered it?
21:31	Sardaukar	ChuckWagon i was responding to [17:28] <@ChuckWagon> O`Puck: Your statement lacks only one thing ... support.
21:31	O`Puck	Jedi_Knight: You made the positive claim there "there are many things unseen" this is absurd
21:31	Sara_Ks	O`Puck Game? Hey, I love evidence, all kinds
21:32	Jedi_Knight	O`Puck oh like the wind, or oxygen
21:32		*** Hey_Joe joined #christiandebate
21:32	O`Puck	Jedi_Knight: If they are unseen how can you claim that they exist but are unseen
21:32		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Hey_Joe
21:32	ChuckWagon	Sardaukar: In that I see no claim that such evidence exists - only that his statement was not supported. It wasn't. It still isn't/
21:32	Jedi_Knight	O`Puck you see the effects of the wind, but you do not see the wind, yet wind exists
21:33	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks too bad you have no empirical verifiable testable repeatable qualitative evidence, you know like science depends on
21:33		+++ AppleGirl set the channel to mode +l 68
21:33	ChuckWagon	O`Puck: So I guess we can flush it with all the other drivel.  Good day.
21:33	ChuckWagon	Sardaukar: And is science the one and only way to demonstrate something exists?
21:33	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar Show me something from science which claims that it only uses what you say, just one source
21:33	Sardaukar	ChuckWagon he said PROBABLY
21:34	Sara_Ks	how did he determine that probablility?
21:34	Jedi_Knight	-John 3:8- The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (kjv)
21:35	ChuckWagon	Sardaukar: I didn't refer to that part of his statement. Read my posts.
21:35	ChuckWagon	Sardaukar: Now, is science the one and only way to demonstrate something exists?
21:35	Grey_fox2	Of course not
21:35	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: I'll see if he agrees with you.
21:35	Sardaukar	ChuckWagon that is the debate for hours now Sara_Ks claims qualitative evidence is evidence enough
21:35	Grey_fox2	But it is a rather good way to establish something exists
21:36	O`Puck	Jedi_Knight: No, that doesn't work. That is again to confuse matters. You're speaking about "the wind" as something unseen which we have yet to see, but this is not what the wind is. the "wind" is not something we claim exists, as a thing. The wind is a process, an abstraction and a concept which has been mapped with reality and which has a clear meaning.
21:36	Sardaukar	since she has no other
21:36	Grey_fox2	There is no scientific paper that demonstrates my existence.
21:36	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: I've never said otherwise ...
21:36	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar I said NO such thing
21:36	Grey_fox2	I do suspect that scientific methods are the only way to establish things exist reliably.
21:36	Jedi_Knight	O`Puck the effects of the wind may be recorded, but the wind itself remains unseen
21:36	Grey_fox2	i.e. observation, reason and experiment
21:37	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks sure you did, im not quoting you,  and you have NO qualitative verifiable teastable Empirical evidence, so where do you go from there?
21:37	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Well that works as a suspicion.
21:37	Grey_fox2	Well, I may have left something out
21:37	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar As I said, that comment is a fallacy
21:37		*** S|J_McPherson joined #christiandebate
21:37		+++ ChanServ has given op to S|J_McPherson
21:37		+++ BibleBot has given voice to S|J_McPherson
21:37	Grey_fox2	If there's another method let me know
21:38	Sardaukar	Sara_Ks no its not, what fallacy is it?
21:38	ChuckWagon	Good afternoon, S|J_McPherson.
21:38	Jedi_Knight	O`Puck emotions are something unseen, but we see the reactions of emotion.
21:38	Jedi_Knight	the effects
21:38	ChuckWagon	Jedi_Knight: I'd say the same for ideas. Let's face it - even science, itself, is only an idea (or set of ideas).
21:38	S|J_McPherson	hello ChuckWagon
21:38	O`Puck	Jedi_Knight: There is no such thing a "the wind" you're confused. It's an abstraction. IT's a linguistic fiction. A concept which maps to a variety of facts in the world, movement of air molecules, what can be measured with an anemometer etc.
21:39	Sara_Ks	Sardaukar It disallows all forms of scientific evidence but one, it uses a category fallacy
21:39	O`Puck	as*
21:39		*** Cirious joined #christiandebate
21:39	ChuckWagon	Okay, folks ... so someone denies "wind" and calls us irrational.  It's a good day all around.
21:39		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Cirious
21:39	Sardaukar	i didnt dissalow any evidence you dont HAVE any evidence but qualitative
21:40	O`Puck	lol, no I'm denying that the wind is a thing, which exists and remains unseen (as a thing)
21:40	Sara_Ks	How do you know, Sardaukar?
21:40	Sardaukar	if you do id love to review it AS I SAID
21:40	Jedi_Knight	O`Puck i am not confused, perhaps you need to reread what i said
21:40	Sardaukar	i have asked you for it for YEARS
21:40	Grey_fox2	O`Puck: Do I exist?
21:40	O`Puck	it is not a thing, that is the reification and linguistic confusion, thus it's not something we can be expected to "see" directly
21:40	Jedi_Knight	lol Grey_fox2
21:40	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: My vote is "yes," but ... you work with him.
21:40	Jedi_Knight	touche
21:41	barabbas`	[19:38] <+O`Puck> Jedi_Knight: There is no such thing a "the wind" you're confused. [19:40] <+O`Puck> lol, no I'm denying that the wind is a thing, which exists and remains unseen (as a thing) WOW two conflicting statements one right after the other.
21:41	Grey_fox2	O`Puck: One could make the argument that "Grey_fox2" is a mere intellectual abstraction, a concept which maps to a collection of facts about the movement of atoms.
21:41	ChuckWagon	barabbas`: That's only because you're an irrational theist.
21:41	Cirious	none of us exist..C.S. Lewis got it correct when he said we are the dream of God
21:41	Grey_fox2	I think this philosophy is called mereological nihilism
21:41	O`Puck	barabbas`: What was conflicting, can you point to it?
21:42		barabbas` thinks O`Puck has the workings of a new song, first there is the wind, there is no wind, then there is....opps Henry already did that.
21:42	O`Puck	Grey_fox2: No that is when you deny that parts exists.
21:42	ChuckWagon	barabbas`: Sell it to that rock band, "Earth, <NOTHING>, and Fire"
21:42		Grey_fox2 is tempted to bite the bullet somewhat and say that some things have more reality than others. I am probably less real than an electron, but more real than interest rates.
21:42		Jedi_Knight laughs, a merry heart does good like a medicine.
21:42	ChuckWagon	Jedi_Knight: That must not be true - it's in the Bible.
21:42	Jedi_Knight	LOL Chuck!
21:43	Jedi_Knight	I love people with a sense of humor.
21:43	ChuckWagon	Monday's my usual quip day
21:43	Sardaukar	the bible is not a science reference is it?
21:44	ChuckWagon	Sardaukar: Nope.  It wasn't written to be one.
21:44	Octavian	it makes scientifically relevant claims
21:44	Octavian	it doesn't need to be a 'science book' to be spoken about in terms of scientific accuracy
21:44	Jedi_Knight	i need a little more merry spirit, im going to church for the 2nd time in nearly a decade tomarrow. I need the ~Spirit~ supercharge
21:44		barabbas` thinks we need a new song, first there was O`Puck, then there wasn't, then there still wasn't...
21:44	Sardaukar	ChuckWagon it is unverfiable as well so the bible has to be taken on faith alone
21:44		*** Jacko joined #christiandebate
21:44		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Jacko
21:45	ChuckWagon	Sardaukar: It does?  Do you really know what "faith" is?
21:45		+++ AppleGirl set the channel to mode +l 71
21:45	O`Puck	barabbas`: Still waiting for you to point out what was contradictory in what I said. I know, if the fools do not laugh it would not be the tao, heh, but you simply havent grasped the subtleties of these concepts. It's called reification, when we take a process or complex phenomenon and simplify it so it becomes and existing 'thing'. The 'wind' is not an
21:45	O`Puck	existing thing like a rock or a desk is.
21:45		*** Jacko is now known as Didache
21:45		*** Didache left #christiandebate
21:45	Grey_fox2	O`Puck: What makes you think that we don't reify rocks and desks?
21:45		*** Didache joined #christiandebate
21:45		+++ ChanServ has given op to Didache
21:46		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Didache
21:46	barabbas`	O`Puck:  Thing, is the contradiction. Now I know this big word has you confused, but that ok, You can troll the others if they want. God Bless
21:46	Grey_fox2	I mean this is just meaningless philosophical grandstanding
21:46	S|J_McPherson	hello Michael Jackson
21:46	Grey_fox2	irrelevant philosophical grandstanding rather
21:46	S|J_McPherson	oh Didache
21:46	O`Puck	Grey_fox2: We do, to some extent, but the matter of degree here is significant.
21:46	Sardaukar	Faith is complete confidence or trust in a person or thing; or a belief not based on proof. It may also refer to a particular system of religious belief.
21:46	Grey_fox2	It's not significat.
21:46	Grey_fox2	*significant
21:47		*** Octavian joined #christiandebate
We pray that for Paris; comfort for bereaved, an end to the attacks and restoration of peace.
Topic set by [email protected] on Fri Nov 13 2015 16:55:48 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
21:47	Cirious	how does the saying go..something like..for the believer no evidence needed, for the unbeliever, no evidence is enough
21:47	Grey_fox2	Of course even if Jesus was resurrected, that doesn't mean that god created life and the universe.
21:47		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Octavian
21:47	Grey_fox2	Cirious: Well that's clearly false.
21:47	ChuckWagon	Sardaukar: You call them "stories."  I call them "historical data."
21:47	barabbas`	O`Puck It is obvious that you haven't grasped the concept that words are nothing more than labels for concepts, and that you  have used 'thing' to label TWO separate concepts, thereby demonstrating you don't understand what your own contradiction is.
21:48	Jedi_Knight	nice Cirious
21:48	Grey_fox2	Cirious: There are all sorts of things that were initially disbelieved where skeptics changed their minds after being presented with sufficient data. For example, plate tectonics.
21:48	O`Puck	It always is my friend Grey_fox2, facts always matter. And the reification process which goes into treating the simplest object like an electron as a thing and in treating democracy, a river, or the wind as a thing is significant. This difference of degree is factual and matters very much.
21:48	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Granted but it does kinda indicate that something wild happened
21:48	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Well, I mean there's always the possibility of alien pranksters
21:49	barabbas`	O`Puck And the way you mangled the concept of Tao in your explanation demonstrates that this is a foreign as thing, thing is to you.
21:49		Grey_fox2 would rather believe in Alien pranksters than disbelieve the second law of thermodynamics
21:49	Cirious	I have heard of many skeptics who set out to disprove the story of Jesus Christ, and when done, they converted because of the evidence they found
21:49	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: That option is there but ... as I say, I'll take Jesus' word for things if, as indicated, He rose from the dead.
21:49	Cirious	but..that's them
21:49	barabbas`	O`Puck: You sound like someone who read the first sentence of a wiki post on the Tao and deems himself an expert.
21:49		Jedi_Knight wonders if O`Puck could graps a metaphore with a perspective like that.
21:49	Grey_fox2	Well rising from the dead doesn't make you infallible.
21:50	acidrain	once i was weighing up the balance between self and selfless and i felt drunk
21:50	Jedi_Knight	graps=grasp
21:50	Grey_fox2	I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree her
21:50	Grey_fox2	*here
21:50	acidrain	almost like a middle way
21:50	Grey_fox2	O`Puck: Why does it matter?
21:50	O`Puck	To much to respond to here, too bellicose. Might return to the topic later at a more appropriate time
21:50	Didache	Grey_fox2 your spellin is atroshus
21:50	acidrain	and you feel light as a feather
21:50	Jedi_Knight	!define bellicose
21:50	CancelBot	bellicose in WordNet (r) 2.0
21:50	CancelBot	bellicose adj : having or showing a ready disposition to fight; "bellicose young officers"; "a combative impulse"; "a contentious nature" [syn: {battleful}, {combative}, {contentious}]
21:51	barabbas`	O`Puck There is nothing in the Tao that allows for the obfuscation of words in an attempt to make oneself look more intelligent than they really are.
21:51	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Didn't say it did but it does lend credibility ...
21:51	Cirious	!define atroshus
21:51	CancelBot	 nothing found check spelling or look in another dictionary using !lookin dictcode word
21:51	ChuckWagon	atrocious
21:51	ChuckWagon	!define atrocious
21:51	CancelBot	atrocious in WordNet (r) 2.0
21:51	CancelBot	atrocious adj 1: shockingly brutal or cruel; "murder is an atrocious crime";"a grievous offense against morality"; "a grievouscrime"; "no excess was too monstrous for them tocommit" [syn: {flagitious}, {grievous}, {heinous}, {monstrous}] 2: exceptionally bad or displeasing; "atrocious taste";"abominable workmanship"; "an awful voice"; "dreadfulmanners"; "a painful performance"; "terrible handwriting";"an unspeakable odor came sweeping into the
21:51	CancelBot	 room" [syn: {abominable}, {awful}, {dreadful}, {painful}, {terrible}, {unspeakable}] 3: provoking horror; "an atrocious automobile accident"; "afrightful crime of decapitation"; "an alarming, evenhorrifying, picture"; "war is beyond all words horrible"-Winston Churchill; "an ugly wound" [syn: {frightful}, {horrifying}, {horrible}, {ugly}]
21:51	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Well, I guess I'm too committed to metaphysical naturalism
21:51	Didache	ChuckWagon when you ae edumicated its atroshus
21:51	Cirious	no atroshush..you left off the final 'h'
21:51	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Whoa ... and what is that?
21:52	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Well, it's the idea that everything in the universe obeys scientifically explicable laws.
21:52	O`Puck	To those who now seek my attention. I was warned in a PM that apparently what I was doing is 'trolling'
21:52	Cirious	or maybe the final 'h' is silent? Can't remember
21:52	Jedi_Knight	wow that definition result is longer than my post on variations of hebrew and greek translation greek numbers for the word 'about' used in kjv
21:52	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: In short, that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Anything that may appear magic is just sufficiently advanced technology.
21:52	barabbas`	O`Puck of course it is trolling, what else would it be?
21:52	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Okay but of course ... that's really impossible to demonstrate so it's a philosophical leap in general.
21:52		*** TrollT joined #christiandebate
21:52	O`Puck	thus it would be appropriate for me to speak no more,
21:52		+++ BibleBot has given voice to TrollT
21:52	Cirious	we need trolls.  keeps the bridges clean
21:52	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Sure
21:52	Jedi_Knight	lol Cirious
21:52	O`Puck	hence I cannot respond to you
21:53	O`Puck	Sorry.
21:53	acidrain	creating life and life itself seems supernatural
21:53	Grey_fox2	acidrain: It's not.
21:53	Sardaukar	i dont understand these debates, if you are a good christian, you have faith and you BELIEVE in god and you have no evidence to verify this belief, and you DONT NEED any thats the nature of faith, just say, i believe in god and i cant prove it, why does that matter?
21:53	TrollT	Thank you
21:53	acidrain	can you do it?
21:53	Grey_fox2	acidrain: You can look at ecoli under an electron microscope. It's all chemistry.
21:53	TrollT	I appreciate the work
21:53	acidrain	Grey_fox2, can you create life?
21:53	Grey_fox2	acidrain: I could if I were female
21:54	acidrain	well that would just create another human
21:54	Grey_fox2	acidrain: Humans aren't life now?
21:54	acidrain	you can't create your own lifeform
21:54		*** urMuslimneighbor quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
21:54	Jedi_Knight	Sardaukar the evidence is in the reports, the effects of the ~Spirit~ much like a weather report of wind direction and intensity, its just many refuse to accept said reports.
21:54	Didache	Grey_fox2 NOT SINCE WOMEN CREATED IT
21:54		Grey_fox2 suspects there's a certain degree of "moving the goalposts" here
21:54	acidrain	well life reproducing is magical
21:54	Grey_fox2	Didache: Well that's just sexist
21:54	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Actually, I've ... maybe it's too much of a stretch to call it an hypothesis so I'll just say ... I've considered that it is possible that God does not do "miracles" as such but He, as the author of physical laws, knows how they work so much better than anyone else that He manipulates those laws in ways we cannot yet understand.
21:55	TrollT	but not technical
21:55	Grey_fox2	hm
21:55	TrollT	only iological
21:55	TrollT	bio
21:55	Grey_fox2	Metaphysically that's pretty interesting
21:55		*** urMuslimneighbor joined #christiandebate
21:55	barabbas`	Sardaukar: Who said I don't have evidence? I have always said that I have all the evidence that I need, and that I can't give it to you. What you fail to realize is that evidence is available for you as well. It isn't up to anyone but God to give it to you. So, instead of actually doing what it will take for YOU to get what you ask for, all you do is deny its existence. Heck I can do
21:55	barabbas`	that with anything as well.
21:55		+++ BibleBot has given voice to urMuslimneighbor
21:55	TrollT	Thus the fascination w/ Frankenstein
21:55	Sardaukar	Jedi_Knight but the wind can be verified, tested, and explained logically and scientifically, god so far, has not been
21:56	Didache	Sardaukar how do you know that?
21:56	Sardaukar	barabbas` i dont fasil to realize anything, i have heard the same story 1000 times from you
21:56	Cirious	God cannot be proven..He won't permit it
21:56	Sardaukar	Didache i dont, and if you care to show such evidence you will then prove me wrong
21:56	acidrain	it would be a clever trick to produce life with just chemistry
21:57	Jedi_Knight	Sardaukar its too bad that many reject reports
21:57	TrollT	What if we could electrically produce life in a petrie dish??
21:57	Sardaukar	for 1000s od years that evidence has not been presented
21:57	ChuckWagon	Cirious: I'd certainly agree God cannot be proven, but I would say He's left some pretty remarkable indicators.
21:57	barabbas`	Sardaukar: And yet instead of doing the one thing that will get you the evidence you keep badgerin me for, you just continue to badger. Isn't that a sign of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result?
21:57	Jedi_Knight	i think the spiritual effects reports are rejected by those who just plain dont want to believe the reports
21:57	Sardaukar	barabbas` you ignorantly assume i havent
21:57	Cirious	cW..that's what is in romans.  He has left enough bread crumbs behind that men are without excuse, per his book
21:58	Sardaukar	barabbas` and io didnt address you at all, you addressed me
21:58	barabbas`	Sardaukarthers have done what I have said and now they, like me, enjoy a relationship with God.
21:58	Grey_fox2	Cirious: Well that's false
21:58	TrollT	Jedi, w/ good reason
21:58	Sardaukar	barabbas` so they claim
21:58	Didache	Sardaukar interesting... I have shown evidence that I believe is convincing and the response is.. ohh thats just a coincidence...  Israel and the prophecies concerning Israel are compelling evidence
21:58	Grey_fox2	Cirious: Intelligent men can be atheists. God hasn't been conclusively demonstrated the way atoms have
21:58	ChuckWagon	Cirious: Right and what's fascinating is that the deeper we look, the clearer I'm seeing Him.  I'm so glad I've had these wonderful folks to teach me more science because God's existence is clearer now than ever.
21:58		*** Happy-pea joined #christiandebate
21:58		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Happy-pea
21:59	barabbas`	Sardaukar: No assumption on my part at all. I know if you had done as instructed you, like all those others, would be enjoying the same relationship we have instead of miserably asking for the same thing over and over.
21:59	Sardaukar	Didache i have never seen verifiable testable repeatable quantitative EMPIRICAL evidence for a god, if you have it, id love to review it
21:59		Didache wonders what a Happy-pea is
21:59	Sardaukar	barabbas` i dont bow to circular reasoning
22:00	TrollT	I explained how to potentially obtain it, Sard
22:00	ChuckWagon	Didache: I stirred some peas in a bowl of water ... it caused whirled peas.
22:00	Didache	Sardaukar as I said, the existence of Israel and the fulfilled prophecies concerning Israel
22:00	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Just as I prefer a government of laws, I prefer a universe of laws.
22:00	barabbas`	Sardaukar; You have already made that statement/request and been told where to get the evidence. Why are you asking again and not doing as instructed.
22:00	Didache	ChuckWagon were they Happy-pea
22:00	Cirious	maybe you should study the history of Jesus Christ, and not just pffft it off as some myth
22:00	TrollT	It is myth.
22:00	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: A government of laws requires law makers.  Perhaps the universe needs at least one of those, n'est pas?
22:00	Grey_fox2	Well, I don't think it does
22:01	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Your analogy, friend ...
22:01	Grey_fox2	The speed of light doesn't need to be enforced after all
22:01	Jedi_Knight	-Colossians 1:15- Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (kjv)
22:01	TrollT	Principles aren't regulations.
22:01	Cirious	the only evidence you will ever see from Christianity is the story of Jesus Christ, the effect of it on history, and the impact it has had on billions..there is no other evidence available
22:01	Grey_fox2	The difference between physical laws and government laws is that government laws need an enforcement mechanism to actually have influence
22:01	Sardaukar	TrollT i was raised a castholic and i was also a cheistisn for years and i did all the things i was supposed to do, and it failed, so believers will circularly claim it was my fault, i didnt have strong enough faith or i didnt open my heart or some such thing, its a good way to control people because all the onus is on the person, god need do nothing
22:01	Grey_fox2	Whereas physical laws literally cannot be broken in the first place.
22:02	Grey_fox2	They will always be true. If they aren't, then they're not true laws.
22:02	Cirious	Russell personally felt that it was not enough for him to believe
22:02	Cirious	but for others, it is enough
22:02	barabbas`	Sardaukar; The question is, why are you here, night after night asking for the same thing if you aren't going to do as instructed to get what you are asking for? Are you that desperate for attention that this is the only way to get it? I know if you would allow God into your life you wouldn't be so desperate.
22:02		*** S|J_McPherson is now known as S|J_McPherson_notaround
22:02	TrollT	Sard, wrong religious, try some others
22:02	Grey_fox2	Cirious: Well it's hardly a conclusive demonstration is it?
22:02	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: All analogies break down along the way and I'm aware of that.  But it does seem reasonable that an orderly universe intelligently ordered.  Disagreement with that view may also be reasonable, but surely my view is not lacking rationality.
22:03	Sardaukar	TrollT lol thats a common claim and just as silly
22:03	O`Puck	Sardaukar: Exactly the concept of 'wind' does not map to a /thing/ which exists, but denotes a kind of process. We reify it linguistically so it becomes a simple thing. For example we may say 'I felt the wind in my hair' thus making it seem, like there is a simple THING called 'the wind' which exists because we felt it. But like many abstractions and
22:03	O`Puck	concepts, there is not a simple referent, like there is with for example the moon. A particular wind can maybe be more clearly defined for example in a wind-tunnel or by a meteorologist, or in a video or whatever, but often when we speak of the wind we refer to the general abstraction which in fact has no particular referent
22:03	Sardaukar	if catholocism and christianity dosent work ill try islam
22:03	O`Puck	Grey_fox2: So yes, the complexity and subtleties of our concepts matter
22:03	TrollT	Sard, methods, not beliefs.
22:03	TrollT	And no, i wouldn't try sibling religious.
22:04		*** Godric joined #christiandebate
22:04	TrollT	Try Buddhism or better Hinduism or Taoism.
22:04		+++ BibleBot has given voice to Godric
22:04	Grey_fox2	O`Puck: You haven't shown that it matters in this instance.
22:04	Cirious	well, all I can report is what I see in it.  For me, I see no other way to beat the grave, and there's always the possiblity that hell is real and I certainly don't want that as end of me..but the idea that it could be true, and if it is, then heaven awaits, is enough for me walk toward faith in Christ..definitely
22:04	ChuckWagon	Hello, Godric.
22:04	TrollT	Get to worshipping. Try Neopaganism.
22:04	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Well I understand your point of view
22:04	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: And in spite of disagreeing, do you find it rational?
22:04	TrollT	Yearn for a personal relationship. Engage the practices diligently, watch for thrills and excitement.
22:04	Sardaukar	barabbas` why do you come here? since you are a true believer with PERFECT faith there IS NO DEBATE, yet you are here insulting and mocking atheists and others every day
22:05	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: I mean, one of the great mysteries of the universe is why it's explicable.
22:05		+++ AppleGirl set the channel to mode +l 74
22:05	barabbas`	O`Puck: Have you looked up the term wind in a dictionary. I believe you will find that it is a noun. Noun are words that denote persons, places, THINGS or ideas. So your obfuscation of the term is really as pathetic as Sardaukar need for attention.
22:05	O`Puck	Grey_fox2: I think I have. Because your example of something unseen (referring to the wind) does not refer to any specific meaning of the wind, there are many, depending on context and sprachspiel
22:05	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Well, I'm not sure what's meant by "rational" here.
22:05	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: That may be the greatest.
22:05	O`Puck	Grey_fox2: Therefore your argument relies on this vagueness.
22:05	TrollT	Sard, jousting.
22:05	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Does it use good sense ... or is it simply wish fulfillment?
22:05	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: My view of a mind is that it's a fantastically sophisticated object, that needs to exist in some universe.
22:05	Sardaukar	TrollT my answer as well
22:06	TrollT	In which case it is unimportant.
22:06	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Oh?  Why must a mind exist?  Why is a mind necessary?
22:06	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Of course, we could have a layer of universes. Our universe might be a simulation created by people living in some other universe.
22:06	Jedi_Knight	I think Obi Wan would refer to the dependence of point of view.
22:06	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: I think you misparsed that
22:06	TrollT	It's all faith and no methods. I am talking about having come from agnosticism without religion and found gods with scientific methods by engaging in practices alongside many religious.
22:06	barabbas`	Sardaukar I come here because God led me here. I come here to answer your request so others who may also be as desperate as you are can see the difference between desperation and action. I don't continue playing your game for your benifit, I do it because I know that I am having a positive effect on someone listening and this will bring them to God. For that I thank you.
22:06	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: When I say "needs to exist in some universe", what I mean is that "a universe is a necessary background condition for a mind to exist"
22:07	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: It's not that minds must exist, it's that minds imply a universe.
22:07	Sardaukar	barabbas` god bless
22:07	Jedi_Knight	is consciousness visible?
22:07	Grey_fox2	I'm not sure I'm making myself clear
22:07		*** Oban joined #christiandebate
22:07		*** Oban was kicked by QRT ([ Reason: ban evasion barabbas` ])
22:07		*** diz_lurking quit (Ping timeout)
22:08	TrollT	Jedi, it may be inferred by visible signs.
22:08	Jedi_Knight	effects again
22:08	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Has that cleared things up?
22:08	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: So ... a mind needs a universe, but the universe does not need a mind.  Hence a mindless universe is possible, but a mind without a universe is not?
22:08	TrollT	Comparable to engagements with, and experiences of gods.
22:08	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Right.
22:08	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Is it possible for the universe to consist of only a mind?
22:08	barabbas`	Sardaukar; Since you don't have God in your life that is a hollow statement, void of meaning or emotion. Why do you ask God to bless when you don't know or believe he exists? What is the purpose for you to call on something you don't believe exists?
22:09	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: that'd be a hell...
22:09	Jedi_Knight	effects of consciousness may be viewable, but consciousness itself who can take a photo of it for me?
22:09	TrollT	Cw, the 'possibility game' is endless and has no parameters.
22:09	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: I'm honestly not sure.
22:09	O`Puck	Consciousness has not been demonstrated to be a meaningful concept yet. We have no clear definition of the term and no way of mapping it to reality
22:09	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: I'm imagining some kind of solipsistic prison
22:09	barabbas`	O`Puck So consciouness has no meaning for you?
22:09	Sardaukar	barabbas` you are completely ignorant of my beliefs in every way, assuming you know what i believe or think or value is offensive to me
22:10	TrollT	O'Puck, dictionaries and Psychology of Consciousness have adequately described it; relating to awareness and recursion.
22:10	Jedi_Knight	O`Puck now we are getting somewhere.. compare
22:10	O`Puck	meaningful as in stringent and unambiguous
22:10	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: Oh you're helping me more than you know.
22:10	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Here's the trouble I think: memory.
22:10	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Memory requires some kind of storage mechanism
22:11	O`Puck	Jedi_Knight: Well, that's good I guess, where are we going?
22:11	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: It needs a means, not necessarily a mechanism.
22:11	barabbas`	Sardaukar I don't have to assume anything. You keep asking for evidence of God. It isn't an assumption at all to know you don't know God. This is an easy evaluation to determine your knowledge or lack of knowledge or relationship with God. I know you have a need for what I know to be just an assumption, but it isn't.
22:12	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: Put it this way: I think minds need to be constructed out of non-mental components.
22:12	Sardaukar	it is an assumption , you dont know what i believe and your mocking use of "God Bless" is pretty vile the way you use it to so many people
22:12	ChuckWagon	Grey_fox2: But let me ask you to consider ... would the doctrine of the trinity solve the solipsistic problem? If God is a trinity, and has always been so, then before God created an environment, He had other entities to interact with - hence within God's very being is diversity as well as unity.
22:12	Grey_fox2	ChuckWagon: That minds are too sophisticated to be "ontologically basic" the way space is.