"I've seen things"

Debate Room
21

That qualifies as a real threat. Firt YES box is ticked.

Assessment is not Treatment.
Assessment is concerned only with 3 factors.

  1. Was there a real threat?
  2. Is there a plan?
  3. What is the probability of the plan being carried out. (Does the person have access to the method?) (Yes, Yes, and Yes. Notify Emergency Response immediately. )

You’d be surprised… I can’t say more…

1 Like
22

“Reality is simple “- Define Reality

23

noun

  1. the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
  2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.
2 Likes
24

So there is universal agreement between Philosophers, Physicalists and Idealists on what Reality is . Simple enough then

1 Like
25

That’s not what you asked, you asked for the definition, and I gave it to you. If you wanted something else then you should have asked for something else. The definition I gave you has the broadest consensus, that’s how definitions are compiled in dictionaries.

Now reciprocity is required for debate, and since I answered your question honestly in good faith, please answer one of mine:

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?

1 Like
26

Hi Sid,
Is ‘universal agreement’ required? That the earth is not flat is not universally agreed upon. It is still not flat.

3 Likes
27

I’ve never met anyone named “Philosophers”, “Physicalists”, “Idealists”, or “Reality”.

1 Like
28

Cog said that “reality is simple “ and I was looking for some clarification on that statement . The definition that was provided doesn’t provide that clarification. From what I read and understand there doesn’t seem to be a “consensus” on what we call Reality.

29

Yep. It’s the blister you get on your ass from sitting on it too long and thinking about God. Very simple.

3 Likes
30

Of course it does. Which part of it was too complex for you?

I just gave you one…

  1. the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
  2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.

Two in fact, and they’re both simple, and there is a broad consensus or they would not be the dictionary definition.

Also you didn’t answer my question:

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?

3 Likes
31

No, not from what you read and understand, but from what you read and failed to understand. Of course there is a consensus and your unwillingness to recognize such will continue to confuse you. It is incumbent upon you to accept the responsibility for your own grasp of reality, or the lack thereof.
.
.
Edit “You can lead a horse to water…”

1 Like
32

Haha. That could very well be true Cog

1 Like
33

Is the Objective the only form of Reality ?

34

Science doesn’t do Consensus. Fact

35

I couldn’t say, but it is reliably evidenced of course, I withhold belief from entirely subjective claims as they are not. Now that’s three times I have answered your questions, and three times mine has gone unanswered:

What (if any) objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?

2 Likes
36

Wrong, fact…Scientific consensus - Wikipedia

“Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review. A conference meant to create a consensus is termed as a consensus conference.”

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?

That’s 4 times of asking ***** :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Edit: I owe @Sid an apology he has already stated he cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity in an earlier thread, my apologies. It was a while ago and I’d forgotten.

4 Likes
37

Nonsense jibber-jabber. Science doesn’t do non-sequiturs though.

Edit to define gibberish

6 Likes
38

We should form a scientific committee to discuss the possibility of reaching a consensus on the fact that science doesn’t do consensus. Then we will vote to determine if we did or did not reach a consensus in regards to our not doing a consensus. If we do all vote in favor of not doing consensus, we will then know for a fact we do not do consensus, for we had reached a consensus on the matter.

(Edit for confirming the non-confirmation.)

2 Likes
39

Consensus is irrelevant in science .

40

Wow, thanks for the example of daft.
Please get a good dictionary and lock yourself in a private place, to be followed by a thorough self-slapping, and then, and only then, read and study your newfound treasure until your eyes are bugging out. Now, do go away as I tire of your banality…

Edit : declaration of impudence