Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestorian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

"Science tells us that even protons and neutrons have a half-life-time, measured in giga years. So in time all matter will disappear back into energy. Energy is just like a disturbance of a "field". Once it equals out in time, it is completely useless, and can be assumed as non-existing. Therefore nothing can be eternal."

---

... So, really all the OSE in the univers changes into nothing.

---

Strange conclusion! OSE does not change because of it's consequences, but with new understanding of the facts. On very long term all matter will change into energy. And all that energy will distribute evenly, making it as if non-existing.
Note : humanity has actually no idea what energy is. At best we understand or apply differences in energy levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestorian

.... Because there are so many things in this world we don't understand, the variables are too many to assume anything is evidence enough to discredit the existance, or non-existance of GOD, or any other supernatural being.

---

It is not just a case of understanding. It is a case of support, of evidence.
There is good and valid OSE for many natural processes : nuclear, chemical, electromagnetic, evolution, gravity, astronomy, etc.

Than there are philosophical subjects, of which religion is just one section.
These subjects are not based on OSE, but on assumptions and subjective conclusions.
There is no evidence for the existence of any deity. You may BELIEVE that there are deities, but that is not a valid OSE. It is a claim, an unsupported claim.

I never claimed the non-existance of 'God', or any other supernatural being.
I note that theists never have been able to provide OSE for the existence of their deity 'God', or any other supernatural being.
The ball is in the court of the theists to support their claim. Not on Atheists to support the negative of the theist's claim.

:)

.

.

Credendovidis,

Would you please explain what you mean by "objective"?

If one wants a thread closed it is very easy, just do as you do on most, attack each other ( both sides) name call, and of course keep complaining about moderation of the site. Which has been deleted.

This thread has been going OK, but I doubt it will much further, this thread has lasted longer than most without the normal group running it down hill

OSE versus SSE

OSE = Objective Supported Evidence
SSE = Subjective Supported Evidence

Objective

Existing independently of perception, undistorted by emotion or personal bias, related to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc. an actual phenomenon, reality.

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

OSE versus SSE

OSE = Objective Supported Evidence
SSE = Subjective Supported Evidence

Objective

Existing independently of perception, undistorted by emotion or personal bias, related to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc. , an actual phenomenon, reality.

:)

.

.

---

I thought you might be thinking it of it like this. How can something be evidence if it is independent of perception or thought? In other words, I'm not sure that anything that is objective in the way you describe it here is something to which we could ever have access. And it isn't clear to me in what sense of "evidence" SSE could count as evidence for anything. I mentioned in an earlier post that a lot turns on what one takes "evidence" to mean. Remember: All facts are theory-laden.

Reality isn't something over against the subjective. The subjective is part of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

This thread has been going ok, but I doubt it will much further, this thread has lasted longer than most without the normal group running it down hill

---

If that is correct, than why this warning? Why don't you warn those who "run it down" ?

And what is what you describe as "the normal group"?
Lately the main person to "run down" topics on this board is a fundamental Christian with a number 3 in his handle.
Why don't you address and correct the person or persons who "run down" topics, instead of closing these topics down, and thereby punish all other posters?

Just asking - not standing on your toes !

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Reality isn't something over against the subjective. The subjective is part of reality.

---

Not so. We can see atoms with the latest rontgen technology. Objective.
With linear accelerators and cyclotrons we can hit atomic nuclei and from the remnants we can see how that nucleus was constructed. Objective.
With equipment, computers and technology we can measure processes and construct the supporting structure from that. Objective.

Philosophy and religion do not carry any format of support to provide validity on it's claims.
Therefore they are just thoughts and/or possible concepts - without any OSE. All subjective.
You may BELIEVE such thoughts and concepts. But you can never claim that they are facts or "true".

I never claimed that 'the subjective' and reality are opponents. Objective and subjective are opponents.

:)

.

.

You used reality as part of the definition of objective:

Quote:

---

an actual phenomenon, reality

---

Quote:

---

But you can never claim that they are facts or "true".

---

Do you hold the view that there is no truth outside of science? If not, where apart from science do you think it can be found?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Not so. We can see atoms with the latest rontgen technology. Objective.
With linear accelerators and cyclotrons we can hit atomic nuclei and from the remnants we can see how that nucleus was constructed. Objective.
With equipment, computers and technology we can measure processes and construct the supporting structure from that. Objective.

---

And this technology is a way of extending our observational abilities. But surely you don't hold the outlandish view that perception and thought are not involved in the collection and interpretation of data. Surely you don't think that science has stopped being empirical. The collection and interpretation of data are cognitive activities undertaken by thinking, concept-using agents. There is no pure objectivity there. Even strict scientific realists acknowledge that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Do you hold the view that there is no truth outside of science? If not, where apart from science do you think it can be found?

---

No I don't.

I never stated that "God" does not exist. But my request to theists to provide evidence for the existence of their deity has never been honored other than with subjective claims.

This in strict contrast to scientific objective support for the subjects I mentioned in my previous post.

PS : I hope you don't mind I relocate now into horizontal mode - it's almost 2 am here.

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

No I don't.

I never stated that "God" does not exist. But my request to theists to provide evidence for the existence of their deity has never been honored other than with subjective claims.

This in strict contrast to scientific objective support for the subjects I mentioned in my previous post.

PS : I hope you don't mind I relocate now into horizontal mode - it's almost 2 am here.

:)

.

.

---

Do by all means get some shut-eye. Sleep well.

I thought science was a branch of Philosophy? I mean really, "Philosopy is the study of truth or priciples underlying all knowlege."--by deffinition of Gage Canadian Dictionary.

Any who, essentially Cred, you are saying that: There is not enough OSE to sustain logical belief (for yourself), that there is a GOD. That's not to say you have completely discredit the idea that it is possible that there is a GOD, on account that there is not enough OSE for that either?

Any way, This has bing a great discussion guys, and with out the name calling or anger of those other ones. Impressive. Best part, I'm learning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestorian

... Any how, essentialy Cred, you are saying that: There is not enough OSE to sustain logical belief (for yourself), that there is a GOD. That's not to say you have completely discredit the idea that it is possible that there is a GOD, on account that there is not enough OSE for that either??

---

No, Nestorian. I am not saying that there is a "God", or that "God" exists.
I say that there is no Objective Supporting Evidence - nor is there any logical reasoning - for the existence of "God".
At least I have never seen any OSE for the existence of "God", and the faillure to produce that OSE indicates that the probability of the non-existence of "God" is rather high.
All reasoning for the existence of "God" is non-logical. It is subjective reasoning, something like "we see no other reason for "... whatever.. " to exist, so it must be due to " to exist, so it must be due to " therefore". That is no logic. That is mindless belief.

I also say that from me everyone may believe in the existence of " therefore".
But if anyone starts claiming that the existence of "God" is a fact, it is he/she who has to prove that. I do not have to prove that "God" does not exist.

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

No I don't.

---

So where, apart from science, do you think there is truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

No, Nestorian. I am not saying that there is a "God", or that "God" exists.
I say that there is no Objective Supporting Evidence - nor is there any logical reasoning - for the existence of "God".
At least I have never seen any OSE for the existence of "God", and the faillure to produce that OSE indicates that the probability of the non-existence of "God" is rather high.
All reasoning for the existence of "God" is non-logical. It is subjective reasoning, something like "we see no other reason for "...whatever.." to exist, so it must be due to "God" therefore". That is no logic. That is mindless belief.

I also say that from me everyone may believe in the existence of "God".
But if anyone starts claiming that the existence of "God" is a fact, it is he/she who has to prove that. I do not have to prove that "God" does not exist.

:)

.
.

---

I think you may have missed what I meant. I meant that you don't beieve there is a GOD, baused on OSE and logical reasoning. But you do not completely discredit the idea that there MAY be a GOD. I never said you did. Read slower, haha, just messin with you dawg. ;)

"Logic is the science of getting new and valid information by reasoning, from facts one already knows." -- Gage Canadian Dictionary.

The only problem with that is, we are assuming that the first ones are correct. Fact or fiction, or opinion. There are debates about theories and their consistancy all the time.

Can you give me one thing we know is a 100% fact, and will never ever change?? I have considred your OSE, and I keep coming to the same "logical" conclution. In order for any OSE to be 100% true, it must all be stable for ever. Other wise, noting can be Fact, save for only the moment when all others are the same.

If we recall you said that all things will turn to energy, then prety much non-exsistance. Are you saying it's not remotely possible that one of your facts, what ever it's role, can be altered by this change in propperties, matter, energy?? If it is so, then logically your OSE, only applies to right here, right now. And we can not be sure what is in store for later, only possibilites. Much the same as the seasons change, so must your OSE, unless it does not hold true to your thoery of everything being subverted to energy and in turn to non-existance.


Give me one Fact, since I know not which you refer to, and I'll try to show you how it is not with standing, in terms of solid proof of anything but the here and now.

Interesting ideas though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

So where, apart from science, do you think there is truth?

---

Is science truth?? Is science not a branch of Philosophy?

Nestorian,
I'll be watching for an answer to your request of Cred, one solid everlasting OSE fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Nestorian,
I'll be watching for an answer to your request of Cred, one solid everlasting OSE fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

It will be interesting. But no matter what he says, there are no right or wrong answers, only possibilities.

Now the fact that I said that in that context, I'm contradicting myself; because right and wrong answers are possibilities. Go figure eh. ;)

Peace be with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestorian

there are no right or wrong answers, only possibilities.

---

Sure there are right and wrong answers. 2+2=5 is a wrong answer. Genocide is a good thing is a wrong answer. There are more than possibilities; there are actualities. There is truth and there is falsehood. It's really important to acknowledge that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Sure there are right and wrong answers. 2+2=5 is a wrong answer. Genocide is a good thing is a wrong answer. There are more than possibilities; there are actualities. There is truth and there is falsehood. It's really important to acknowledge that.

---

I don't think you read the last bit right, I also said the "fact" that I stated; "There are no right or wrong only posibilities.", is a contradition in it's self, because right and wrong are indeed both plossible, therefor possibilities. I think it's called a "profound truth". Very complicated and yet not eh? What do you think?