John Platko wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

You have worse problems than that. You're basically defining a term to be the term that people use when they use that term. That's pretty circular right there; worse yet, you've supplied no further documentation that the set of people who actually use the term as you define it is not an empty set. If you use it yourself, more power to you.

I invite you to examine the ample evidence of what is and is not RE accumulated through the centuries and if you can demonstrate that my definition is flawed I'll be happy to correct my error. Till that time, it stands uncontested.

Wrong. You are the one making the claim and thereby carries the burden of proof.
More-over your definition is nothing but an appeal to anecdote and blind assertion.
Religious evidence is whatever a religious person says is religous evidence.

I''ve examined the evidence, written evidence even, describing HOW religious accumulate religious evidence and described that mathematically.

John Platko wrote:Now to show that I'm wrong,

John Platko wrote:what you need to do is to provide at least one example of religious evidence that demonstrates an error in my math.

John Platko wrote: So where's your evidence?

John Platko wrote:I don't think you'll come up with any-

John Platko wrote:just like you failed to provide definitions for: evidence, empirical evidence, peer review,

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Get this if nothing else.
You have not done any mathematics. Constructing an argument with abreveations into an deductive argument =/=mathematics.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:I invite you to examine the ample evidence of what is and is not RE accumulated through the centuries and if you can demonstrate that my definition is flawed I'll be happy to correct my error. Till that time, it stands uncontested.

Christ on a stick with peanuts and chocolate coating, John. You've tried to define RE as whatever anyone who wants to call something RE calls RE. What is not RE is, then, quite logically, what NO ONE will call RE. There simply is no way for RE to be all of one kind, since any person can declare it to be whatever he considers RE. Furthermore, you have offered no way of detecting RE that is only plagiarized from someone else's plagiarized RE. Your 'definition' is intellectual garbage, and if you don't realise that yet, it's little wonder that you also don't realise you've wasted 500 posts here spewing the utterest intellectual garbage. You're not a skeptic, John, and so the set of what is not RE is much smaller for you than it is for skeptics. How is that possible? Do you have the Special Sauce, and skeptics don't? Bend a fucking spoon already.

A personal testimonial of religious experience is the same as religious evidence. All I have is evidence that people tell stories about their deities. No spoons were bent in the making of this film.

. There simply is no way for RE to be all of one kind,

. Furthermore, you have offered no way of detecting RE that is only plagiarized from someone else's plagiarized

. Your 'definition' is intellectual garbage, and if you don't realise that yet, it's little wonder that you also don't realise you've wasted 500 posts here spewing the utterest intellectual garbage

. You're not a skeptic, John, and so the set of what is not RE is much smaller for you than it is for skeptics. How is that possible?

Regina wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Get this if nothing else.
You have not done any mathematics. Constructing an argument with abreveations into an deductive argument =/=mathematics.

Thomas, I realize that this is quite hard to grasp, but John has done mathematics. It's just that he defines maths the way he sees fit, just the way he does with language. You better get used to it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:I''ve examined the evidence, written evidence even, describing HOW religious accumulate religious evidence and described that mathematically. Now to show that I'm wrong, what you need to do is to provide at least one example of religious evidence that demonstrates an error in my math. So where's your evidence? I don't think you'll come up with any- just like you failed to provide definitions for: evidence, empirical evidence, peer review, etc. but stay tuned, I'll define those mathematically too, same bat station, same bat way ....

Who the fuck would be fool enough to try to show you you're 'wrong'? You conflate a lack of falsifiability with truth. Convincing you that you're wrong might be useful in getting you to shut the fuck up and go home, but you simply have no standards by which you could admit being wrong. For you, religious evidence is whatever anyone says is religious evidence. You have not even managed to show that anyone else in the known universe has a concept of 'religious evidence', let alone this particular one, and you're using it to try to speak for people who are not involved in this conversation, and who may not exist at all.

John Platko wrote:
It's impossible to do a double blind study with controls when you only have 1 patient.

What an oafish mistake about what is and is not scientific, John. One of a kind events cannot be studied scientifically. If there is only one locality where a fossil is found, you have to be able to tell people where to find it. If you take the only sample, you're going to have trouble publishing. That's what the Piltdown Man was about. Another name for that is 'fraud'.

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Get this if nothing else.
You have not done any mathematics. Constructing an argument with abreveations into an deductive argument =/=mathematics.

Thomas, I realize that this is quite hard to grasp, but John has done mathematics. It's just that he defines maths the way he sees fit, just the way he does with language. You better get used to it.

Precision really matters, Regina, in math and language. I have not defined math(s), but rather I have used set theory, which is a branch of math.

John Platko wrote:But I was clear, peer reviewed empirical evidence is accumulated and factored into the judgement of what does and does not go into the Catholic Churches set of approved miracles at Lourdes. It's really not that complicated.

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:[ Furthermore, you have offered no way of detecting RE that is only plagiarized from someone else's plagiarized

So what?

The set ALL_RE is the set of all RE, it matters not what non religious think. That is, the cardinality of the set ALL_RE is not a function of {non religious organizations} (NO), {non religious groups} (NOGO}, or {non religious people} (NOP).

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Get this if nothing else.
You have not done any mathematics. Constructing an argument with abreveations into an deductive argument =/=mathematics.

Thomas, I realize that this is quite hard to grasp, but John has done mathematics. It's just that he defines maths the way he sees fit, just the way he does with language. You better get used to it.

Precision really matters, Regina, in math and language. I have not defined math(s), but rather I have used set theory, which is a branch of math.

Know one knows if Tommy or Regie doodled. Since we can make it out - I'm going with Regie. But if I had to spend my life reading the illegible scrawl of St. Thomas's so called "rational" ideas I think I'd be more apt to doodle a jackass in the margin. But that's just me.

Note 1: The moral to our story is one persons hoarse is another persons jackass, i.e. one persons ugly duckling is another persons swan - Hans Christian Anderson.

Regina wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Get this if nothing else.
You have not done any mathematics. Constructing an argument with abreveations into an deductive argument =/=mathematics.

Thomas, I realize that this is quite hard to grasp, but John has done mathematics. It's just that he defines maths the way he sees fit, just the way he does with language. You better get used to it.

John Platko wrote:My definition is as intellectually sound as the definition for any pseudo random number generator. But one needs the prerequisite intellectual background to understand the definitions of either. The ability to make the connection between both definitions, I'm afraid is not something that can be taught, it is a skill to be developed.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:My definition is as intellectually sound as the definition for any pseudo random number generator. But one needs the prerequisite intellectual background to understand the definitions of either. The ability to make the connection between both definitions, I'm afraid is not something that can be taught, it is a skill to be developed.

This has Poe written all over it, John. I appreciate the joke.

Regina wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:My definition is as intellectually sound as the definition for any pseudo random number generator. But one needs the prerequisite intellectual background to understand the definitions of either. The ability to make the connection between both definitions, I'm afraid is not something that can be taught, it is a skill to be developed.

This has Poe written all over it, John. I appreciate the joke.

Nathan, though, not Edgar Allan.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

John Platko wrote:Element e belongs to the set ALL_RE, which consists of all RE, if e is deemed to be RE by any person claiming or considered to be religious.

Okay, let's try another tack.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_BE (all bigfoot evidence), which consists of all BE, if e is deemed to be BE by any person claiming to or considered to believe in bigfoot.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_AE (all astrological evidence), which consists of all AE, if e is deemed to be AE by any person claiming to or considered to believe in astrology.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_AAE (all alien abduction evidence), which consists of all AAE, if e is deemed to be AAE by any person claiming to or considered to have been abducted by aliens.

Great, you've got the hang of it. Now would you like to take a crack of defining Evidence, emperical evidence, and scientific emperical evidence or shall I?

FFS John, these definitions have already been provided and explained to you.
Stop with this pathetic attempt to pretend they haven't. It's lying about the posts of other members which is against the FUA.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Get this if nothing else.
You have not done any mathematics. Constructing an argument with abreveations into an deductive argument =/=mathematics.

Thomas, I realize that this is quite hard to grasp, but John has done mathematics. It's just that he defines maths the way he sees fit, just the way he does with language. You better get used to it.

Precision really matters, Regina, in math and language. I have not defined math(s), but rather I have used set theory, which is a branch of math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth

John Platko wrote:But I was clear, peer reviewed empirical evidence is accumulated and factored into the judgement of what does and does not go into the Catholic Churches set of approved miracles at Lourdes. It's really not that complicated.

If everybody gets to decide in his own way what constitutes a miracle (under rules of religious evidence which do not exist), how could you get a peer review that wasn't a vacuous truth?

What oafish mistakes on set theory are you making about the set of sets of rules that have the rule that there are no rules?

I don't know what's being accumulated in the set of recognised miracles, John. Can you define it? Especially if everyone gets to decide in his own way what he's going to call evidence for a miracle?

Agrippina wrote:I think the devout missed this story that was doing the rounds a couple of weeks ago:

The report finds that common bacteria that cause illness are often found in holy water, as are nitrates (chemicals used in fertilizers and commonly found in runoff from farms). ABC News says that “if ingested, water containing nitrates over the maximum contaminant level could cause serious illness, especially in infants younger than six months, which could lead to death if untreated, according to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency.”

http://catholicexchange.com/this-just-in-holy-water-can-kill

Far from healing, and curing the incurable, holy water could actually be killing people.

John Platko wrote:I would think that we could all agree that the set ALL_RE as I defined it, is certainly not the empty set.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:Facts. Let's focus on the facts people. And a google search once in a while wouldn't hurt. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with writing papers for a medical journal. It's all about accurate assessment of a specific patients medical state and peer review of that.

No, John, let's cut to the chase, already. You are offering a simple speculation, which is that god or some supernatural force sometimes (and very infrequently) intervenes in the material affairs of ordinary reality.

In this case it is a speculation about medical miracles (events that can NEVER be explained in any other way than by divine intervention in our reality). You have obfuscated this simple speculation to the Nth degree, presumably to make it appear as if some intellectual effort were involved. The upshot of that, of course is to imply that something complicated is going on, and rational skeptical people (if they are sincere) should take an interest in the possibility that divine or supernatural interventions in ordinary events can and do take place.

FWIW, John, the bottom line for me is that there is no one to one mapping between events unexplained by science (always reported anecdotally) and the intervention of a deity, except for people who already believe in god. Furthermore, some people even seem to believe that the fact that the universe is at all scientifically comprehensible is 'evidence' of deity. Demonstrating that events at Lourdes are other than chance or spontaneous ones is beyond your capabilities, and that is why you have obfuscated the matter so badly, to the point of arguing about the perfectly plausible opinions of people who can't explain everything that happens even when people are NOT cured.

You've got one issue, and that is to try to legitimate your 'religious evidence' to people who don't accept it. In addition, your persistence is only evidence of your own strong beliefs about... something. You don't seem to know whether you want to tell people about god or about your self-evaluated intellectual prowess. Spontaneous cures without medical interventions occur far away from Catholic shrines. You're certainly immune to admitting that your argument is going nowhere.

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:Facts. Let's focus on the facts people. And a google search once in a while wouldn't hurt. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with writing papers for a medical journal. It's all about accurate assessment of a specific patients medical state and peer review of that.

No, John, let's cut to the chase, already. You are offering a simple speculation, which is that god or some supernatural force sometimes (and very infrequently) intervenes in the material affairs of ordinary reality.

That's a complete misrepresentation of what I've been proving.

John Platko wrote:
Your bottom line matters not to me.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:[ Furthermore, you have offered no way of detecting RE that is only plagiarized from someone else's plagiarized

So what?

The set ALL_RE is the set of all RE, it matters not what non religious think. That is, the cardinality of the set ALL_RE is not a function of {non religious organizations} (NO), {non religious groups} (NOGO}, or {non religious people} (NOP).

So what? John? I'll tell you what. If you've got cases of plagiarized RE that aren't recognised even by the college of cardinals, then the cardinality of the set of all RE is not defined.

If you think that the college of cardinals has anything to do with defining RE (and I don't think you do) then you're making shit up about how RE is established. Even if you don't think so, you're still making shit up about how RE is established.

The set of shit you've made up in this thread is getting pretty big, starting with your definition of RE.

Regina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Get this if nothing else.
You have not done any mathematics. Constructing an argument with abreveations into an deductive argument =/=mathematics.

Thomas, I realize that this is quite hard to grasp, but John has done mathematics. It's just that he defines maths the way he sees fit, just the way he does with language. You better get used to it.

Precision really matters, Regina, in math and language. I have not defined math(s), but rather I have used set theory, which is a branch of math.

Really? So can I take it that you are deliberately trying to confuse someone (me) who is struggling with the English language?
I find this very hurtful.
You wrote:

Know one knows if Tommy or Regie doodled. Since we can make it out - I'm going with Regie. But if I had to spend my life reading the illegible scrawl of St. Thomas's so called "rational" ideas I think I'd be more apt to doodle a jackass in the margin. But that's just me.

Note 1: The moral to our story is one persons hoarse is another persons jackass, i.e. one persons ugly duckling is another persons swan - Hans Christian Anderson.

Why, oh why are you doing this to a poor learner of the language of the Bard?
PS: Who is this Anderson bloke? I can't believe you ascribe the ugly duckling to the wrong author.