God's not dead

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
You can't observe testimony. It is subjective.

People testify to seeing aliens and Bigfoot, too.

Testify. Lol.
 
Denny Crane said:
You can't observe testimony. It is subjective.

People testify to seeing aliens and Bigfoot, too.

Testify. Lol.
Click to expand...

Multiverse is subjective. Anything in science is subjective. Lmao bro, you have proof, now stop with your yapping. You lost...

And as for the aliens and Bigfoot... You can peer review the evidence and allow them to decide. The eyewitness accounts are evidence. You are actually proving my point.
 
magnifier661 said:
Multiverse is subjective. Anything in science is subjective. Lmao bro, you have proof, now stop with your yapping. You lost...

And as for the aliens and Bigfoot... You can peer review the evidence and allow them to decide. The eyewitness accounts are evidence. You are actually proving my point.
Click to expand...

Multiverse is subjective. It's only a hypothesis.

Science is not subjective. You are here because of a leprechaun - you have the quality of proof of that as you provide.

Eyewitness accounts are not empirical evidence. I testify about the leprechaun and you. You lose.
 
Denny Crane said:
Multiverse is subjective. It's only a hypothesis.

Science is not subjective. You are here because of a leprechaun - you have the quality of proof of that as you provide.

Eyewitness accounts are not empirical evidence. I testify about the leprechaun and you. You lose.
Click to expand...

Then your definition of "empirical evidence" is false.
 
magnifier661 said:
Then your definition of "empirical evidence" is false.
Click to expand...

I'm using whatever it is you claim empirical evidence is. It's not making you look good.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.

35MPH is objective if you measure the distance and time with accurate instruments.

"Really fast" is subjective because there's nothing to measure and what you testify is really fast is based upon your biases.
 
Denny Crane said:
I'm using whatever it is you claim empirical evidence is. It's not making you look good.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.

35MPH is objective if you measure the distance and time with accurate instruments.

"Really fast" is subjective because there's nothing to measure and what you testify is really fast is based upon your biases.
Click to expand...

I am using "YOUR" provided definition.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
Click to expand...

Do you agree or disagree with what you posted is true? Pretty simple... Yes or No?
 
magnifier661 said:
I am using "YOUR" provided definition.



Do you agree or disagree with what you posted is true? Pretty simple... Yes or No?
Click to expand...

By means of observation. I don't see the words subjective or testimony in there.
 
And your concept of objectivity is absolutely correct, but that objectivity is still empirical. Just as one would have objectivity of a Multiverse or Multi-dimension. They approach it carefully, but any evidence subjective or "bias-free" is still evidence.

And with that, the testimony of Christians, Muslims or Hindus that they feel the presence of God is evidence and it is "empirical" as your definition claims. So when you claim there is zero evidence that God exists, you are 100% wrong.
 
I think whatever you think empirical evidence is is wrong. Testimony is not objective.
 
Denny Crane said:
I think whatever you think empirical evidence is is wrong. Testimony is not objective.
Click to expand...

It was a question on the definition you posted. Has nothing to do with what I think. Answer a simple yes or no about the definition that you posted...

"Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."
 
magnifier661 said:
It was a question on the definition you posted. Has nothing to do with what I think. Answer a simple yes or no about the definition that you posted...

"Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."
Click to expand...

Can you provide any evidence that is reproducible that Jesus Christ preformed a miracle and that it was not Zeus or Odin?
 
Observation implies objective. So yes, that is the definition. To continue from the wikipedia page:

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.
 
Eastoff said:
Can you provide any evidence that is reproducible that Jesus Christ preformed a miracle and that it was not Zeus or Odin?
Click to expand...

Why ask Mags, Denny is the one old enough to have witnessed it.
 
Lets just assume that Denny would believe in the definitions that he posted. I mean, can we take him seriously, if he just threw out a definition to support his claim and not believe it?

So let's just break down this definition shall we?

1.) posteriori: deriving knowledge from experience: reasoning from observed facts or events back to their causes.
- Last time I checked, a personal testimony is deriving knowledge from experience. When you testify on events that you have experienced, you are observing the cause of events that happened ones your life.

2.) Sense of experience: This is pretty self explanatory. The feeling one has in their personal experience is the "sense of experience".

3.) Observation: 1.) paying attention - the attentive watching of somebody or something 2.) observing of developments in something - the careful watching and recording of something, e.g. a natural phenomenon, as it happens 3.) record of something seen or noted: the result or record of observing something such as a natural phenomenon and noting developments.
- carefully read this definition. Accounts of personal testimony falls in the definition of observation. But the definition itself also explains natural phenomenon, as the joy one has when they talk about Christ. Their biological positive reaction with their testimony would give you a good indicator if they truly believe in their testimony.

4.) Experimentation: the act, process, practice, or an instance of making experiments.
- One could easily suggest that giving a poll of one thousand Christians and their personal account with God is a form of experience.

So according to Denny's definition, not only is "personal testimony" empirical, it can be respected with a intense experimentation of over 1 million people.

The argument that there is no evidence that God exists is wrong. Denny is wrong.

NEXT...
 
Eastoff said:
Can you provide any evidence that is reproducible that Jesus Christ preformed a miracle and that it was not Zeus or Odin?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Since we use Denny's definition of "empirical evidence", we can now use the Bible as reference.
 
Denny Crane said:
Multiverse is subjective. It's only a hypothesis.

Science is not subjective. You are here because of a leprechaun - you have the quality of proof of that as you provide.

Eyewitness accounts are not empirical evidence. I testify about the leprechaun and you. You lose.
Click to expand...

Actually, Denny, you're wrong. Scientific "rules" and "laws" are not proven. We believe many of them to be truth due to the amount of evidence. But the same can be said for the people who thought the earth was flat.

Causation is impossible to prove. The only "laws" that have proof are the ones that man has defined, such as 2 + 2 = 4.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Actually, Denny, you're wrong. Scientific "rules" and "laws" are not proven. We believe many of them to be truth due to the amount of evidence. But the same can be said for the people who thought the earth was flat.

Causation is impossible to prove. The only "laws" that have proof are the ones that man has defined, such as 2 + 2 = 4.
Click to expand...

I'm wrong about what? I didn't say anything about rules and laws (the scientific terms).

I'm quite confident that there is no empirical evidence for any god, but there is plenty of empirical evidence to support self replicating molecules.
 
Denny Crane said:
I'm wrong about what? I didn't say anything about rules and laws (the scientific terms).

I'm quite confident that there is no empirical evidence for any god, but there is plenty of empirical evidence to support self replicating molecules.
Click to expand...

When you said "Science is not subjective". Yes it is.
 
Denny Crane said:
Observation implies objective. So yes, that is the definition. To continue from the wikipedia page:

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.
Click to expand...

SWEET!

1.) Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
- My hypothesis is broken down like this...

God exists.
Method: Using a demographic of 1 million Christians, Hindus and Muslims from varying countries and cultures. Interview their personal accounts with how they feel God's presence. Summarize the common emotional response when asked the question. Reference their Bibles, Korans, Gita, the Ramayan, the mahabartha and input the similarities with each religion.

I can go on, but I or even a respected professional in the field of science can create a scientific method to document the testimonies and have a peer review of the results.
 
Denny Crane said:
I'm wrong about what? I didn't say anything about rules and laws (the scientific terms).

I'm quite confident that there is no empirical evidence for any god, but there is plenty of empirical evidence to support self replicating molecules.
Click to expand...

You are wrong that there is no evidence that God exists.
 
Denny Crane said:
Without a shred of evidence there's no reason to believe in any god. There is no shred of evidence.
Click to expand...

Then you do not believe in your definition of "empirical evidence". Do you even believe in what you write or are you some robot that throws definitions without conviction?
 
magnifier661 said:
Then you do not believe in your definition of "empirical evidence". Do you even believe in what you write or are you some robot that throws definitions without conviction?
Click to expand...

I believe in the definition, you don't.
 
Denny Crane said:
No it isn't. Only the choice of what experiments to perform is subjective, but the science itself is objective.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. The use of the output, regardless of the chosen experiment, is subjective. You're using the output of the experiments when you assume something to be true, even though all of the data has confidence intervals associated with it.
 
blazerboy30 said:
You're wrong. The use of the output, regardless of the chosen experiment, is subjective. You're using the output of the experiments when you assume something to be true, even though all of the data has confidence intervals associated with it.
Click to expand...

You are if you don't have any peer review.

That peers will replicate the experiment and see the same results over and over makes it objective.

It's also objective to say the results aren't conclusive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top