cuchulain

if all evidence is subjective, and all fact is determined by evidence...do you not follow? or is this more mind games? i have a hard time believing you don't follow this logic. fact...a thing that is known or proved to be true. proof...evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. for example, the speed of light has been factually established in comparison to other objects(see relative speed). it was established using objective evidence...relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independant existence. having reality independant of the mind. honestly, my observations of you indicate a person who deliberately stands upstream peeing in the water while others are drinking downstream. i would prefer, since you are immune to the ignore feature, that you no longer respond to my comments. i will do likewise. it's a simple request that of course you will or not acede to.

could be. i tend to try to figuure out where people stand on topics, but with mererdog it changes depending on some unknown, and i let that frustrate me more than it should.

knowledge, or purity therein. evidence and the ability to define some as subjective and objective. mererdog seems to say there is no objective. i take that to mean nothing is knowable, but its all opinion. taken to its conclusion, he asserts he cannot learn. so his posts, by this, are all baiting or trolling.

it could be argued that nothing is knowable, if taken to extremes. if someone is using that, they are by self definition simply baiting or trolling, since they can't learn.

obstinancey, mind games, word play, egotism in his 'corrections' of OUR thought processes...a long list of things he gains emotionally from pushing buttons deliberately i think.

evidence, measurements, objective vs subjective...definitions and whether they should be used or if they are too subjective...it amazes me how anyone can discuss anything and actually get anywhere, with some individuals. oh, wait. i suppose we DON'T get anywhere with them, other than the perpetual argument. objective evidence for god? no? then it isn't shocking that i believe in the speed of light as defined, but not god as defined.

welcome to the insanity.

i would say biblical contradiction is evidence against...but the christians find a way to make two opposite statements mesh in their minds, and insist there are none. how 'do violence to no man' meshes with 'suffer not a witch to live' is beyond me. just not made smart enough by god, i guess.

it's difficult to speak to that which doesn't exist, i think.

yeah...it used to be a bit worse by my memory...but then, my memory isn't perfect by any means.

too bad that ignore feature doesn't work on mods...

just keep on playing those mind games, forever... john lennon

you remember a time back when, in a different topic, i asked about hypocrisy? you responded by saying you were consistent. this topic in conjunction with others proves(subjectively) that you aren't. in one, you argue that definiitions are subjective. in another, you cite a definition as evidence as if it weren't subjective. now you refuse to accept the different definitions of subjective and objective...and still, i assume, claim no hypocrisy? amazing.

how did scientists determine the factual speed of light? what subjective evidence led to a concrete and factual, non subjective number?

my son recommends transplanting flat earthers as colonists to the moon, forcing them to perpetually see a round earth.

sound emotional stability might very well require us to insist on converting everyone to this. i've interpreted right, yes? (an attempt at humor)

the speed of light in a vac is 186,282 miles per second. this is objective fact independant of what i think about it. as yet no objective, ADEQUATE, evidence as to the existence of god.

not enough, inadequate. thats the def. word games and i'm done.

i worked in a gas station when i was a druid, wore tge triskele regularly. a self proclaimed witch came in shopping with her husband and misbehaving child, whom she told 'be good or i'll turn you into a toad'...i was never more embarassed to call myself pagan than with this woman's blatant stupidity and her inflicting it on the next generation while trying to be impressive. almosgt anti proselytizing, by effect.

wrong, according to the argument at hand and given by christians. God needs no first cause. that, of course, is special pleading when considering that if god qualifies for not needing a first cause, the universe itself could also need no first cause. and let's not forget the argument from ignorance you gave is also invalid because not knowing the first cause isn't evidence that god did it.

i never once in this topic made the claim that there is 'not enough evidence'. WORD GAMES...or is it straw man, when you misstate someone's argument and THEN defeat the new version? i have claimed throughout that the evidence is insufficient, not that it's not present. it doesn't meet my level of acceptability...which acknowledges that the bible IS evidence, but i view it as poor evidence.

thats my point, though...or at least partially. you have insufficient evidence that the bible IS a first hand account aside from fulfilled prophecy which could be fake.

what you are speaking to is the subjectivity in evidence, and they are both right...and wrong, on that basis. since dan is trying to convince me he's right its my subjective opinion that the evidence is lacking. can you see why i think you just like word games?

prove without the bible that any of that happened or accept the lack of evidence as my counter.

i can dig it.