DEBATE: Proof and Evidence are Subjective!

This should read, "DEFINE TERMS & ILLUSTRATE OBJECTS"

 Tim Brooks v. Rational Science; Is Evidence Subjective?

The following debate took place on the Rational Science facebook group board.

Tim Brooks you guys are weirdos and think that evidence is only opinion

Tim Brooks that is silly shit

Tim Brooks you think that science is not observation and experiment but instead explanation

Tim Brooks rational explanation

Tim Brooks Evidence is far better than a rational explanation

[I have abridged the conversation to get to the point. The rest is posted at the bottom of this page.]

Jake Archer Evidence junkies..OCD..that's yer real "autism" right there..

Fatfist Fattie If idiot Tim can produce any objective evidence he has a chair, without a shadow of a doubt....any chair...then I will PayPal him $5000 USD. Cash kills all bullshit arguments! How about it, Tim? Wanna give it a go??

Tim Brooks wtf, a picture of me with my chair is evidence.

Fatfist Fattie So posting a possibly photoshopped picture is evidence to a moron like you? A picture is worth a thousand words and $5000, huh? I showed a picture of me holding my laptop to the judge during my business audit. He said the pic didn't prove the laptop was mine....it could have been my neighbor's. He wouldn't let me deduct the expense. So much for evidence.

So....where is your objective evidence that you own a chair???? This is your shining moment, Tim. I mean, if you cannot show such petty evidence of a chair to the jury, then you are pathetically worthless as an Atheist. I am willing to bet that Christianity has more evidence for Jesus than you have for a simple chair. Wanna take the challenge, Timmie???

I thought Atheists have objective evidence for this and for that and for the other thing….let’s SEE it!

Fatfist Fattie Tim doesn't know whether he exists or whether this is all a simulation....and the idiot wants to prove the existence of chairs? Jesus!

Here’s a bunch of dumb atheists who can’t say whether they exist or not, never mind chairs. Can Tim do any better than these assclowns?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQbL-dhuuCA&feature=related

Tim Brooks Nothing is proven 100%. Nothing.

Tim Brooks I can prove my chair exists to a point that is beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone willing to examine all the evidence.

Just because you did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you own a laptop to a judge does not mean that you could not have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that you were incapable doing so is only an example of your incompetence, you should have brought receipts, affidavits of eye witnesses, and serial numbers.

Fatfist Fattie Tim: “Nothing is proven 100%. Nothing.”

Aha!!!! So the fool folds under questioning! Praise the Lord!

So there is NO objective evidence…..EVIDENCE = OPINION!!!

All you have to offer the audience for your sorry-fucking-excuse-of-a-Religion (Atheism) is THE EXACT SAME SHIT THAT RELIGIONISTS & MATHEMATICIANS HAVE TO OFFER: Jack fucking squat!!!

Tim Brooks I did not fold. I still hold the position that I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my chair exists to anyone willing to look at all the evidence.

Your $5000 offer is a lie, It is like me saying I will give you money if you can sing me a song but I will not listen to verify that you sang me a song, so technically i never have to give you the money.

You say you will give the money if I prove to you my chair exists, but then you will not examine the evidence because you do not believe in evidence, its just a clear example of intellectual dishonesty.

Bill Gaede "I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt..." ... is a contradiction in terms! Either you PROVE or you don't. There is no in between. 'Reasonable doubt' invariably places the alleged 'proof' somewhere in between. You cannot have ANY amount of doubt about a theory that has been proven for else the theory has NOT been proven. Again, the idiots who confuse the standards of Law with those of Science have to stay out of scientific discussions. They have no clue!

Fatfist Fattie “beyond a reasonable doubt”

DOUBT?
DOUBT???
DOUBT???????????

Which part of DOUBT don’t you fucking understand? You just contradicted yourself, you stuttering fool.
You told the audience in NO uncertain terms that EVIDENCE = OPINION.

Perhaps your Pastor proved God to you beyond some human doubt….but he sure as Hell didn’t prove God to a critical-thinking mother-fucking asshole like ME!

“you should have brought receipts, affidavits of eye witnesses, and serial numbers.”

I did, you stupid moron! Pay attention:
1) Receipt: I brought the original receipt to the hearing. The judge said the print looks faded and it doesn’t make it look genuine.
2) Affidavits: I brought a signed affidavit. The judge said I could have gotten anyone to sign that. He has no objective means to measure the reliability of that affidavit.
3) Serial#: I had the serial too….but the judge said: “Sure! That’s your neighbor’s laptop….of course you have the serial number!”

What a demented fool you are, Tim. No wonder you believe in God.

Fatfist Fattie “Your $5000 offer is a lie”

Read the offer again, idiot. It will stay on the RECORD so it can ridicule you and your fucking Religion for the rest of your miserable life. You FOLDED under questioning and conceded that EVIDENCE = OPINION because there is no objective evidence….there is no 100% proof.

Proof means PROOF…100% certainty! Now Tim is retro-actively amending definitions to suit his dead argument.

“You say you will give the money if I prove to you my chair exists”

Yes….where’s your petty proof? Where is your objective evidence? If it ain’t 100%....then how can anyone hand over $$CASH$$ to a swindler like you?? You think that people outside your Atheist group are just as stupid as those in it??

When I pay for a service….I had better get 100% of the service I paid for….not a portion of it.

Tim Brooks Bill Gaede Proof only deals with mathematics. No theories are proven 100% in that way, that is just silly. To say that a theory is proven 100% is to say that no one ever in the future will develop an experiment to disprove it - you can not say that - you do not know, new and amazing things that were thought to be impossible are made possible everyday.

When it is commonly said that a theory is proven what is meant is that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not that there is some mathematic 100% proof, in other words it would be perverse to believe that it is untrue without evidence to the contrary.

Rick Chandler Innocent folks are sent to prison all the time by juries who find them guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Bill Gaede is right, the standards of the criminal justice system can't be confused with science.

Tim Brooks This is not the standards of criminal justice, these are the underpinnings of how our brain works.

Tim Brooks When it comes to reality, nothing is 100% or 0%, everything is in the middle.

I exist is at the probability of 99.99999%

Unicorns exist at the probability of .000001%

Rick Chandler Tim Brooks We are not talking about "how our brain works but science which deals with existence and reality, not our limited sensory system.

Fatfist Fattie “No theories are proven 100%”

Oh, so now Timmie starts to talk rationally after taking his foot out of his mouth.

So the Big Bang ain’t proven now?
So the photon, the wave, and the wavicle and the duality of light ain’t proven all of sudden, huh?
So Quantum magic and the discovery of Higgs ain’t proven, right?
So Relativity ain’t proven now? Space is not proven to be warped? Time is not proven to dilate the clocks of GPS satellites anymore??? Hmmm…..I bet tons of Mathematicians will disagree and eat you alive for posting these statements.

None of this stuff is certain now? It's all up in the "air", huh?

Tim Brooks Rick Chandler Science was created by "how our brain works" and our limited sensory system

Fatfist Fattie limited sensory system kills all attempts at PROOF!! It reduces PROOF and EVIDENCE to OPINION.

Tim Brooks Fatfist Fattie I never said the big bang theory was proven 100%, only that it is proven beyond a reasonably doubt to the point that it would be perverse to not accept it as true for two reasons-

There is not a single piece of evidence that refutes it, and many have tried.

It has a motherload of predictive ability, which means the big bang theory literally explains everything from around 20 plank seconds after what appears to be a big bang, all the way till now, and for around 30 billion years into the future. That is a fuck ton of predictive ability, any new theory will have to predict and explain everything that the big bang theory does and more.

For these 2 reasons it would be perverse to think of the big bang theory as untrue.

This does not mean that it eventually it may be disproven. At one time it would have been silly not to accept the geocentric model of the solar system, it accurately predicted the seasons and had not been refuted.

Once the heliocentric theory was created, it explained and predicted everything the geocentric theory did and more, so therefore it became goofy to not accept the heliocentric theory.

Fatfist Fattie What Tim has conceded to here today is profound. All atheists and Mathematicians can't wait to grab Tim by the neck and snap it off. You will never ever hear any atheist conceding that proof = opinion. You will never hear a mathematician conceding that Creation is not certain (i.e. Big Bang is not 100% true). Way to go, Tim!

Tim Brooks You can completely dismiss theories that have been refuted, as untrue.

You can completely dismiss theories that have nor predictive value, as worthless.

You can completely dismiss hypotheses that are unable to be tested, as indeterminable.

Fatfist Fattie “I never said the big bang theory was proven 100%, only that it is proven”

Contradiction. Either BB is proven or it ain’t. Either she is pregnant or she ain’t. Yes or No. There is no middle ground or other such contradictions.

Fatfist Fattie “BB…There is not a single piece of evidence that refutes it, and many have tried.”

BB is refuted in spades here:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Big-Bang-The-Universe-is-NOT-Expanding

Tim Brooks Fatfist Fattie I did not concede that proof = opinion. Proof is a mathematical term used to describe and confirm conceptual mathematical conjecture.

Whether something is proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not does depend on the subjective lens being able to judge objective reality with minimum distortion.

You are also wrong about mathematicians, no one believes that the big bang theory is 100% true, only that it appears to be 100% accurate and that is where your confusion comes in. Even though the big bang is so startlingly accurate at its predictions, no one then says that therefore it is 100% true.

The big bang theory instead has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be perverse to think otherwise without evidence that refutes it.

Tim Brooks There is always a middle ground

Tim Brooks to say things are 0% or 100% is just stupid

Tim Brooks it is the exact opposite

Tim Brooks everything is somewhere between 99.999% and .000001%

Rick Chandler Tim Brooks You still haven't read any of the articles that you were presented with, huah?

Fatfist Fattie “I did not concede that proof = opinion”

You did here….Tim: “Nothing is proven 100%. Nothing.”

If your statement isn’t 100% certain….then it is YOUR FUCKING OPINION! Language 101.

“Proof is a mathematical term used to describe and confirm conceptual mathematical conjecture.”

No it isn’t you illiterate fool. Math is a tautological system of derivational inference from axiomatic rules and assumptions. The CONCLUSIONS or answers DERIVED from any set of math statements offer NO new information. They are just the RE-STATEMENT of the original axioms & assumptions. Nothing is ever proven in math…..all is RE-STATED in a derived/massaged format. This is called a tautology. Tautologies don’t give any new information outside of their inputs.

Go back to school, Tim.

Tim Brooks Rick Chandler unlike you, just because I read them does not man that I agree with them.

Fatfist Fattie “You are also wrong about mathematicians, no one believes that the big bang theory is 100% true”

Go post that statement in the Quantum group or tell it to (another Quantum Mechanic), you stupid nutjob. Then you’ll learn how stupid you are. At least you should understand what the arguments are before posting.

Tim Brooks That would be silly, if I posted it in the quantum group they would all agree.

A proof is defined by the dictionary as "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

Basic language 101

Tim Brooks evidence or argument is never 100%

Fatfist Fattie ....and this agrees with my statement that objective evidence is impossible. All evidence = opinion!

Tim Brooks just because you have to view objective evidence through your subjective lens does not mean that the evidence itself is not objective.

Tim Brooks or that evidence is opinion, that is reduculous

Tim Brooks you can have an opinion concerning evidence, but this does not make the evidence itself an opinion

Tim Brooks that is just corny

Fatfist Fattie “That would be silly, if I posted it in the quantum group about the BB they would all agree.”

Of course they all agree the BB is 100% proven ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Mathematicians have 100% certain absolute truth in their theories! Is Evolution "just a theory"? Where the fuck were you when Mazikeen Morningstar was posting here for over a month that the BB is 100% proven absolute truth …and that gravity is 100% proven absolute truth to be a vector force. She is an expert Mathematician with tons of qualifications. Her credentials certainly outvote any of your opinions.

Fatfist Fattie "objective evidence through your subjective lens".....exactly, evidence is subjective. Subject to the individuals LIMITED sensory system like YOU said earlier....remember??

Fatfist Fattie “you can have an opinion concerning evidence, but this does not make the evidence itself an opinion”

You are too stupid to understand your own contradictions. Wow!

Fatfist Fattie Lest we forget…. (this previous debate)



Fatfist Fattie Moral of the story: choose your weapons wisely before arguing. Otherwise a theist will eat you alive!

Rick Chandler Tim Brooks is so cocky, he thinks that his position (basically quotes from his priests--Dawkins, Dillahunty, and the like) will win the debate regardless if he prepares for it or not. He calls his position rational and those who disagree even minutely are quacks or idiots!

Fatfist Fattie Well today he proved 100% his ignorance on the most basic matters of Philosophy 101 and Mathematics 101. He initially thought my $5000 chair challenge was silly and easily obtainable...so he responds:

Tim: “Ummm…WTF fattie…a picture of my chair proves I have one. There’s no bones about it! Where’s my money?”

Of course, Tim hasn’t got the intelligence to think of all the possibilities that refute any evidence or proof out there. When I informed him of how the judge dismissed my picture of the laptop, Tim quickly changed his tune:

Tim: “Ummm…duh…sure, there’s no 100% proof to be had anywhere. Proof is just a varying scale of BELIEF. Now fattie, please believe me…I really do have a chair. Be a pal and give me the $5000. Look at my face….I’m an honest guy; even my mother agrees. Besides, Dawkins states that I am only required to have a chair between 1% and 99% of the time!”

Fat: “Oh Timmie….when I pay for a service, I expect to get 100% of it. Anybody can lie or give me an OPINION. What makes your opinions so special?”

You gotta love our half-witted Tim though….he tries his best and yet falls flat on his face. He reminds me of those blessed kids with Down’s Syndrome who go on the ice rink, act like Wayne Gretzky, stumble and fall all over the ice. They sure pretend to score tons of goals…just like Tim….God bless them.

Bill Gaede Evidence is the hallmark of religion! Evidence is what prosecutors use to persuade, sway and convince the jury that their theory is correct. In Science, we are neither correct nor incorrect. We are neither right nor wrong. We tell neither The Truth nor a lie. In Science, we are simply rational.

Tim Brooks Bill Gaede Something being rational is not the end all to be all. If you get results from an experiment that are not rational we still have to accept the results. At one time electricity was not yet rationalized, this did not make electricity any less real. People can rationalize almost anything, just because an idea can be rationalized does not mean it is in any way true or factual.

Tim Brooks Some of what we find in nature is not rational, instead sometimes what we find is counter-intuitive to what we thought it would be like. This does not make it any less valid.

Jake Archer Explain electricity to us Tim Brooks, and gravity..we are all ears..?

Paul James “If you get results from an experiment that are not rational we still have to accept the results.”

Tim, the results of an experiment are neutral. It is how we INTERPRET THOSE RESULTS that counts here. If we interpret the result of experiment ‘A’ on the basis of wave/particle BS of course the results will be irrational! However, if we interpret the results of experiment ‘A’ in terms of a rational hypothesis like Rope Hypothesis we don’t end up with irrational BS.

The results of Young’s double slit experiment are irrational when interpreted on the basis of "wavicles". With Rope Hypothesis it is an entirely different story!

http://youtu.be/yOwTV-HgDUo

“Some of what we find in nature is not rational, instead sometimes what we find is counter-intuitive to what we thought it would be like.”

Yes, and as we have just discussed that our irrational ‘findings’ rest on the basis of the hypothesis we use to interpret the results of our experiment. ANY experiment we interpret on the basis of the wave/particle duality will seem ‘counter-intuitive’. Think about that for a while…

Fatfist Fattie “If you get results from an experiment that are not rational “

Experiments are neither rational or irrational….neither correct or incorrect. Experiments just are. The effects of experiments are explained rationally, via hypo + theory.

“Some of what we find in nature is not rational”

You can only find objects. You cannot find anything “rational/irrational”. Only Theories (explanations) can be rational. Tim is still struggling with the basics, as all atheists do.


.... Here is what I cut out of the conversation:

Paul James Tim? What is this crap?

Tim Brooks The truth will set you free but first it will piss you off.

Tim Brooks you guys have been duped

Paul James According to me these footprints are evidence for Big Foot, according to you they are evidence of pranksters. Evidence is YOUR opinion.

Jake Archer He's just testifying his faith in his evidence of jesus, dawkins whatever Paul... time for a chopping..I feel like going serial..

Paul James Tim, you have no rational assumptions to argue from.

Tim Brooks Paul James I must consider my assumptions to be rational or I would not continue to assume them.

Paul James Well, Tim, we still have the issue of those footprints...

Paul James You have much faith in evidence Tim.

Tim Brooks No, not faith - reasonable expectation - which is very different, faith is a belief with no evidence, reasonable expectation is a type of evidence itself.

Paul James In case you forgot already. According to me these footprints are evidence for Big Foot, according to you they are evidence of pranksters. Evidence is YOUR opinion.

Tim Brooks yeah i remember that argument

Tim Brooks its silly though, lemme show you why

Paul James Faith is reasonable expectation. A Christian has 'reasonable expectation' that they will be saved if...

Tim Brooks the footprints are evidence of something

Tim Brooks they can claim to have reasonable expectation

Tim Brooks but they dont, or we all would

Tim Brooks reasobable expectation is objective

Tim Brooks I have reasonable expectation that my car is in my driveway right now

Tim Brooks not faith

Paul James Expectation is something YOU have! LMAO

Tim Brooks i live in a decent neighborhood, i have the keys in my pocket, it is covered in snow, and so on...

Tim Brooks all those are objective

Paul James Tim says: "I have reasonable expectation (faith) that my car is in my driveway right now".

Tim Brooks and lead to a reasonable expectation that my car is outside

Tim Brooks faith is a belief with no evidence

Tim Brooks once there is evidence involved, faith is out the window

Tim Brooks in fact, many people take faith further (like you people) and instead of using faith as a belief with no evidence, you guys use faith as a way to deny evidence to the contrary

Jake Archer Do you have evidence that your chair exists..right now for me TIM..?

Paul James “and lead to a reasonable expectation that my car is outside”

So, reasonable expectation is something YOU have about a circumstance. It is NO different to saying you have ‘faith’ in it. WLC’s website is called “Reasonable Faith”.

Tim Brooks Yes I have evidence that my chair exists.

Jake Archer FOR ME?

Tim Brooks sure, you want a picture?

Tim Brooks you want the ability to access it personally?

Tim Brooks you want a judge, couple cops, 12 random people and your grandma to sign an affadavid that i do indeed have a chair?

Jake Archer Wait..does your chairs EXISTENCE depend upon evidence..?

Tim Brooks no

Tim Brooks existence has nothing to do with evidence

Jake Archer If they don't sign that affadavid, does that mean your chair does NOT exist?

Tim Brooks nope

Tim Brooks it only means they did not sign the affadavit

Tim Brooks remarkable claims require remarkable evidence

Tim Brooks the claim that I have a chair is not very remarkable

Jake Archer RIGHT, so EVIDENCE is not part of an hypothesis. Existence is ASSUMED not PROVEN you idiot. If you said evidence was needed by me so that your chair existed..that would be a "remarkable" claim.. get lost with your "evidence"..

Tim Brooks part of a hypothesis? what hypothesis?

Tim Brooks the hypothesis that I have a chair?

Tim Brooks if you get enough people to verify that if you come to my house, by all intents and purposes, it does appear that I do have a chair, then you can upgrade the hypothesis to be tims chair theory

Paul James “faith is a belief with no evidence”

No it isn’t, Richard Dawkins made that same mistake publicly.

Watch the vid…

http://youtu.be/pyzNcJ-CttM?t=20s

Paul James Faith = reasonable expectation = opinion.

Paul James Christians have faith in God's word and truckloads of evidence to go with it, just ask them.

Paul James Atheists have faith (reasonable expectation) in creation of matter in a big bang and truckloads of evidence to go with it, just ask them