Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo,

Edwardmurphy means, his interpretation of the facts.

We all have the same facts. We all choose to believe what we want, based on what we see as truth regarding the facts.

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:30 amWe all have the same facts.

No, we don't. People who read a variety of high quality news sources have far more facts than people in a partisan news bubble, and people who draw conclusions from a wide array of data tend to make better decisions. People who are better informed are also better positioned to tell the difference between a fact and an opinion and to identify when something that sounds factual is not. So no, we don't all have the same facts, nor are we all equally capable of using them do draw sound conclusions.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 10:17 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:30 amWe all have the same facts.

No, we don't. People who read a variety of high quality news sources have far more facts than people in a partisan news bubble, and people who draw conclusions from a wide array of data tend to make better decisions. People who are better informed are also better positioned to tell the difference between a fact and an opinion and to identify when something that sounds factual is not. So no, we don't all have the same facts, nor are we all equally capable of using them do draw sound conclusions.

I think you’re using a different definition of “fact” than I am.

Which definition are you using?
1)a thing that is known or proved to be true.
2)a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

If you’re using definition #2, you still have to interpret those facts. You believe certain facts, and don’t believe others.

We all have reasons to believe some facts over others. That’s why two people can see the exact same thing, and come to two different conclusions.

Both definitions talk about the same thing - pieces of verifiable information. There's no definition of "fact" that includes "which may or may not be true."

For example, to hear Trump tell it, the facts are that the do-nothing Democrats refused to negotiate a Covid relief bill so he had to step in and take care if it via executive order. If you're in the Fox News bubble or you get your news from other Trumpies on Facebook you probably think those are the facts.

If you're not in the Fox News bubble, and you've read the US Constitution and understand the separation of powers, and you follow reputable news outlets then you know that those "facts" are actually lies. You believing that they're facts based on your interpretation of whatever you've heard doesn't somehow make those lies true.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:45 pm Both definitions talk about the same thing - pieces of verifiable information. There's no definition of "fact" that includes "which may or may not be true."

For example, to hear Trump tell it, the facts are that the do-nothing Democrats refused to negotiate a Covid relief bill so he had to step in and take care if it via executive order. If you're in the Fox News bubble or you get your news from other Trumpies on Facebook you probably think those are the facts.

If you're not in the Fox News bubble, and you've read the US Constitution and understand the separation of powers, and you follow reputable news outlets then you know that those "facts" are actually lies. You believing that they're facts based on your interpretation of whatever you've heard doesn't somehow make those lies true.

So like I said, your interpretation of the facts.

And like I said, no.

The facts are what actually happened. You're acting like everything is some unknowable he-said, she-said, when in reality it's usually he-said so we rolled the tape/read the document/checked the records/read the Constitution and it turns out he was lying/exaggerating/taking credit for the work of others/acting beyond the scope of his authority.

Here's an example:

On December 26, 2018 while speaking to troops at al-Asad Air Base in Iraq Donald Trump made the following statements:

You just got one of the biggest pay raises you ever received. Unless you don't want it. Does anybody here? Is anybody here willing to give up the big pay raise you just got? I don't see too many hands. Ah, OK. Don't give it up. It's great. You know what? Nobody deserves it more. You haven't gotten one in more than 10 years. More than 10 years. And we got you a big one. I got you a big one.

You had plenty of people, they came up, they said, you know we could make it smaller. We could make it 3 percent, we could make it 2 percent, we could make it 4 percent. I said, 'no, make it 10 percent — make it more than 10 percent.

Since that speech I've seen Trump brag about getting big pay raises for the troops on a few occasions, and I've seen it added to his list of supposed accomplishments. In reality none of it is true. The facts are as follows:

1) Trump had nothing to do with the raise. It was allocated by Congress and was based on annual cost of living calculations.

2) The raise was 2.4%, not 10%.

3) It wasn't one of the biggest ever. It was a full point lower than the annual raises that troops got in 2008-10.

4) Troops have gotten an annual COLA raise since the 1960s. There hasn't been a single year that they didn't get one, much less "more than 10 years."

5) Trump could have used the Bully Pulpit to push hard for Congress to give the troops a 10% raise. But he didn't.

As I said, Trump is still making that claim, and it's still going unchallenged by the right wing media. Remember that recent Chris Wallace interview (OMG, read the transcript!)? The one where he said Fox News polls were fake and that the cognitive test that he took was difficult? He also said "I got soldiers the biggest pay raises in the history of our military" and Wallace let it slide.

If you're in the bubble then chances are you believe that Trump fought to get our troops a big raise because he cares deeply for them and the previous administration was too cheap to give them a COLA, but if you're reading multiple, credible news sources then you know that none of that is true.

Trump has spent the last 3 years sowing chaos, undermining all of our institutions, and trying to create an atmosphere where there is no truth and everything is subjective. It seems like you've drunk deep of his Kool Aid. Might want to switch to ipecac.

Ed,

The ironic thing here is that you’re the equivalent of a young earth creationist in this conversation. The young earth creationist sees the facts, and equates his opinion with the truth. Anyone who sees things differently is wrong.

Congrats! You are officially a fundamentalist!

And there comes a point when speaking to these kinds of young earth creationists, when I realize that there’s no way to have a conversation with them, because anything I say that’s not a young earth narrative, is dismissed.

Rick, the difference between me and a fundamentalist is that you could change my mind by presenting evidence in support of your position. You've always held that you're under no obligation to back up any of your statements but now here you are, having failed utterly to support your own positions, claiming that I'm a hard headed fundie for not taking them seriously.

Read my last post. Look at Trump's quote. Look up the law. Call a veteran and ask if they've ever gone more than a decade without a COLA raise or if Trump got them a 10% bump in 2018. Do a bit of research. If it turns out I'm wrong then I'll admit it.

But when it turns out I'm right will you admit that your President is the kind of guy who would fly to Iraq, look his troops in the eye, and tell them a bunch of lies about how he supported them, and fought for them, and had their back? And will you then have the courage to think about how such a person might behave in other situations? Will you swallow your pride and consider the possibility that it's Donald Trump who's the liar, and not literally everyone who's ever disagreed with him on anything?

Lie #1:

Rick, the difference between me and a fundamentalist is that you could change my mind by presenting evidence in support of your position.

Nope. You only want to see the evidence that fits your anti-Trump narrative. You choose to believe the evidence that you want.

Lie #2:

You've always held that you're under no obligation to back up any of your statements...

Nope. Never insinuated, claimed, nor held that belief whatsoever. One specific time that I said that, doesn’t mean “always”. There was a specific reason for that one specific time.

but now here you are, having failed utterly to support your own positions, claiming that I'm a hard headed fundie for not taking them seriously.

What specific positions in this thread, have I failed utterly to support. I don’t recall having any positions in this thread.

Read my last post. Look at Trump's quote. Look up the law. Call a veteran and ask if they've ever gone more than a decade without a COLA raise or if Trump got them a 10% bump in 2018. Do a bit of research. If it turns out I'm wrong then I'll admit it.

Irrelevant. I don’t care about every stupid thing that Trump says. I’m not obsessed over him like you are.

But when it turns out I'm right will you admit that your President is the kind of guy who would fly to Iraq, look his troops in the eye, and tell them a bunch of lies about how he supported them, and fought for them, and had their back? And will you then have the courage to think about how such a person might behave in other situations? Will you swallow your pride and consider the possibility that it's Donald Trump who's the liar, and not literally everyone who's ever disagreed with him on anything?

You must have me confused with someone else who DIDN’T say that all presidents are corrupt in some way, and most if not all are liars.

Again, if all are corrupt, I’m going with the candidate who is the lesser of the two evils, at election time. And, that doesn’t mean that I support every little thing that my chosen candidate does. I’m not ablecainsbrother, who supports everything he does. And I’m not you, who criticizes everything he does.

Seriously Ed, you need a hobby or something productive to do. I disagreed with much of what the last president did, but you didn’t see me obsessing over him.

Go spend time with your wife and kids. Go exercise. Stop obsessing over a president you don’t like.

I appreciate everybody wanting to look out for me, but posting an average of 1.23 times per day really doesn't take much time.

Also, I give up. You're clearly 100% committed to supporting a conman, so bully for you, I guess. The lesser of two evils thing is utter and complete [nonsense], but whatever lets you sleep at night.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:08 pm I appreciate everybody wanting to look out for me, but posting an average of 1.23 times per day really doesn't take much time.

Also, I give up. You're clearly 100% committed to supporting a conman, so bully for you, I guess. The lesser of two evils thing is utter and complete [nonsense], but whatever lets you sleep at night.

Yup. 100%. Everything he does, I defend. I have a Trump shrine in my house.

I don’t know why you have difficulty understanding the concept of lesser of two evils.
The US worked with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Defeating Hitler helped all Americans sleep better.

You anti-Trumpers sure are illogical!

Oh, I get it. Your thinking is not comlex. You believe that Trump is the lesser of two evils and you hold to that position by ignoring, downplaying, and rationalizing all evidence to the contrary.