Thrown together and altered a bit is probably more accurate. The ‘Bible’ is an anthology. While Constantine did have his scribes copy 27 bibles and then doled them out to the bisiops who attended the council. What was in those first additions remains a mystery. I think it would be foolish to assume Constantine did not have a hand in some changes that were likely made, but I don’t think we can credit him for writing anything.
Well… they did come up with the Nicean Creed and a definition of Jesus. (That was a first!)
If a person who is physically normal, has the capacity to feel pain, and is not on any pharmaceutical pain blockers, accidentally puts their hand on a very hot stove and screams out in pain, then this is objective evidence that the person is pain.
Ie. the person does not feel pain until the very moment that their hand makes contact with the very hot surface and the neural input registers in the brain.
Ie. very hot surfaces, when touched by living creatures (excepting for those sulphuric hot vent type of creatures and … or course … “lava monsters”), produce pain in the body.
Are these also “unevidenced subjective assertions”? Or is rat spit capable of stating a matter of fact?
If there is sufficient evidence that they touched it, that it is in fact hot, with scarring or a burn mark that can be verified as having been caused at that moment etc etc, then yes.
Your claim that you did this was unevidenced anecdote of course, as I pointed out, and the experience of the pain would still be necessarily subjective. Can you really not infer from a statement what is subjective and what objective? Just because something is possible, or the statement doesn’t violate known facts, doesn’t mean the claim is objectively true. If the claim is for magic that has no explanatory powers beyond word salad, then the burden of proof rises accordingly. Now you failed to meet this burden, and your supporting argument used words like darkness or love for example, and inferred things that the definition of the word does not.
So insufficient evidence, and inaccurate poorly reasoned argument. The clincher was you expecting me to evidence your claim, and implying dishonesty on my part, while failing to acknowledge the nature of that claim, that it was entirely unevidenced subjective anecdote. Calling this verifiable doesn’t change that, and if it is verifiable then go verify it in a way that demonstrates something more than an unevidenced subjective anecdote. As I have tried patiently to explain to you, this is no different than someone claiming to have “experienced” a mermaid, and insisting you can verify it yourself if you go and search hard enough.
I have done you the respect now of explaining this as carefully and as fully as I can, and not for the first time. If I don’t get reciprocity and reasoned debate, then I will go back to numbering any claims that are subjective and unevidenced. Personal experience is by definition subjective, unless it is accompanied by sufficient objective evidence, and you need to understand that any evidence should accurately and unequivocally support your conclusion. If it requires appeals to mystery (like inferring false meaning to words), that’s a red flag, if the evidence can easily be explained without the addition of your conclusion again a red flag, as the first is likely an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and the last violates Occam’s razor.
Now of course you are free to believe whatever you wish, and set any standard for that belief you want, but if you want to debate it here, then you have to accept that this standard for belief may be rejected, as of course will the belief.
Poor poor ratty, you just don’t get it do you. What if the person is lying? congenital analgesia, They could be completely normal in every imaginative way and just be jerking your chain.
What if the person simply had a pinched nerve and the reaction was to the sizzling sound and not the actual feel of pain.
You just don’t get it. You got to jump to conclusions don’t you. This is why we have independent verification in science. It’s how we get as sure as we can about what we are seeing. Without it, you just don’t get to make assumptions that are ‘for sure’ correct.
How long is a ‘moment?’ No one feels pain the exact moment their hand touches a hot surface. A million things happen between the time the hand touches the surface and the person pulls the hand away. You lose again!
Good luck ratty… You can not know for certain, 100%, what is going on in another person’s body or brain.
What if the person was a masochist and pulled their hand away so they would not cream their pants. Come on Ratty, the world is not black and white. That is all anyone is saying. Stop jumping to conclusions.
They may have no pain threshold, people born who can’t experience any pain often die in infancy, as there is no pain to stop them harming themselves, but some survive. All the rest could be objectively evidenced, the hot surface, the burn or scarring, even the scream if they chose to, and the timing, but because the “experience” of pain is subjective, we could be wrong.
Objectivity is a scale not an absolute, thus caution and scepticism of claims is prudent.
Exactly this, right on the money.
Can they? Are you making any unevidenced assumptions there?
Can they walk?
Is anything preventing them from walking if they are able?
Are they too scared to walk?
Is the room flooded?
I could go on and on, but as Cognostic says, you are too keen to leap to a conclusion here and label it objectively true
Not if they are restrained, injured, crippled, too fearful, they are obstructed etc etc…insufficient evidence you see?
Subjective.
Not necessarily, again your personal experience is insufficient to support this assertion in a generic way.
Oh dear, love and sex are not the same the thing, one does not require the other, again your conclusion does not objectively follow from your initial premise.
Well at least you got there in the end. Darkness is a subjective perception and also an objective state don’t forget, the two need not go together, a blind person for example experience a complete absence of light, even though there is light. Nuance, caution, scepticism are required before an objective conclusion can be asserted, our language should be cautionary, avoid hubris and absolutes in your reasoning, if of course you care that what you believe is true, more than how much you want it to be true.
Ah, the Laws of Physics . Go on then , tell us where these so called “Laws “ come from or are they just conveniently there to explain everything .
You write and write and write about a tremendous amount and explain very little . All this chemistry blah blah blah is nothing more than a study of matter in a certain mode , that’s it .
You haven’t a clue WHY
They come from science, they are a human creation, the laws are descriptive not proscriptive, and yes they were created to explain reality, and yes this is probably more convenient than not knowing, or making unevidenced assumptions using ignorance and superstition.
On the contrary, he explains a great deal, you simply have no interest in understanding anything unless you think it supports the religious beliefs you are totally emotionally invested in.
You care more about preserving those beliefs, than about whether they are true. This is the very notion religious faith is based on, and why you keep attacking those who only care whether their beliefs are true, regardless of the belief, and hold no belief they would not relinquish immediately if the evidence required it.
There is no objective evidence for any deity, or that the universe was created, none. Thus I disbelieve such claims, even in the absence of any knowledge I would disbelieve such claims, I could not do otherwise.
Facile nonsense, one assumes you laugh at your doctor when they prescribe medicines based on the chemicals in them and the knowledge of how they will affect human physiology? Of course you don’t, so what a spectacularly stupid claim to make.
You haven’t a clue why love alone is sufficient for you to believe in a deity, even though you made the claim it is, and you have demonstrated this by ignoring a dozen requests to offer any explanation or objective evidence of any kind, as to why you believe the existence of human emotions like love evidence any deity?
Sneering at science won’t change this fact, and I don’t need science in order to see that, or to reason that I must disbelieve your claim.
Just to point out an indisputable fact here, Sid, old chap,…neither do you know or even have the remotest clue WHY…or you would have demonstrated your solution.
Aw Sid, Really? You don’t know where the laws of physics come from? They are descriptive observations of the world around us. Don’t you know that? The laws of physics are descriptive observations that have been independently verified throughout our history… well… until very recently anyway.
LOL, Actually a whole lot of 'Why" has been explained. If there is a ‘Why’ that is not explained, then you don’t have an explanation either. What’s your point? We will know when we know and until then, most of us are very comfortable with the response, ‘I don’t know.’ We don’t need to make up stories and pretend we have answers.
But you do! You believe that a sky fairy fucked the universe into existence. You believe that. You and your fellow theists such as the Muslims and Hindus believe their gods did it too. You all have a bullshit answer for EVERYTHING. But fuck Science! Oh no, lets ignore proven facts. Lets ignore all the evidence scientists have gathered and demonstrated. Lets completely ignore it all. Fuck the undeniable facts. Lets open our story books and our imaginations written by idiots. I know! Lets go with the Bhagavad Gita for story time!
Right, let’s take a look at this latest piece of garbage, shall we?
First of all, as Sheldon and I have stated here, modern scientists operate on the basis that the laws of physics are DEscriptive. They regard their various postulates on the matter as DEscribing how the universe and its contents operate, and modify those postulates when new data informs them that this is required. Contrast this with the fatuous course taken by the authors of pre-scientific mythologies, who thought that their various pieces of made up shit dictated how reality behaves, no matter how much reality points and laughs at this hubris. The idea that prescriptive assertions dictate the behaviour of the universe is a non-starter among modern physicists.
Second, the topic of the origin of the laws of physics is, wait for it, an active research topic in the physics community. Instead of tossing diligent pursuit of knowledge into the bin as mythology fanboys do, and resorting to “Magic Man did it”, they seek proper, rigorous reasons why the laws of physics we observe to be applicable came into being. I was recently introduced to a very interesting example of the research in question, which was launched by none other than the late Stephen Hawking, and which is being continued by his colleague Thomas Hertog, covered in more detail in this article by Hertog himself.
Let’s see what Hertog has to say on the subject, shall we? He begins by noting:
After some preamble, he then moves on to:
What is then revealed is the following:
That bolded part is key to what follows, which will make several of the veterans here sit up and take notice:
Now I’m not familiar with the technical details of Hawking’s “sum over histories” cosmology, not least because it involves some fairly esoteric concepts and even more esoteric mathematics, and I don’t claim to possess the skills to understand those technical details, which are probably understood in full by fewer than a dozen people on the entire planet. But since Hertog is one of those fewer than a dozen people on the planet who understands this, because he was a collaborator with Hawking on this work, I regard his reportage on the subject as reliable.Unlike pontifications by mouth on a stick mythology fanboys, who think “Magic Man did it” is a magic spell hand-waving away all the inconvenient data.
Unlike the usual suspects, I don’t pretend to know things I don’t. But what I do claim, is that I’ve paid attention to the thousands of people who performed the hard work of establishing the soundness of the postulates in question. Unlike mythology fanboys.
Meanwhile, Hertog goes further:
In short, we are here because the laws of physics permitted our existence, and the relevant physically permitted interactions took place. And Hertog tells us that according to the work he and Hawking undertook, the laws of physics are the result of shaping by past interactions. I’m really going to enjoy the way this work will lead to nuclear-strength butthurt among creationist morons, because it postulates that the laws of physics themselves were the product of an evolutionary process. That sound you can hear is me laughing at the ramifications of this so loudly that I’m audible on Mars.
I’m also enjoying the final summing up, viz:
Now I suspect even the regulars here weren’t expecting me to unleash this, but they will doubtless enjoy my doing so immensely.
Bullshit. Oh wait, my source for my expositions is peer reviwed scientific papers, written by the people who provided the hard experimental evidence for the requisite postulates. Which doesn’t exist in the ludicrous world of mythology fanboyism.
Except that, wait for it,. chemistry is what keeps you going. Quite simply, if key chemical reactions stop, you fucking DIE. As I expounded in more detail in a post above. But it doesn’t surprise me to see you, as a mythology fanboy, sneer at this demonstrable fact.
And, as I expounded above, if the flatulent nonsense peddled by your ilk was anything other than rectally extruded garbage, the pharmaceutical industry as we know it would not exist. Which on its own provides a refutation of your tedious drivel.
I’ve more of a clue than you, mythology fanboy. And as part of having more of a clue than you, I understand that the tiresome mythology fanboy resort to “why” is nothing more than petulant, childish carping at the people who do the fucking hard work. Something none of your ilk will ever engage in.
Oh, you and your ilk will exert enough effort to post snide, condescending carping, or fabricate ex recto apologetics in a desperate and failed attempt to use said apologetics as magic spells to conjure your fantasies into reality, but the genuine hard work of acquiring substantive knowledge, and backing up the postulates underpinning said knowledge with reliably repeatable experimental data, is a task you and your ilk will avoid the way Kent Hovind avoided paying taxes.
Quite simply, you’re a blowhard, and a particularly low grade one at that. Do you serve fries with that ignorance you’re peddling?
Of course they are . IThat’s not the point though is it .It’s not the descriptive observations I am referencing, it’s what the descriptive observations are describing , where did these so called “ laws of physics” originate from ?
Ok. You wanna do the appeal to authority road , I’ll call your bet and raise you 10-
Let’s start with chemistry , your favorite bludgeoning tool -
Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”
—Christian Anfinsen, winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on ribonuclease.
——–
“If we need an atheist for a debate, we go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.”
—Robert Griffiths, winner of the Heinemann Prize in mathematical physics.
My advice is to fold . If you want to continue this line of debate then carry on .
No, I leave that to idiot mythology fanboys. The ony reason I quoted Hertog was, wait for it, because he was a collaborator on the scientific work in question. Or were you too stupid to understand this, despite me explicitly stating this?
Bring it on, Looby Loo.
Oh look, it’s creationist “quote” time … there are entire websites devoted to the duplicity involved here. But do continue …
Who was also a convert to Judaism, and therefore hardly an unbiased commentator in this regard.
Oh wait, this was the same Anfinsen who wrote this textbook, bearing the title The Molecular Basis of Evolution. Funny how you neglected to mention this, isn’t it, mythology fanboy? Or that your supposed “quote” of his words never appears in his Nobel Lecture?
Got a proper citation for this “quote”? Or is it merely another creationist fabrication, like a good many other “quotes” I’ve had thrown at me by your ilk over the past 14 years?
And of course, someone whose parents were presbyterian missionaries is again hardly likely to be an unbiased commentator. Once again, citation for this “quote”?
Funny how I’m able to provide citations for all the works I reference, isn’t it?
You’re the one that’s losing here. Courtesy of your continued discoursive duplicity.
EDIT: Oh, by the way, in case you failed to recognise this, the reason I present scientific papers, or writings by scientists such the above account by Hertog, isn’t an “appeal to authority”, but I’m used to your ilk lying about this. The reason I cover those works, is because:
[1] The authors of those works present therein, the hard experimental data verifying the relevant postulates, or;
[2] The authors of those works provide illuminating insights into their ideas, as Hertog did in that article.
But do keep lying about my output here, it simply makes my task destroying your garbage easier.
I’m joking guys (cancha tell?). I have no evidence that darkness is love other than subjective personal experiences 