(05-22-2015 09:14 AM)UCF08 Wrote: Hambone, like it's been mentioned before, your posts clearly don't do a great job of expressing your position because this entire thread has been you restating the same thing without moving forward from that position. I have addressed everything you've written, including this most recent semantic argument that you've brought up,
So which is it? Did I just bring this up or am I repeating myself? It can't be both. Obviously you haven't read and addressed anything I've said, since you are still claiming that I 'just brought this up' when I actually brought it up in post #30 and HAVE repeated it. Perhaps the reason I repeat it is because here we are in post 200 where I have made the exact same comment all along, and you are JUST NOW noticing it. In other words, you haven't addressed what I've said at all, until now. And you haven't addressed it constructively in any way.
Quote:and have shown the holes and disingenuous nature of the arguments you've presented. I've done this clearly, concisely,
No. You've argued with things I haven't said and obviously ignored what I've said.
Quote:and multiple times over, and other posters on this thread have not had the same issues you have understanding my points.
I understand your points completely. You simply aren't addressing mine.... because as you admit, you read them all and only now noticed the clear and simple distinction I've been drawing the whole time between an opinion and a fact. Between evidence and proof.
Quote:I cannot say the same for you, as multiple posters have pointed out what I stated above, you clearly having some problems with expressing your opinions or views on this subject. I can only respond to what you write, and if you don't write what you actually mean, I cannot have a discussion with you.
Everyone on here knows what I've said. They may disagree, but they understand it.
Quote:You have yet to address this simple fact, that a lack of scientific evidence is not evidence of anything, by definition. If you understand that fact, and it is an objective unambiguous fact, you'll see how your entire argument is based on a false premise.
And now you're just making your failure to understand English all the more obvious.
I just went back and each and every post I've made... I've clearly addressed your comment.... over and over and over... yet you claim I haven't addressed it at all. That's your reading comprehension problem, not mine.
NOT ONCE have I claimed that lack of scientific evidence is evidence of anything else.... so why should I 'specifically' address something that I've never said?? If you're going to claim I have, the quote it.
I've repeatedly argued the same thing and the obvious correlary to it... demonstrating that I've never disagreed with your premise... that
a lack of scientific evidence doesn't prove OR DIS-prove anything either. I entirely agree with your premise. and have never, not once, EVER claimed differently
See the bold there? I've agreed ONCE AGAIN that a lack of evidence doesn't prove anything. I've NEVER said it does... and repeatedly said it doesn't. I only add that it doesn't DISPROVE anything either. Do you deny this?
My entire contention is that we CHOOSE what to fill those 'unknowns' (lack of scientific evidence) with based on our beliefs.
You either fill it in with 'God', or 'Not God' or 'perhaps, 'it could be either'.
But NONE of those are TRUTH/facts/proof or even evidence. They are all SOME form of faith/belief. If you want to argue that the last isn't faith because it doesn't choose either way, that's fine... but it has to actually not choose either way. Saying 'I don't know, but I know it's not God' is STILL an act of faith.
Let me help you...
See the bolded line above? That is functionally the same thing as what you say I haven't addressed... and you KNOW I've said it over and over. That 'what we assume when we lack scientific evidence isn't proof or even evidence'. It is belief, aka faith.
I only otherwise differentiate between scientific evidence and scientific proof. Yes, proof is made up of evidence, but evidence is not the same thing as proof. You can have evidence that isn't true... and it happens all the time... and you can have evidence that you believe with all your being that doesn't turn out to be true... but you can't have PROOF that isn't true... because that is the essential definition.
Since I'm specifically talking about what you can PROVE to be TRUE, what you now call the 'semantic' difference between 'belief' and 'fact' (or any of the other words) is pretty obviously important.