I'm in the wrong job! £60 an hour for playing make believe!

[spoffle]

I understand it perfectly. I was just hoping that you would actually be trolling, as otherwise you're worryingly deluded.

if you understood what I was saying then you wouldn't have said I was trolling.

For example, what am I deluded over?

To actually give you a serious answer; the entire concept of proof is that it's 100% unsubjective. It is either repeatably provable, or it's not. There's not a middle ground, there's no subjectivity, and there's no opinion involved. To even argue that there is is just crazy!

That doesn't really matter does it? If two parties aren't willing to accept something as proof, where do you go from there as far as "proof" goes?

In theory it's supposed to be objective (not unsubjective) but in practice it's very subjective.

 

[Woden]

Read my post again, CAREFULLY.

You keep using the word "proof", but I don't think it means what you think it means.

DNA, in of itself is not evidence of anything.

 

[spoffle]

You keep using the word "proof", but I don't think it means what you think it means.

DNA, in of itself is not evidence of anything.

And you have no idea what I'm talking about.

When did I tell people that DNA was proof of God's existence?

 

[DAnDan]

if you understood what I was saying then you wouldn't have said I was trolling.

For example, what am I deluded over?

Sorry, you've missed what I was trying to say... I was saying that your views are so damn crazy, that I fail to believe any rational and sane person can have them. Therefore, for your sake, I hope you were trolling. Turns out that, apparently, you weren't, which makes me sad.

That doesn't really matter does it? If two parties aren't willing to accept something as proof, where do you go from there as far as "proof" goes?

In theory it's supposed to be objective (not unsubjective) but in practice it's very subjective.

Of course it matters, you can't just claim that something is proof, and then close your ears and keep telling people that it is, when they show you that it's not. Something is either proof, and you can repeat whatever you did to prove it, and use that to prove it to other people, or it's not proof and it's merely an assumption at best. People may choose to believe and agree with your assumption, but that does NOT make it proof, not even close!

 

[deuse]

I take offense to your comment above and ask to have it removed.

Hikari made a valid point.

OMG you're offended
please keep us all updated if you turn in to a frog or wake up with leprosy.

 

[B&W]

Have to say this, "proof" is not subjective.

Proof is evidence. Scientific theory, becomes theory because of evidence that seems to back it up. Evolution, mavity, Reletivism, all have evidence that suggest they are true.

Jinn? Not so much.

So before these scientific theories did these things not exist? No, mavity has existed for a long time before we were even on this earth.

Therefore it is entirely possible for things to exist without being proven by science.

Perhaps it is unlikely that a flying rat controls all our existence but we don't use proof or lack of it to come to that conclusion.

 

[spoffle]

Sorry, you've missed what I was trying to say... I was saying that your views are so damn crazy, that I fail to believe any rational and sane person can have them. Therefore, for your sake, I hope you were trolling. Turns out that, apparently, you weren't, which makes me sad.

Why? Be specific, what do you think my "view" is?

Of course it matters, you can't just claim that something is proof, and then close your ears and keep telling people that it is, when they show you that it's not. Something is either proof, and you can repeat whatever you did to prove it, and use that to prove it to other people, or it's not proof and it's merely an assumption at best. People may choose to believe and agree with your assumption, but that does NOT make it proof, not even close!

It matters to the extent of whether people accept it or not.

As I've already asked, would you accept some one using DNA as proof of God's existence? (this is a question that I would like to be answered for those who are struggling with it).

 

[DAnDan]

Why? Be specific, what do you think my "view" is?

I've explained this already... Your view that proof is subjective. It's barmy.

It matters to the extent of whether people accept it or not.

As I've already asked, would you accept some one using DNA as proof of God's existence? (this is a question that I would like to be answered for those who are struggling with it).

NO! It doesn't matter if people accept it. It's either proof, or it's not! People's opinion is 100% completely and utterly irrelevant. Is it really that hard to understand what I've written, or are you just choosing to ignore it?

And no, DNA isn't proof of god. That's just a laughable suggestion, surely you can see that. And no, don't turn around and say that I said you said DNA is proof of god, I know you're not, but I find it worrying that you can even entertain that motion. It's not a proof of god, anybody saying it is is just ridiculous and needs some basic education.

 

[Woden]

So before these scientific theories did these things not exist? No, mavity has existed for a long time before we were even on this earth.

Therefore it is entirely possible for things to exist without being proven by science.

Perhaps it is unlikely that a flying rat controls all our existence but we don't use proof or lack of it to come to that conclusion.

I never said it wan't possible? I think you misunderstood my aim of the post.

I am saying proof, evidence, is not subjective.

 

[spoffle]

I've explained this already... Your view that proof is subjective. It's barmy.

It's not barmy, in practice it IS subjective. The way people use proof, they use it in a subjective manner, rightly or wrongly but that's how people use it.



NO! It doesn't matter if people accept it. It's either proof, or it's not! People's opinion is 100% completely and utterly irrelevant. Is it really that hard to understand what I've written, or are you just choosing to ignore it?[/QUOTE]

Of course it matters. If you're trying to demonstrate something to some one who won't accept that what you're using is proof, then where do you go from there?

It's only "proof" to those who are willing to accept it, again, rightly or wrongly but that's how it is in practice.

And no, DNA isn't proof of god. That's just a laughable suggestion, surely you can see that. And no, don't turn around and say that I said you said DNA is proof of god, I know you're not, but I find it worrying that you can even entertain that motion. It's not a proof of god, anybody saying it is is just ridiculous and needs some basic education.

So you don't or wouldn't accept someone using DNA as proof of God's existence?

It's not a ridiculous notion, people do use DNA as proof of God's existence. It's not about education, it's about their belief system.

They believe, and in their opinion it is proof that God exists.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as it's informed, but that doesn't quite work in such a situation.

 

[spoffle]

I never said it wan't possible? I think you misunderstood my aim of the post.

I am saying proof, evidence, is not subjective.

So if you show some one scientific proof of something, and they decline accepting it as proof, and try to show you that DNA proves that God exists, and you decline that, where do you stand?

I've also asked before but no one has answered, what exactly do you think my stance is in this situation?

 

[DAnDan]

It's not barmy, in practice it IS subjective. The way people use proof, they use it in a subjective manner, rightly or wrongly but that's how people use it.



NO! It doesn't matter if people accept it. It's either proof, or it's not! People's opinion is 100% completely and utterly irrelevant. Is it really that hard to understand what I've written, or are you just choosing to ignore it?

Of course it matters. If you're trying to demonstrate something to some one who won't accept that what you're using is proof, then where do you go from there?

It's only "proof" to those who are willing to accept it, again, rightly or wrongly but that's how it is in practice.



So you don't or wouldn't accept someone using DNA as proof of God's existence?

It's not a ridiculous notion, people do use DNA as proof of God's existence. It's not about education, it's about their belief system.

Let me put it simply. Anybody who says that DNA is proof of god is wrong. They don't understand what a proof is. No matter how many times you repeat what you're saying, they're still wrong. It's not a proof, regardless of if some people decide to say it is. That's like saying that the laptop I'm typing this on is actually made of moon rock, just because you said it is, doesn't make it true.

In theory, proof isn't subjective.
In practice, proof isn't subjective.

So if you show some one scientific proof of something, and they decline accepting it as proof, and try to show you that DNA proves that God exists, and you decline that, where do you stand?

I've also asked before but no one has answered, what exactly do you think my stance is in this situation?

He's right, they're wrong (or just lying). It's simple, how do you not grasp that?

 

[aardvark]

Jinns do exist. Think of them as poltergeists, or ghosts. They can possess humans, however, they should not. They normally house trees in woodland and some even your bathroom.

NURSE! Hes out of his bed again!

 

[SkodaMart]

OMG you're offended
please keep us all updated if you turn in to a frog or wake up with leprosy.

Ribbit!!

 

[spoffle]

Let me put it simply. Anybody who says that DNA is proof of god is wrong. They don't understand what a proof is. No matter how many times you repeat what you're saying, they're still wrong. It's not a proof, regardless of if some people decide to say it is. That's like saying that the laptop I'm typing this on is actually made of moon rock, just because you said it is, doesn't make it true.

In theory, proof isn't subjective.
In practice, proof isn't subjective.

I don't think you understand this subject. Claiming your laptop is made of moon rock is nothing like subjective proof at all.

To me it seems as if you disbelieve anything to do with people believing in God and therefore will renounce anything anyone claims as proof that God exists.

Religious people do the very same thing.

He's right, they're wrong (or just lying). It's simple, how do you not grasp that?

And that is the point I'm making, subjective proof. To you science is right religion is wrong ALWAYS, hence you'll never accept anything other than science as being correct.

 

[Woden]

So if you show some one scientific proof of something, and they decline accepting it as proof, and try to show you that DNA proves that God exists, and you decline that, where do you stand?

I've also asked before but no one has answered, what exactly do you think my stance is in this situation?

That's because you haven't asked it yet.

 

[spoffle]

That's because you haven't asked it yet.

i have my beliefs and you have yours but im more concerned with people who are being conned by the likes of this guy in the OP.

What do you believe my beliefs are?

 

[Woden]

Trololololol

That is a totally different question :|

 

[mrjagga]

Typical OCUK never fails to be so predictable. Anything to do with Islam and you bash it straight away, of course you don't believe theres no such thing as jinn, thats because most of you are atheists, and to the christians or people who believe in evil spirits jinn is basically another word for ghosts or dark spirits.

ffs some of you need to get a grip, some people are religious, some ain't, why do you persist in bashing a religion that you don't believe in.

 

[G-MAN2004]

Jinns do exist. Think of them as poltergeists, or ghosts. They can possess humans, however, they should not. They normally house trees in woodland and some even your bathroom.