(double post - maybe the rabbit hole is a Klein Bottle with no bottom and you end up right where you started.)

neither have solid results...both are speculations...tomato tomato

im just not naive enough to be stubborn and resolute on anything...reality/universe/supernatural....all these things i leave my mind open to..to all theories/ideas/hypothisis....the moment i latch on to one idea without considering others open mindedly ,i become stuck....i choose to keep goin foward..thus i take it all in

could be..anything is possible

What a Möbius twist that took!

there are ways intentional and accidental as to how a bullet can be fired without the use of a Gun ..

Wrong???

How does that qualify as unrevealed, or conflict what funches or I have said regarding this so-called unfound or unrevealed evidence?

Semantic playground, once again.



Do you have a valid point?

Well, if I was going to hire a private investigator, I clearly hire Jeanniebean over the boys who are playing on the semantic merry-go-round. Why waste money on them?

Jeanniebean realizes that just because she doesn't yet have the evidence that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

The boys on the semantic merry-go-round would just take your money and say, "Sorry I have no evidence therefore it must not exist".

What a rip-off!

At least now all the intelligent people now know to hire Jeannie if they want RESULTS.

As I think of what the meaning of "evidence" is I seem to find two different meanings.

A piece of evidence, not found, cannot be used as evidence unless it is found and used. If it is completely unknown to exist, (even though it does exist) it cannot be used as evidence. (It may as well not exist.)

So what would you actually call it?

You may not want to call it "evidence" because it is not in your hands and you cannot make use of it for evidence purposes.

If it actually does exist, and you know it exists but it is never found or used then what is it?

Is the meaning of the word evidence dependent upon having knowledge and possession of it and using it to prove a truth?

If you can't find the evidence, then does it exist? Do you have to assume it exists and keep looking? If you don't, will you quit looking?

It is like the question, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?

The reason people find evidence is because they assume it exists and they keep looking. They don't wait for it to jump out at them.

Is this illogical? Of course not.

Evidence exists for all truth. Keep looking.

Because you and f.. decide to hide or ignore the facts does NOT change the fact that evidence is there...

Semantic playground? I always prefered McAfee anyways...

It's a semantic merry-go-round.

Is there moon there when you aren't looking?

What do you mean by "moon"?

What to you mean by "there"?

What do you mean by "looking"?

Typical philosopher's conversations.

They like the semantic merry-go-round.

It's the only way they can pretend that they have a point.

You can look at it this way too. Is a gun evidence in a shooting?

The answer is ... only if it can be connected to the shooting. If it can't, then it is just a gun, it is not evidence.

Can a gun that has not been found be used as evidence? Not if it is never found. So then is it still to be called evidence or is it just alleged evidence until it is found and connected to the shooting.

Even if the gun is found and presented as "evidence" if it is not the right gun and does not match the bullet, then it is rejected as evidence.

Its all about the meaning of evidence. Is it the object or the fact that the object can be used to prove something to someone.

The fact is that no one can give an example of evidence that does not exist, evidence that has not been found, or evidence that is unrevealed...

The question is not why we look or keep looking, the question is what is evidence, and how that is evaluated for it's accuracy, sufficiency, and relevance.

An ad hominem attack on the poster rather than the post itself is evidence of no logic.

PeterPan,

You never answered the question...

How does that(gun example) qualify as unrevealed, or conflict what funches or I have said regarding this so-called unfound or unrevealed evidence?

JB,

I appreciate your display of emotional intelligence here. I want to respond to a couple of your most recent posts...

Gimme a bit!

Of course there can be no example of non-existent evidence, but there were a few examples given of unrevealed and unfound evidence.




Evidence is a statement, thought, physical item or perceiveable energy form that supports an idea or theory. How it's evaluated is the major debate here. There is no pleasing some people.



No, an ad hominem attack is only evidence an ad hominem attack. To infer "no logic" from that is an assumption.

He claimed it was "faith". Like I said, just because it's hidden or ignored doesn't mean it's not evidence, it only means it's not perceived or accepted.

Evidence for what?

There are plenty of historical examples where evidence has been 'found' when it was unknown prior to that time. Just look at the history of scientific discoveries (many of which were discovered by pure blundering accident)

So since history is full of examples of "evidence" that had been discovered when it was previously unkown then it's a pretty sure bet that there is plenty more evidence that will be found that is currently unrevealed.

That's a given, unless you think that we've already discovered all there is to know about the universe and there is no 'evidence' left to be discovered.



That question had already been answered many times in this thread.

Question: What is evidence?

Answer: That depends on what question your asking. The question you ask will determine what constitutes 'evidence' to support the conlusion that you associated with your question.

Question: How is it evaluated for it's accuracy, sufficiency, and relevance?

Answer: Again, that depends on what question you're asking and what conclusions you're suggesting that the evidence supports. And what methodology you apply when seeking for 'evidence'.

So it's very much a subjective thing. Let there be no doubt about that.

Here's what Werner Heisenberg has to say about this:

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg

The questions we ask, and the 'evidence' we look for, will determine what evidence we find and the answers we get.

Sky had already explained all this but it seems to have gone over eveyone's head.

By the way, there was a great movie about this called "The Illusionist".

Jeannie: If you haven't already seen that movie I'm sure you'd love it.

That's absolutely correct. Would you please tell me something about what it was you did already?

I'm talking about the way you talk on here.

All I've seen is you preaching on an internet dating sight and not charge for it.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. I'll just repeat some questions without your quotes getting in the way:
Without protons we'd never have the declaration of independence either but the properties of particles don't make much sense on the scale of government models.

If it's too hard to explain in layman speak go ahead and lay down the full technical explanation of what mysteries in neurology are waiting on quantum mechanics to become accessible, please.

What aspect of inertia do we not understand well enough to deal with electrons?

You're vague. Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics.

If they affected electrons in a significant way that we did not already understand why would we bother with particle accelerators instead of just observing electrons and extrapolating from that?

Once again, what good will understanding those particles do for figuring out if walks lighten people's moods or not?

What relevance do the newest frontiers of knowledge have on thoroughly explored ground?

Appeal to authority fallacy. Stop drumming yourself up if you're not going to demonstrate enlightenment or even tell me what field of science you worked in.

I agree. Why do you refuse to accept that there is any value in studying them?

Or would you like to take back that bit about how you think human traits are so far beyond us that we can't work on them?

You should take your own advice and stop backpedaling into quantum mechanics every time you don't really have anything to say.

Condition: smell of roses.
Method of testing: double blind smelling tests with various ground up materials and extracts.

Possible (probable because people have already done this) conclusion: most of the scent comes from beta-damascenone, beta-damascone, beta-ionone, and rose oxide.
Further test: grind up fresh roses and extract these compounds then test remains. Possibly genetically engineer roses to express different compounds that should have the same structural impact but no aromatic quality.

Now I foresee a little objection here as the chemical that we are smelling is not the same as the sensation but I will direct you to the posts of one Mr Abracadabra in this thread explaining how the lower levels of phenomena explain everything that there is about more complex levels.

Checkmate. (I know you're going to pick your queen and both rooks up off the sideline and place them back on the board but I'm ready to capture them all again.)

Neither label can be applied until after it is so revealed or found. Until evidence is found, it is only a possibility. The possibility of existing is not existing.



Two things, I began this thread, and the definition in use is one which comes from Webster, and it has already been established.



How does this relate to anything here? What you think about other people is an ad hominem argument and is fallacious. Fallacious arguments are illogical. Illogical means no logic.



It has been shown as such. Do you have a valid counter?