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.

John Platko wrote:In Christianity there is no concept of plagiarized RE (our founder was fond of sharing such RE)

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.

John Platko wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

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.

I'll give you another chance to make good on this claim. Please provide the comment number (that means don't cut and paste the comment, I want the comment number so I can read whatever was posted in context) next to the terms to be defined. Then I'll analyze the truthfulness of your claim and analyze the validity of the definitions.

evidence #?
empirical evidence #?
scientific empirical evidence #?
peer review #?

The only saving grace about this is I may actually eventually learn to spell empirical!

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

lyingcheat wrote:


This ^^^ definition is circular. It's a, no doubt typically, meaningless example of itself asserted by someone who fits the definition.

Though I note it would also allow every bizarre delusion ever uttered by any psychotic in the grip of devout religious mania to be considered 'religious evidence', regardless of the apparent theme.


Too too silly.

Absurd, what is circular? All I did is define terms, I haven't used them in an argument yet. I.e. There's no argument to be circular!

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.

John Platko 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.

I worked hard for that moment, I hope it lasted a bit.

John Platko wrote:

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'.

Ummmm, what an oafish mistake. It seems you have been comparing apples to oranges. 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.

Matthew Shute wrote:It's all a long-winded way of defining a group of words and symbols as an intellectually respectable defense of theism, in the face of incredulity.

angelo wrote:Defending theism is defending the indefensible. Or better still. The burden of proof is as fas as I know still with the claimant.

angelo wrote:John, you have heard of the James Randi Org million dollar challenge haven't you? Get the catolic church's so called peer reviewed miracles and have them tested by science and claim the million dollars. Gawd knows, the catolic church could do with the money.

mindhack wrote:

angelo wrote:Defending theism is defending the indefensible. Or better still. The burden of proof is as fas as I know still with the claimant.

Dishonest atheist slander. God is succesfully defended all the time. Why else are there so many theists, huh?

michael^3 wrote:

angelo wrote:John, you have heard of the James Randi Org million dollar challenge haven't you? Get the catolic church's so called peer reviewed miracles and have them tested by science and claim the million dollars. Gawd knows, the catolic church could do with the money.

Miracles cannot exist in science, by definition. If some peer reviewed comes to the conclusion that there was an inexplicable case of healing of disease X, they will simply conclude "in 0.01% of cases we observe a spontaneous healing of disease X", and from that day on your miracle is officially science. Then we can all yawn a bit and move on.

Cito di Pense wrote:You cannot make 'supernatural' (or 'miraculous') synonymous with 'not explained yet'.

michael^3 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You cannot make 'supernatural' (or 'miraculous') synonymous with 'not explained yet'.

oh, really?

What exactly is the difference between miraculous and "not explained yet" ?

angelo wrote:

mindhack wrote:

angelo wrote:Defending theism is defending the indefensible. Or better still. The burden of proof is as fas as I know still with the claimant.

Dishonest atheist slander. God is succesfully defended all the time. Why else are there so many theists, huh?

"Successfully defended" ? Not here or anywhere else for that matter.

michael^3 wrote:

angelo wrote:John, you have heard of the James Randi Org million dollar challenge haven't you? Get the catolic church's so called peer reviewed miracles and have them tested by science and claim the million dollars. Gawd knows, the catolic church could do with the money.

Miracles cannot exist in science, by definition. If some peer reviewed comes to the conclusion that there was an inexplicable case of healing of disease X, they will simply conclude "in 0.01% of cases we observe a spontaneous healing of disease X", and from that day on your miracle is officially science. Then we can all yawn a bit and move on.