God's not dead

[Denny Crane]

You are in denial Denny. I broke down your definition. My point is valid, you are choosing to ignore it because you don't want to lose

You're playing silly games and lost already.

If you can't abide by what the rest of the world defines as empirical evidence, you are only going to live in and believe in a fantasy. Which you do

 

[magnifier661]

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.

With his ignorance that the date of first self replicating molecule is not subjective, we can all agree Denny doesn't actually understand. If you cannot observe a molecule forming from non-genetic matter, then the result is purely subjective.

 

[magnifier661]

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.

It's easy to have a "peer review" on testimony. They can grab another 1 million Christians and do the same test. If those same people have the same testimonies, then you can give the hypothesis more credit. There are billions of people to run this test on.

 

[magnifier661]

You're playing silly games and lost already.

If you can't abide by what the rest of the world defines as empirical evidence, you are only going to live in and believe in a fantasy. Which you do

Truth is not a game. I am using your definition. I am using, what you believe, to prove that there is evidence that God exists. You can choose to ignore the data because of your refusal to seek truth. You aren't un-bias, you are stubborn. You cannot live with the knowledge that you can use a scientific method on testimony. You won't even give it a chance.

And to think you claim to be a logical realist. tsk tsk

 

[Denny Crane]

With his ignorance that the date of first self replicating molecule is not subjective, we can all agree Denny doesn't actually understand. If you cannot observe a molecule forming from non-genetic matter, then the result is purely subjective.

Many of the people who testify that a god exists also testify that the earth is 6000 years old. Do you believe it?

LOL

 

[Denny Crane]

To prove god exists, I need to see some evidence that is objective. A long trail of footprints. A photograph. That he shows up via ultrasound or x-rays or whatever.

Otherwise it's hogwash. Snake oil.

 

[magnifier661]

Many of the people who testify that a god exists also testify that the earth is 6000 years old. Do you believe it?

LOL

Does it matter? It is still evidence nonetheless.

Still doesn't credit your statement that "There is no evidence that God exists"

 

[magnifier661]

To prove god exists, I need to see some evidence that is objective. A long trail of footprints. A photograph. That he shows up via ultrasound or x-rays or whatever.

Otherwise it's hogwash. Snake oil.

Do you have a photograph of the first self replicating molecule manifesting from non genetic material? Yet here you are believing in that.

Why is that not hogwash?

 

[Denny Crane]

Does it matter? It is still evidence nonetheless.

Still doesn't credit your statement that "There is no evidence that God exists"

It is awful evidence, not credible.

I don't believe in bigfoot or aliens either. Show me a crashed saucer or a corpse or captured bigfoot and I'm a believer.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It is awful evidence, not credible.

I don't believe in bigfoot or aliens either. Show me a crashed saucer or a corpse or captured bigfoot and I'm a believer.

If you ever met BlazerWookee you would believe Big Foot exists.

 

[magnifier661]

It is awful evidence, not credible.

I don't believe in bigfoot or aliens either. Show me a crashed saucer or a corpse or captured bigfoot and I'm a believer.

Thank you! And how long did it take for you to finally admit that it is empirical evidence?

From now on, you can edit your statement "There is no evidence that God exists"

We can move on now.

 

[Denny Crane]

Do you have a photograph of the first self replicating molecule manifesting from non genetic material? Yet here you are believing in that.

Why is that not hogwash?

We know there was one through inductive reasoning.

That is there is plenty of physical and objective evidence they exist and we know there was a time when there were not even the tiniest bits that make up molecules. Somewhere in between, they had to form.

On the other hand, we don't know there is a god at all. All there is is a book of fairy tales written by human beings with an agenda at best, and mass psychosis at the worst.

 

[Denny Crane]

Thank you! And how long did it take for you to finally admit that it is empirical evidence?

From now on, you can edit your statement "There is no evidence that God exists"

We can move on now.

face palm time.

Where did you stretch "awful" evidence into "empirical" - the words do not have even close to the same meaning.

 

[magnifier661]

face palm time.

Where did you stretch "awful" evidence into "empirical" - the words do not have even close to the same meaning.

The face palm is all you bro. I have already made my case and its "iron clad". Ive used all the definitions you have provided and gave credit to the statement that personal testimony is "very empirical". You can discredit it like those that could laugh at those that believe in Multi-verses. But you won't ever hear a professional in the scientific community that would respond in your way.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Does it matter? It is still evidence nonetheless.

Still doesn't credit your statement that "There is no evidence that God exists"

You have to understand DC . . . any evidence that does not fall in line with his position is not credible evidence. While evidence that does favor his position can be relied on. There is a pattern to his arguments.

 

[Denny Crane]

The face palm is all you bro. I have already made my case and its "iron clad". Ive used all the definitions you have provided and gave credit to the statement that personal testimony is "very empirical". You can discredit it like those that could laugh at those that believe in Multi-verses. But you won't ever hear a professional in the scientific community that would respond in your way.

What you've done repeatedly in post after post is prove there is no empirical evidence for god. Only unreliable testimony.

Thanks!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This has become a giant, "I'm rubber, you're glue.." argument between Denny and Mags.

"I face palm"

"No, I face palm."

"You don't understand."

"No, you don't understand."

Please continue, I'm enjoying this.

 

[magnifier661]

You have to understand DC . . . any evidence that does not fall in line with his position is not credible evidence. While evidence that does favor his position can be relied on. There is a pattern to his arguments.

LOL I am seeing that now!

 

[magnifier661]

What you've done repeatedly in post after post is prove there is no empirical evidence for god. Only unreliable testimony.

Thanks!

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...

<Fade in on Denny in the fetal position> NO IT'S NOT!!!! WAHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[Denny Crane]

What you've done repeatedly in post after post is prove there is no empirical evidence for god. Only unreliable testimony.

Thanks!

 

[magnifier661]

What you've done repeatedly in post after post is prove there is no empirical evidence for god. Only unreliable testimony.

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

No new notable research or theory on the subject appeared until 1924, when Alexander Oparin reasoned that atmospheric oxygen prevents the synthesis of certain organic compounds that are necessary building blocks for the evolution of life. In his book The Origin of Life,[50][51] Oparin proposed that the "spontaneous generation of life" that had been attacked by Louis Pasteur did in fact occur once, but was now impossible because the conditions found on the early Earth had changed, and preexisting organisms would immediately consume any spontaneously generated organism. Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygenless atmosphere through the action of sunlight. These would combine in ever more complex ways until they formed coacervate droplets. These droplets would "grow" by fusion with other droplets, and "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, and those that do not become extinct. Many modern theories of the origin of life still take Oparin's ideas as a starting point.

Ah yes, you take merit of this theory without peer review and ability to repeat the test. Now who's reaching?!?! LMAO!

 

[Denny Crane]

It's not a theory. The bold part.

Swing and a miss!

Next?

 

[magnifier661]

It's not a theory. The bold part.

Swing and a miss!

Next?

Awe now Denny needs to argue grammar mistakes. How cute. My mistake "hypothesis"

 

[Denny Crane]

A hypothesis is just an interesting idea until there's empirical evidence to support it.

All you have to do is show me even one iota of empirical evidence of a god and I'll be a believer. Has to be measurable with some instrument, like a camera or a spectrometer or something along those lines.

 

[magnifier661]

A hypothesis is just an interesting idea until there's empirical evidence to support it.

All you have to do is show me even one iota of empirical evidence of a god and I'll be a believer. Has to be measurable with some instrument, like a camera or a spectrometer or something along those lines.

Sweet so since there is no measurable data that a self replicating molecule can manifest from non genetic material, we can discount this hypothesis then?

 

[Denny Crane]

Sweet so since there is no measurable data that a self replicating molecule can manifest from non genetic material, we can discount this hypothesis then?

But there is. You can deny it, but it doesn't mean there's a lack of such evidence. I already posted it once. Go back and read it this time.

 

[Further]

This thread
[video]

 

[magnifier661]

But there is. You can deny it, but it doesn't mean there's a lack of such evidence. I already posted it once. Go back and read it this time.

Exactly... You can choose to deny the evidence of the testimonies, but it is still evidence and especially empirical. Your denial doesn't make it "lack of evidence". You just choose to discount it.

But if you ask anyone that is actually a scientist, and not some "wannabe one" like you are, they will 100% agree with me. In fact, I had this same conversation with our biologists and they said it is empirical.

 

[Denny Crane]

Exactly... You can choose to deny the evidence of the testimonies, but it is still evidence and especially empirical. Your denial doesn't make it "lack of evidence". You just choose to discount it.

But if you ask anyone that is actually a scientist, and not some "wannabe one" like you are, they will 100% agree with me. In fact, I had this same conversation with our biologists and they said it is empirical.

Testimony is not "especially" or otherwise empirical.

That's where you fall down with this silly argument.

 

[magnifier661]

Testimony is not "especially" or otherwise empirical.

That's where you fall down with this silly argument.

What are your credentials? Are you a PhD? I think I put more merit to those with the credentials. They still don't believe in God, but they definitely believe personal testimony is empirical. But go on bro... Scream until your head explodes. The hole is already to your neck and it won't take much longer to be in over your head.