Proof of God

[Sarkus]

You say it is inaccurate. I have observed otherwise. You have not highlighted woefull. And despite what you might think my claim is merely an opinion I can chose to back it up with my oberservations or with the oberservations of others in the field. None of it will alter your persepective.

Because none of it has been shown rationally to stack up in favour of "God".

If we're not using the Scientific Method (which is a requirement) then why are you asking for proof on my opinion and observations?

One can not provide proof for an opinion - merely evidence in support of.
What was asked for in this thread, lest it be forgotten, is what proof people have, or use, to say God exists. If this "proof" is merely observation then that evidence should be put forth and subjected to the scrutiny of the Scientific method - i.e. make a claim and support it with evidence.

You just might have figured it out after all the circling you've done to avoid the obvious statements of the underlying problem.

The only circling done is to try and establish what it is you are actually trying to say.

Those logical fallacy labels you're so handy with are only dished out when you've failed to miss the mark.

I beg to differ (and you'd no doubt expect me to). If I spot logical fallacies I call them out. There should be no place for them in rational debate.

It's the failure in your understanding that runs the discussion aground.

Or maybe your inability to use precise english?

You've bounced between the use of the method to logical fallacies to a flawed requirement of reputation.

I have made no claim of reputation being a requirement - only that it helps to have your case listened to by the wider public. Whether your claim is listened to or not does not alter the rationality of that claim given the evidence supporting it.
But then you are of the most bizarre notion that society determines truth. So perhaps there is no reasoning with you on a rational basis.

Your aim is aweful. I am attempt to alter your aim. For if you really are trying to hit me and make your accusations stick you're going to have actually hit your target.

Whether you feel their puncture or not ultimately makes no difference to me - but others will see you floundering with the shafts protruding whether you deny them or not.

This isn't about the Scientific Method. It's about those that use the Scientific Method. This is about taking responsibility, this is about bias, this about using the right tool for the job.

If you say so, Saquist.
All we ask is that anyone who makes a claim has the decency to support that claim and provide the evidence so that we can subject it to the scientific method and rational thought.

Over and out, Sarkus.

Is that a promise? (Rhetorical question - no need to answer!)

 

[Myles]

Saquist,

I had decided not to bother with you again but I shall do so now to try and correct your confusing the scientific method and rational debate. From now on I'm talking philosophy. which is not to say that rational debate is absent in science, lest you continue to remain confused. So, in language which any intelligent person can understand, here goes.

I quote: " If we're not using the scientific method ( which is a requirement) then why are you asking for proof on (sic) my opinion and observations ? "

The first thing to be said is that an opinion is no more than opinion; it does not guatantee truth. I can say " in my opinion it will rain tomorrow" If it happens to rain my opinion is purely fortuitous. I did not KNOW. I was merely expressing a subjective view which is what an opinion is. Is that so difficult to understand ?

In a rational debate the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim; otherwise the claim will be ignored. A simple example:

If I told you there are elephants on Mars would you believe me or would you not wish to know how I know such a thing and what evidence I can adduce to convince you and others. Is that so difficult to understand ? It's accepted by all who engage in rational debate but you appear to think that an exception ought to be made for you. Well. that is just not on.
Forget the scientific method, which you clearly do not understand and just offer evidence to support what you say.

You don't need to believe me; just re-read the rules and guidance on this forum. You will find that the need for evidence is referred to.

 

[Saquist]

Because none of it has been shown rationally to stack up in favour of "God".

If that is what you believe, then so be it.

One can not provide proof for an opinion - merely evidence in support of.
What was asked for in this thread, lest it be forgotten, is what proof people have, or use, to say God exists. If this "proof" is merely observation then that evidence should be put forth and subjected to the scrutiny of the Scientific method - i.e. make a claim and support it with evidence.

Very well on the basis of thread I accept, even though this was not the purpose of my initial post.

I beg to differ (and you'd no doubt expect me to). If I spot logical fallacies I call them out. There should be no place for them in rational debate.

That would be acceptable if you were outlining the fallacy instead of labeling. You've no isolated your observance. Therefor I've denied them. It is my understanding that fallacies come in many different variety. I've yet to see you apply them propperly and objectively to my argument.

Or maybe your inability to use precise english?

Or your inability to draw the reasonable conclusion?

I have made no claim of reputation being a requirement - only that it helps to have your case listened to by the wider public. Whether your claim is listened to or not does not alter the rationality of that claim given the evidence supporting it.
But then you are of the most bizarre notion that society determines truth. So perhaps there is no reasoning with you on a rational basis.

That's a requirement. The Socity of Science follows the same line of reasoning as you do. Reputation appeals rather than logic.

Whether you feel their puncture or not ultimately makes no difference to me - but others will see you floundering with the shafts protruding whether you deny them or not.

Inversely your double vision makes little difference aswell. Again you appeal to a majority and consensus...is this a logical fallacy?

If you say so, Saquist.
All we ask is that anyone who makes a claim has the decency to support that claim and provide the evidence so that we can subject it to the scientific method and rational thought.

If I were simply making a scientific claim I'd be forced to concur. But it was a statement of confidence, a statement of grounded by objectivity to the information I have taken in. But no scientific claim has been presented.

I don't mind presenting that information nor do I have a problem presenting that information for scrutiny. But I do not intend to have my informal opinion interogated formally. (which is what your intention was)

Is that a promise? (Rhetorical question - no need to answer!)

Indeed. I've learned a little more and a little more about you. perhaps not as antagonistic as I previously precieved.

 

[Sarkus]

If that is what you believe, then so be it.

It's not a matter of belief - but a lack of belief in what the evidence shows. If you think otherwise - state the evidence and state how it is rational evidence for the existence of God.

That would be acceptable if you were outlining the fallacy instead of labeling.

If I have declared any of your statement as a logical fallacy, I would most likely have indicated which fallacy was being committed. This should give you sufficient understanding of the perceived error. If I have not indicated - then apologies and rest assured that should I spot them in future that I will ensure you are left in no doubt as to the perceived error. If I have not declared any statements as fallacies then consider yourself fortunate.

Or your inability to draw the reasonable conclusion?

Given your already documented concession that you do not always use precise English, where do you think logic would dictate the answer most likely resides?

That's a requirement. The Socity of Science follows the same line of reasoning as you do. Reputation appeals rather than logic.

How do you claim it to be a requirement? From where are you getting this notion?
And any Society who puts reputation over words commit a Logical fallacy - appeal to authority. This is not committed by the Scientific method but by the people in their chase of ego, wealth and reputation.

Inversely your double vision makes little difference aswell. Again you appeal to a majority and consensus...is this a logical fallacy?

Again you show lack of understanding of what constitutes an argument or a mere comment. I will take your question regarding logical fallacies as a genuine question, and ignore the unsubtle attempt at ironic humour due to its inevitable backfire: I was not making an argument - merely an observation that people will see things perhaps differently to you. There is thus no logical fallacy.

If I were simply making a scientific claim I'd be forced to concur. But it was a statement of confidence, a statement of grounded by objectivity to the information I have taken in. But no scientific claim has been presented.

Claims are not "scientific" or otherwise. They are merely claims. And statements of confidence are nothing more than words on a page, bearing no weight.

I don't mind presenting that information nor do I have a problem presenting that information for scrutiny. But I do not intend to have my informal opinion interogated formally. (which is what your intention was)

There is no "formal interrogation", merely some who choose to view things rationally, and some who don't.
Are you afraid of not being able to support your views? Or of realising that your conclusions are irrational?
Surely if you hold your conclusions and opinions to be rational, what should it matter how they are "interrogated"?

Do your "informal" opinions differ from your "formal" opinions?
If so, why?
And what is the difference between them?

 

[Saquist]

It's not a matter of belief - but a lack of belief in what the evidence shows. If you think otherwise - state the evidence and state how it is rational evidence for the existence of God.

I have before...infact it can be summed in all my post.
You ask me to deciminate all the information before you now. I decline from this immediately as it would be a needless repetition. I'm not opposed to such repetition but you share a responisbility to have been observant. The information was presented if you truely require it you may search for it.

The alternative is for you to ask more specific questions.

If I have declared any of your statement as a logical fallacy, I would most likely have indicated which fallacy was being committed. This should give you sufficient understanding of the perceived error. If I have not indicated - then apologies and rest assured that should I spot them in future that I will ensure you are left in no doubt as to the perceived error. If I have not declared any statements as fallacies then consider yourself fortunate.

Sarkus, i do not enjoy being dictated to. If accused of a logical fallacy do not take for granted that I know all Logical Fallacies... There is a lenghty litnay and I have not commited them all to memory.I do not know all fallacies off the top of my head. Thus I've analyzed this as labeling and thus I deflect it. It's not that I refuse to recognize the fallacy.

Given your already documented concession that you do not always use precise English, where do you think logic would dictate the answer most likely resides?

I am human. I error. Such is my name. (saquist) It bestows honor that I admit them rather than hide them.

How do you claim it to be a requirement? From where are you getting this notion?
And any Society who puts reputation over words commit a Logical fallacy - appeal to authority. This is not committed by the Scientific method but by the people in their chase of ego, wealth and reputation.

Let me identify your error here.
You infer that my statement says "The Scientific Method applies the authority of reputation."

My statement says nothing of the kind.
You have continuously used this lillogical level of reasoning. There is no casual relation between your conclusion and my statement....except for your head, that is.

Again you show lack of understanding of what constitutes an argument or a mere comment. I will take your question regarding logical fallacies as a genuine question, and ignore the unsubtle attempt at ironic humour due to its inevitable backfire: I was not making an argument - merely an observation that people will see things perhaps differently to you. There is thus no logical fallacy.

That's obvious. People are driven by reputation and agenda. Thus why would you illogically consider this a propper way of determining my own error? That is why it was illogical. You should not have said it. It did not follow the previous line of reasoning.

Claims are not "scientific" or otherwise. They are merely claims. And statements of confidence are nothing more than words on a page, bearing no weight.

Exactly...
Yet you have used the "Claim" argument frequently with the required use of the Scientific Method.

If you say so, Saquist.
All we ask is that anyone who makes a claim has the decency to support that claim and provide the evidence so that we can subject it to the scientific method and rational thought.

Please do not imply that it was not your intention to apply the scientific method to my to my statement by defining the term claim away from "scientific" to divert attention that my comment was not in any capacity official.:bugeye:

It was clearly your intent to prosecute by means of the Scientific Method because you clearly stated that intention.

There is no "formal interrogation", merely some who choose to view things rationally, and some who don't.
Are you afraid of not being able to support your views? Or of realising that your conclusions are irrational?
Surely if you hold your conclusions and opinions to be rational, what should it matter how they are "interrogated"?

You betray your intentions. You said it was your intention to apply the Scientific Method. You're being combative, abandoning your previous reasonings as a propper defense to logic.

What we are dicussing is the requirements for claims to be supported and be subjected to the Scientific method - especially over your claimed superior court of law.

This is the heart of formality. You state that this is a requirement for claims (my statement of confidence) to be supported by the Scientific Method. This would be the circling I mentioned earlier. You have refused to stand your ground and as a result it has made this discussion useless to pursue, political in nautre and I should have identified this tactic from the begining.

Do your "informal" opinions differ from your "formal" opinions?
If so, why?
And what is the difference between them?

Another question designed to construct an illogical inference of fallcy. I'm not sure at this moment if you're even attempting to think straight. Just how does your logic work in relation to the words you read?

A formal claim would thus require immediate bolstering with evidence. And not to mention outlining of the reason and validity of said claim. It at it's very nature implies a readiness to proceed with intensive examination.

An informal claim or statement of confidence is mere commentary. It may express a conclusion of facts or it may be baseless.

The fact that I have specificly ruled out "baseless" by saying I've have reviewed researched and studied the matter. Yet you've drawn a conclusion in direct defiance of that disclaimer...

yes... I think this is more anti-reasoning, seems like it's all for the sake of a triffling and transient agenda. I HOPE this is not what you're doing because I was just begining to trust you as you identified my error so precisely.

 

[Lori_7]

Can you prove the existence of God? I do not belive it possible to disprove the existence of God. But can you prove the existence of God? Below is a listing of proofs (somewhat humorus I admit).

Here are a few of my favorites:

CALVINIST ARGUMENT, a.k.a. TERTULLIAN'S ARGUMENT
(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FERMAT
(1) My proof is so big it doesn't fit into the margins.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

But I would like to here some serious proof and some not so serious proofs.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

i wonder why this topic is always such a big deal to everyone. is it because this proof or lack thereof would change the way you live your life everyday?

 

[Myles]

i wonder why this topic is always such a big deal to everyone. is it because this proof or lack thereof would change the way you live your life everyday?

How might that be ?

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, i do not enjoy being dictated to. If accused of a logical fallacy do not take for granted that I know all Logical Fallacies... There is a lenghty litnay and I have not commited them all to memory.I do not know all fallacies off the top of my head. Thus I've analyzed this as labeling and thus I deflect it. It's not that I refuse to recognize the fallacy.

Deflecting an argument is akin to refusing to accept it. One does not need to commit them all to memory to realise when one is not being logical in processes of thought.

Let me identify your error here.
You infer that my statement says "The Scientific Method applies the authority of reputation."

My statement says nothing of the kind.
You have continuously used this lillogical level of reasoning. There is no casual relation between your conclusion and my statement....except for your head, that is.

Firstly there was no such inference. The explicit statement I said was that SCIENTISTS, just as most humans when not thinking or debating logically, apply the authority of reputation, and thus are committing a logical fallacy. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD does not. At no point do I make the inferrence you ascribe to me.
The error is yours - firstly in assuming an inference of me, and secondly in being unable to distinguish the Scientific Method and logical debating.

That's obvious. People are driven by reputation and agenda. Thus why would you illogically consider this a propper way of determining my own error? That is why it was illogical. You should not have said it. It did not follow the previous line of reasoning.

Let's just put this down to you being unable to follow the line of discussion, shall we?

Exactly...
Yet you have used the "Claim" argument frequently with the required use of the Scientific Method.

If you say so, Saquist.
All we ask is that anyone who makes a claim has the decency to support that claim and provide the evidence so that we can subject it to the scientific method and rational thought.

Please do not imply that it was not your intention to apply the scientific method to my to my statement by defining the term claim away from "scientific" to divert attention that my comment was not in any capacity official.:bugeye:

It was clearly your intent to prosecute by means of the Scientific Method because you clearly stated that intention.

Of course it was my intention. All claims should be subject to the scientific method to help ascertain worth or otherwise, and to see how that claim, along with the supporting evidence, furthers our enquiries.
However, just because a claim is made subject to the Scientific Method does not necessarily make the claim itself "scientific" - only the method of interrogation.

You betray your intentions. You said it was your intention to apply the Scientific Method. You're being combative, abandoning your previous reasonings as a propper defense to logic.

I betray nothing of the sort - and indeed your evasiveness in this regard only heightens my concern that you actually have little to offer other than confidence to support your claims - and you, realising this, appear to be squirming at the very thought of having your evidence and thought process examined by anyone (or method) that will possibly find them sorely wanting.

What we are dicussing is the requirements for claims to be supported and be subjected to the Scientific method - especially over your claimed superior court of law.

This is the heart of formality. You state that this is a requirement for claims (my statement of confidence) to be supported by the Scientific Method. This would be the circling I mentioned earlier. You have refused to stand your ground and as a result it has made this discussion useless to pursue, political in nautre and I should have identified this tactic from the begining.

What on earth are you babbling about? I have not circled other than to try and chase you down to state your evidence that we may examine it. You are the one running in circles, and the longer you progress this the more obvious it will become to others that this is what you are doing.

There is no "formality" or otherwise in the Scientific method - you either follow it or you don't. You clearly don't wish to and we can only wonder why.

Another question designed to construct an illogical inference of fallcy. I'm not sure at this moment if you're even attempting to think straight. Just how does your logic work in relation to the words you read?

My logic works just fine - and it is obviously your poor usage of english that is letting you down. You stated: "But I do not intend to have my informal opinion interogated formally".
The logical assumption here is that you have both informal opinion AND formal opinion - a logical assumption as you deem it necessary to qualify "opinion" with the term "informal".
Hence the question: if you don't wish your "informal opinion" to be interrogated formally, what of your "formal opinion"?

A formal claim would thus require immediate bolstering with evidence. And not to mention outlining of the reason and validity of said claim. It at it's very nature implies a readiness to proceed with intensive examination.

An informal claim or statement of confidence is mere commentary. It may express a conclusion of facts or it may be baseless.

Saquist - you talk bollox.
On this forum - ANY claim should be supported or be judged baseless. This is how this forum works. You can not decide "Oh, I don't wish to support my claim, therefore I will call it an 'informal' claim."
Claims are claims.
Support them or shut up.

The fact that I have specificly ruled out "baseless" by saying I've have reviewed researched and studied the matter. Yet you've drawn a conclusion in direct defiance of that disclaimer...

Because you have not provided evidence to support your claims.
To rely on your sayso that you have "reviewed, researched and studied the matter" is insufficient or you just get into a shouting match between two people who do nothing but shout at each other that they have "reviewed, researched and studied the matter".
Provide evidence, sources, anything that will support your claims.

yes... I think this is more anti-reasoning, seems like it's all for the sake of a triffling and transient agenda. I HOPE this is not what you're doing because I was just begining to trust you as you identified my error so precisely.

I couldn't care less what you hope or not.
It is certainly NOT anti-reasoning (whatever the hell that means).

- You are consistently circling any request for evidence to support your claims, as evidenced by this very thread.
- You are consistently confusing the Scientific Method with rational debate, as evidenced and informed to you in this thread.
- You spout phrases (such as "(in)formal opinion") as if we should all know exactly what you mean and the implications thereof when in actuality they are seemingly used only by yourself, again as evidenced by this thread.

If you do not wish to supply the supporting evidence for your claims / opinions, and your thought process to reach your conclusions... why are you here?

 

[Lori_7]

How might that be ?

i don't know, that's what i'm asking. it seems that theoretically, it shouldn't.

 

[Myles]

But why do you think so. What is your reason

 

[Lori_7]

But why do you think so. What is your reason

i'm not sure if i understand what you're asking me, but what i'm asking is why is it so important to know if there's a god or not? is it because the existence of some big policeman in the sky will change the way people live their lives on a daily basis? i don't think so. i think people argue this topic simply based on their egos. they want to be right, and use this righteousness to have power.

 

[jayleew]

i'm not sure if i understand what you're asking me, but what i'm asking is why is it so important to know if there's a god or not? is it because the existence of some big policeman in the sky will change the way people live their lives on a daily basis? i don't think so. i think people argue this topic simply based on their egos. they want to be right, and use this righteousness to have power.

I suppose some debate for this reason, others debate just for the sake of debating, others debate to see if they can win, others debate because they need to figure this out because they want to believe but can't, and yet others debate just to piss other people off. There are a variety of reasons.

For me personally, I need to have this question answered because I was or still am a Christian, and for the sake of identity, I need the truth...perhaps because i'm in the process of deprogramming. I've been trained how to think for so long by fellow Christian leaders and peers that it is still a part of me. It is a part that causes strife in my mind as the attitudes and beliefs conflict with reason, where it becomes difficult with my conscience at times to make decisions with a feeling of guilt. The guilt is from my lack of desire to persue God. Reason is my crutch, just like religion was for me before. It would be easier to live with or without a god. So, that is why I need to have the answer...for the persuit of happiness.

 

[Lori_7]

I suppose some debate for this reason, others debate just for the sake of debating, others debate to see if they can win, others debate because they need to figure this out because they want to believe but can't, and yet others debate just to piss other people off. There are a variety of reasons.

For me personally, I need to have this question answered because I was or still am a Christian, and for the sake of identity, I need the truth...perhaps because i'm in the process of deprogramming. I've been trained how to think for so long by fellow Christian leaders and peers that it is still a part of me. It is a part that causes strife in my mind as the attitudes and beliefs conflict with reason, where it becomes difficult with my conscience at times to make decisions with a feeling of guilt. The guilt is from my lack of desire to persue God. Reason is my crutch, just like religion was for me before. It would be easier to live with or without a god. So, that is why I need to have the answer...for the persuit of happiness.

well jayleew, i wish you the best of luck (i don't really believe in luck, but...), and i must commend you on your refusal to be indoctrinated and spoonfed. i have found that the answer you are seeking does not come through intellect, but debate and research can certainly help, as god can use a wide variety of means and resources to show you what you want to know, and "want" is the key word here, in that it is your sincere desire to know the truth, whatever it is, that enables god to show it to you. seek and you shall find is spiritual law.

 

[Myles]

I suppose some debate for this reason, others debate just for the sake of debating, others debate to see if they can win, others debate because they need to figure this out because they want to believe but can't, and yet others debate just to piss other people off. There are a variety of reasons.

For me personally, I need to have this question answered because I was or still am a Christian, and for the sake of identity, I need the truth...perhaps because i'm in the process of deprogramming. I've been trained how to think for so long by fellow Christian leaders and peers that it is still a part of me. It is a part that causes strife in my mind as the attitudes and beliefs conflict with reason, where it becomes difficult with my conscience at times to make decisions with a feeling of guilt. The guilt is from my lack of desire to persue God. Reason is my crutch, just like religion was for me before. It would be easier to live with or without a god. So, that is why I need to have the answer...for the persuit of happiness.

I've been there and had a long struggle, debating with clergy, wrestling with
my conscience and so on. Just hang in there and you'll be ok. Guilt is a perfectly natural response whem we try to reject something that has be drilled into us by older people whose judgement we trust. But my experience, when I started to think for myself and ask "awkward" questions was that I got stupid answers like " it's not for you to question god's ways ". I got no help. I was simply told I was wrong.

When in turn. I asked " how can you be so sure you understand god's ways", I was told that priests and scholars knew better than I did.

You might also find it helpful to read a couple of books, philosophical works that deal withthe question of religion. Some are not to difficult, if you are new to philosophy. If you want some recommendations for your consideration, please feel free to pm me.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I suppose some debate for this reason, others debate just for the sake of debating, others debate to see if they can win, others debate because they need to figure this out because they want to believe but can't, and yet others debate just to piss other people off. There are a variety of reasons.

For me personally, I need to have this question answered because I was or still am a Christian, and for the sake of identity, I need the truth...perhaps because i'm in the process of deprogramming. I've been trained how to think for so long by fellow Christian leaders and peers that it is still a part of me. It is a part that causes strife in my mind as the attitudes and beliefs conflict with reason, where it becomes difficult with my conscience at times to make decisions with a feeling of guilt. The guilt is from my lack of desire to persue God. Reason is my crutch, just like religion was for me before. It would be easier to live with or without a god. So, that is why I need to have the answer...for the persuit of happiness.

*************
M*W: I am impressed with your new found wisdom. Even though you are at a point of questioning your prior programming and are looking for the guidance to lead you in one direction of the other, I am confident you are on the right track. Be calm and open-minded. Your answers will come to you. (You already have the answers you are looking for, but you are still in the state of revelation). There is no hurry to get the final revelation. It could take years, or it could take weeks. Be patient and savor the wisdom you are experiencing. I am proud of you. Of all people, I never thought I would be telling you this! Before long you will be an example to the likes of Sandy, Lori and other hard shell christians. You are much wiser than them. I congratulate you in your further awakening.

~ M*W
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:

"FAITH: The effort to believe that which your common-sense tells you is not true." ~ Elbert Hubbard

*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs):

"All the things we achieve are things we have first of all imagined." ~ David Malouf, b. 1934 Australian Writer

 

[Saquist]

Deflecting an argument is akin to refusing to accept it. One does not need to commit them all to memory to realise when one is not being logical in processes of thought.

The lack of grounds for such label is more than enough reason to deflect, Sarkus. If you couldn't identify it than you're pointing a finger.

Firstly there was no such inference. The explicit statement I said was that SCIENTISTS, just as most humans when not thinking or debating logically, apply the authority of reputation, and thus are committing a logical fallacy. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD does not. At no point do I make the inferrence you ascribe to me.
The error is yours - firstly in assuming an inference of me, and secondly in being unable to distinguish the Scientific Method and logical debating.

I know exactly what you said I quoted it twice. I never said the Scientific Method was involved and your tracking accusations in the topic of the Scientific Method are basesless. Perhaps if you were more concerned with the the propper order of paragraph than condescending you might succeed in communication more often.

Of course it was my intention. All claims should be subject to the scientific method to help ascertain worth or otherwise, and to see how that claim, along with the supporting evidence, furthers our enquiries.
However, just because a claim is made subject to the Scientific Method does not necessarily make the claim itself "scientific" - only the method of interrogation.

Thus the miss application of the propper tool.

I betray nothing of the sort - and indeed your evasiveness in this regard only heightens my concern that you actually have little to offer other than confidence to support your claims - and you, realising this, appear to be squirming at the very thought of having your evidence and thought process examined by anyone (or method) that will possibly find them sorely wanting.

Yes I'm sure it does. I'm glad you're capable of expressing you displeasure. I'll decided when I subject myself to your random interrogation through the Scientific Method. Your angst for your desire exhale will bare little impact on my decision.

What on earth are you babbling about? I have not circled other than to try and chase you down to state your evidence that we may examine it. You are the one running in circles, and the longer you progress this the more obvious it will become to others that this is what you are doing.

But you have my answer. Do you not? Are you blind or ignorant of that answer. I will say it for you again. You have two choices. Either proceed with a search of my previous responses on all these issues which are at you disposal by a search of the forum or narrow down you questions.

There is no "formality" or otherwise in the Scientific method - you either follow it or you don't. You clearly don't wish to and we can only wonder why.

I've been known there is no formality to the Scientific Method. Somehow between method and Society you still think this about the Scientific Metod No. Sarkus. This about the people that use the Method not the Method itself. That's your little circle.

My logic works just fine - and it is obviously your poor usage of english that is letting you down. You stated: "But I do not intend to have my informal opinion interogated formally".
The logical assumption here is that you have both informal opinion AND formal opinion - a logical assumption as you deem it necessary to qualify "opinion" with the term "informal".
Hence the question: if you don't wish your "informal opinion" to be interrogated formally, what of your "formal opinion"?

Your logic is stuck in repeat with your bad perception, Sarkus. That's not the logical assumption. That's YOUR assumption of logic. You made a stupid assumption off a skewed litteral perception. It was competely devoid of common sense so OF COURSE you assumed there were two different opinions. That's where litteralness gets you. Fortunantly common sense adorns us with the ability to assertain that it is a perception of officiality as opposed to an informal statement.

Saquist - you talk bollox.
On this forum - ANY claim should be supported or be judged baseless. This is how this forum works. You can not decide "Oh, I don't wish to support my claim, therefore I will call it an 'informal' claim."
Claims are claims.
Support them or shut up.

How bout you shut up. Alright. Once again you engaged me like Miles does. You intercepted my post. You are attempting to put me on the defensive. You are attempting to interogate my persepective. If you haven't gotten what you want feel free to withdraw....I'm not stopping you.

But if you want my cooperation if you're looking for my perception and what I've found in my research you'll abide to an attitude conducive to an informal consideration. The more you press in hostility the more I will resist you.

You-are-the-enemy. You've made that clear. If I make a informal statement in an informal manner I can chose to back it up or not. If I make a formal claim say as the topic of the thread then obviously I'm opening myself to all your criticism. So if you still need the information I suggest you get to searching and confront me later. But you're not going to get my cooperation with the interrogation. Sorry if you have a problem with that...even still, what bad interrogation tactics. I still don't know what you want. You act like you've not seen any of the answers I've provided.





I couldn't care less what you hope or not.
It is certainly NOT anti-reasoning (whatever the hell that means).

Well lets not leave it to you to figure it out huh.

- You are consistently circling any request for evidence to support your claims, as evidenced by this very thread.

There is no circling...I've told you no. Go observe...work on your approach.

- You are consistently confusing the Scientific Method with rational debate, as evidenced and informed to you in this thread.

Confused...yeah. This isn't a debate, this is an argument. You've offered nothing. I've offered nothing. I suggest you get over it.

- You spout phrases (such as "(in)formal opinion") as if we should all know exactly what you mean and the implications thereof when in actuality they are seemingly used only by yourself, again as evidenced by this thread.

If you don't know then you ask. You don't stick your head up your anus to find it. That's a very simple concept, lost on you. But I don't mind. That's the nature of an argument. Nothing gets done.

If you do not wish to supply the supporting evidence for your claims / opinions, and your thought process to reach your conclusions... why are you here?

Well, you know, I really don't mind supporting anything I say. I do mind the manner in which I'm questioned. When someone ask a qustion I give an answer. It's called the spirit of freely sharing information. In that idea one person makes an inquiry and the other supplies the answer.

But what we have here is not an equal sharing of information it's an interrogation. You demand and I refuse. That's just the nature of the argument you started. I'm following the rules and so have you. Dont' get mad, sarkus. You'll get refused any other places. People will refuse your business, refuse your company, refuse your invitation, refuse your opinion...It's just apart of life. Get used used to it.

Or...and this will be hard for you. Learn how to have a discussion.

 

[Lori_7]

Yes Jayleew, you are much wiser than I. Soon you'll be as intelligent as M*W. Beware!

 

[Myles]

The lack of grounds for such label is more than enough reason to deflect, Sarkus. If you couldn't identify it than you're pointing a finger.



I know exactly what you said I quoted it twice. I never said the Scientific Method was involved and your tracking accusations in the topic of the Scientific Method are basesless. Perhaps if you were more concerned with the the propper order of paragraph than condescending you might succeed in communication more often.




Thus the miss application of the propper tool.



Yes I'm sure it does. I'm glad you're capable of expressing you displeasure. I'll decided when I subject myself to your random interrogation through the Scientific Method. Your angst for your desire exhale will bare little impact on my decision.



But you have my answer. Do you not? Are you blind or ignorant of that answer. I will say it for you again. You have two choices. Either proceed with a search of my previous responses on all these issues which are at you disposal by a search of the forum or narrow down you questions.



I've been known there is no formality to the Scientific Method. Somehow between method and Society you still think this about the Scientific Metod No. Sarkus. This about the people that use the Method not the Method itself. That's your little circle.



Your logic is stuck in repeat with your bad perception, Sarkus. That's not the logical assumption. That's YOUR assumption of logic. You made a stupid assumption off a skewed litteral perception. It was competely devoid of common sense so OF COURSE you assumed there were two different opinions. That's where litteralness gets you. Fortunantly common sense adorns us with the ability to assertain that it is a perception of officiality as opposed to an informal statement.




How bout you shut up. Alright. Once again you engaged me like Miles does. You intercepted my post. You are attempting to put me on the defensive. You are attempting to interogate my persepective. If you haven't gotten what you want feel free to withdraw....I'm not stopping you.

But if you want my cooperation if you're looking for my perception and what I've found in my research you'll abide to an attitude conducive to an informal consideration. The more you press in hostility the more I will resist you.

You-are-the-enemy. You've made that clear. If I make a informal statement in an informal manner I can chose to back it up or not. If I make a formal claim say as the topic of the thread then obviously I'm opening myself to all your criticism. So if you still need the information I suggest you get to searching and confront me later. But you're not going to get my cooperation with the interrogation. Sorry if you have a problem with that...even still, what bad interrogation tactics. I still don't know what you want. You act like you've not seen any of the answers I've provided.





I couldn't care less what you hope or not.
It is certainly NOT anti-reasoning (whatever the hell that means).

Well lets not leave it to you to figure it out huh.



There is no circling...I've told you no. Go observe...work on your approach.



Confused...yeah. This isn't a debate, this is an argument. You've offered nothing. I've offered nothing. I suggest you get over it.



If you don't know then you ask. You don't stick your head up your anus to find it. That's a very simple concept, lost on you. But I don't mind. That's the nature of an argument. Nothing gets done.



Well, you know, I really don't mind supporting anything I say. I do mind the manner in which I'm questioned. When someone ask a qustion I give an answer. It's called the spirit of freely sharing information. In that idea one person makes an inquiry and the other supplies the answer.

But what we have here is not an equal sharing of information it's an interrogation. You demand and I refuse. That's just the nature of the argument you started. I'm following the rules and so have you. Dont' get mad, sarkus. You'll get refused any other places. People will refuse your business, refuse your company, refuse your invitation, refuse your opinion...It's just apart of life. Get used used to it.

Or...and this will be hard for you. Learn how to have a discussion.

That you, of all people. should suggest that someone else ought to learn how to have a discussion is beyond belief.

You talk of formal and informal opinions which I interpret as statements you intend to be taken seriously as opposed to off-the-cuff remarks. The onus is on you to tell us which of your statements should be taken seriously and which ignored but you have never done so. So I will re-define formal and informal as you appear to use those words.

A formal statement is one in which you have confidence. Informal is a post hoc label which you give to a statement which is shown to be erroneous.
So, if you want to be taken sriously and avoid causing confusion, confine yourself to making formal statements.

Do not make statements you cannot back up with evidence, if you want to be taken seriously. How many times do you need to be told this. If you disagree, say why you do. Your inability or unwillingness to support your statements with evidence is the root of the problem people have with you. This one paragraph is all you need to keep in mind if you are interested in a debate as opposed to lecturing us. Why have you such difficulty understanding this.Or is it the case that you understand all to well but are choosing to be evasive for reasons best known to yourself ?

It would help everyone if you explained how you got from chaos and order to a conviction that the Bible was a reliable source of information. That is totally beyond anyone's comprehension. An explanation would enlighten us all.

Finally, if it is your intention to continue making statements which you have no intention of supporting with evidence, which is what is expected of everyone in a rational debate, then say so now. Otherwise you are asking us to take seriously anything you say simply because you said it, rendering rational debate impossible, as you have done up to now.

 

[ThinkingMansCrumpet]

... I really don't mind supporting anything I say. I do mind the manner in which I'm questioned. When someone ask a qustion I give an answer. It's called the spirit of freely sharing information. In that idea one person makes an inquiry and the other supplies the answer.

.

Dear Saquist,
I really need to know so I hope you will answer my question and share of your vast perception and wisdom, and are true to your promise above. Here's my question: Is Darth Vader really Luke Skywalker's father?
Breathless in anticipation...

 

[Myles]

Yes Jayleew, you are much wiser than I. Soon you'll be as intelligent as M*W. Beware!

Smears are the best way of making a point. Keep up the good work!