I'm right, because I say I'm right!

Another Google plus special review...
Let's crack into it.
From a chap called Adam Dobrin that places the claim: "I think I've found a verifiable pattern that links ancient scripture, history, music, and Holy words... "
like hundreds of people before him he's seen the pattern that nobody else can see! Better yet he has a 'verifiable pattern' - I'll be sure to undertake a verification of this later.

Adam Posted:

I think I've found a verifiable pattern that links ancient scripture, history, music, and Holy words... I'm very curious what you think. Here, I provide one example, which shows how a song "They Stood Up for Love" by Live ties the word "Menorah" to America's history... specifically the "Sons of Liberty."

It's my contention that this acronym is the "SOL" of God, which Live sings he "gave to the one," and that this message, that the word Menorah "reveals" a question intended to be posed through time... to get us to wake up. The Sons of Liberty didn't really provide that.. specifically to slaves and women; and this question ties the word Menorah (a light bringing device) to what I've called the Sang Rael--another pattern I'd love some feedback on.

-- edited out link --

I specifically discuss how this might prove the existence of God, by showing us that there is a hidden message that spans from the Bible to modern music--one that the prophets could not have known about, and the musicians of today most likely are going to be surprised to hear .. might be speaking the words of God.

-- edited out link -- talks about how the acronym for SEA shows us that there is a tie between Shekinah (the spirit of God) and "everyone," Holy Water. It ends up ambiguous, leaving the last "A" of SEA as having multiple possible suggestions: Adamah, Allah, etc.  I think the word "allah" leads us, to show that the "AH" in this context is an acronym for "All Humanity" and that this is confirmed strongly by the word Menorah, now a question through time:

Men, or All Humanity?

What do you think of the message?  I find it's existence to be compelling evidence to prove that we are literally the "light" of the Apocalyptic fire... one that might begin with 
-- edited out link --

I've taken out the links to what appears to be his blog, but I will be checking the content myself, I just don't wish to promote what I see as nonsense by linking to it.

---

1st paragraph breakdown:

Regarding the song: "They stood up for love" by Live - released in 2000
Claim: the word menorah (think Jewish Hanukkah...) is in his own words 'specifically tied, to America's history and more specifically to the group "Sons of Liberty"
First point to raise: the song does not include the word menorah. it does contain the word 'candle' but I would argue that a candle is a singular object and a menorah is a very defined thing which in itself cannot simply be called 'a candle'
From this I suggest this point Adam has simply injected a word that he has chosen as 'fitting' with no reason to back why that word is chosen.

P1 Summary:

• The reference word is seemingly chosen at random (or by subjective personal opinion)
• The reference word appears nowhere in the song against which it is referenced
• The 'Sons of Liberty' had no relevancy to either the song, it's lyrics or any form of Jewsih ideology.

---

2nd paragraph breakdown:

I'll start by stating that I personally find it very hard to read this paragraph in a format in which is actually makes sense. So this breakdown is based on how I've understood the details of this paragraph.
The term "acronym SOL of God" makes no sense, the acronym is of Sons of Liberty, and they in themselves have no reference to god, the group was formed in protestation of taxation.
Even if we read the acronym, Sol, commonly refers to the Latin for sun, and if it is related to a god then it is the god Sol a Roman deity, one that pre-dates the god of the Bible. to this end any reference to biblical interpretation is irrelevant.

Live sings he "gave to the one," and that this message, that the word Menorah "reveals" a question intended to be posed through time... to get us to wake up.

The song (and it's lyrics) seem quite intentionally bent toward the Christian ideas, which if my conjecture of Roman deity is even remotely accurate is, as I say, utterly irrelevant.

I would pose that Adam has specifically chosen to observe a song that he has a personal (subjective) affinity toward, which makes the choice of song to be quite ambiguous.
The last part of this details that a 'question' is revealed, however what follows is written as a directive not an inquisitive detail.
moving on the the next part:

The Sons of Liberty didn't really provide that.. specifically to slaves and women;

The Sons of liberty, at least from what I've found, had nothing to do with the 'waking up' of slaves or women, their history is steeped in political unrest and is directly caused by what was seen to be unfair taxation.
I'd like to add I'm presuming that in context the 'waking up' of slaves and women would be the act of emancipation of those parties, or somehow related to their respective freedoms.
In the last part of the 2nd paragraph Adam specifically refers to another hypothesis he's formed to be used as part of the supporting detail to this hypothesis, I would argue this is deliberately obfuscating details by presenting ever more personal and subjective interpretation.

P2 Summary:

• Seemingly random acronym chosen, based on nothing within the referenced song.
• Acronym definition presupposed, there are many other S.O.L acronym meanings.
• Acronym of English language referenced against Jewish concept (English/Hebrew not accounted for)
• Misrepresentation of argument - incorrect details of the Sons of Liberty group intentions.
• Song seems to be chosen based on personal affinity (subjective interpretation)
• Backing up fallacious presentation of details with a further (possibly) fallacious details.
• Possible deliberate obfuscation.

---

3rd Paragraph breakdown:

This paragraph is simply conjecture, it is a paragraph of personal contemplation and offers no basis on verification or even alluding to the format of the pattern that we are to be observing.
Adam does offer in here what appears to be a moment of hesitation or doubt by using the word "might" twice in the paragraph in place of assured words such as "definitively", or "certainly".
"might" Is a term used where one is not sure of that which is being referenced (in this context the reference point is God) it's inconsequential, but I find it amusing that the tone of language has altered from terms such as 'verifiable' (that which can independently and objectively be seen as truthful or accurate) to more vague terminology.

P3 Summary

• Personal conjecture
• Use of vague terminology

---

4th Paragraph breakdown:

This is another self-reference observation, claiming accuracy based on details of a previous assertion that was made and would appear to have equally little validity, is rife with subjective choices and details.
It further muddies the already unclear intention by adding a new deity into the mix (in this paragraph Allah is referred to) which again poses translational issues as Adam continues to reference English language observations, this time based on Arabic original content.
In this paragraph, Adam does however admit that the choice of acronym, and indeed the resultant meaning is one riddled with ambiguity.
It is this last part which I think clearly breaks down any veracity of any propose 'verifiable pattern'
I would propose that for something to be valid, it cannot allow ambiguity.

P4 Summary:

• Additional Obfuscation of original message
• Subjective (personal interpretation) of details.
• Further translational or linguistic barriers (English/Arabic)
• Self admission that there has been personal subjective interpretation and assertion of detail.

---

Wrapping up

I was about to list the various fallacy argument points that Adam has relied upon to act as cranes to his thought process, but instead of listing all the one I possibly could I'll give a few choice ones and link this page: 7 Common Fallacies of Biblical Interpretation
If I have any closing comment it is that the proposed verifiable pattern is with some certainty simply not present due to the heavy reliance on personal subjective interpretation and detail presentation.

---

Final choices to represent my thoughts on Adam's presented idea:

• Argument by Fast Talking (presenting a lot of detail for the reader to have to read)
• Circular reasoning (enforcing presupposition)
• Cherry Picking
• Etymological Fallacy
• Fallacy of Composition
• Oh.. and Occam's Razor needs to be brought in here too!

Most importantly, I can actually see no presentation of the pattern that Adam is testing and so cannot test it for myself.
As I see it the pattern is:

1. Choose a song (one you like is better)
2. Choose a random item or concept which is easily referable to the Bible, or Qu'ran (do other holy books count?)
3. Form a link for the song and that item/concept - how you go about this is up to you.
4. Choose an article of historical relevance (finding random wiki pages can help with this)
5. Form an acronym based on that historical reference, again what letters you choose here are up to you.
6. Explain how that acronym is intrinsically linked to the song - the reason you give is up to you.
7. Present your findings as proof to something (better to choose a god or other equally deep concept such as Death or single socks missing in the washing machine)

Continue

Occam's - For Shiva Kumar

This post for: Shiva Kumar

I would like to apologize for the length of this post, but I hope to highlight in as simple a way possible my reasoning for arguing against your position.

I remove god from the equation of creation by applying a reasoning tool known as Occam's Razor, I'll try to explain 'my version' of this-

[ link to an article on Occam's Razor here - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Occam's_razor ]

As I see things you would state that the order of creation is thus:

1. there was nothing
2. there is god
3. god creates everything
4. there is everything

At stage 2, a further question arises: How does god become if before there was nothing? (In addition please see infinite regression and infinite existence notes at the end)

This adds an additional unknown prerequisite before we meet state 3.

So this now becomes.

1. there was nothing
2. god came into being by unknown means
3. there is god
4. god creates our existence by unknown means
5. there is everything

This becomes a more complex idea. If we apply Occam's Razor, which seeks to simplify operations on the grounds that a hypothesis with fewer or simpler assumptions is more direct and therefore considered more accurate.

My argument against

I would then undertake the following simplifications:

1 there was nothing

I would rephrase this to: 1. there was an as yet unknown state
I believe this to be a more accurate statement based on what we can understand based on facts.

Based on everything we as a species have learned, there is nobody alive, nor has there ever been a verifiable historical source with authoritative knowledge of what 'was' or 'was not' before our existence.

2. there is now something

This is observed fact from an anthropological stance, there is observable existence and it follows that based on such fact;- Existence must have come about by some as yet unknown means.

So, and I hope you are following this example so far...

1. there was previous to known existence, an as yet unknown state.
2. there was presumed to have been an as yet unknown event to bring about our existence.
3. there is now existence.

My example includes only 3 stages of variables, where as the version which would include a god figure would have 5 stages of variables.

Additional argument against

I would further reinforce my argument at this point with a reasoning tool known as Newton's flaming laser sword. This states that anything which cannot be settled by experiment is not worthy of debate.

From deistic creation:

• We can test existence as we know it.
• We cannot test a means by which a god figure could begin to be (or to itself exist).
• We cannot test a means by which a deity might 'create' existence as we know it.

In opposition - by way of anthropological deduction:

• We can test existence as we know it.
• By extension: we can, within this existence find testable facts which pertain to the creation of this existence.
• We do not yet understand how existence came into being.

Once again, the arguments which preclude a deity are simpler, and can by Occam's Razor be thought to be more accurate.

Infinite Regression/Existence

This is another application of Occam's Razor-

Where god can be said to have existed outside of our reality (such argument would only further complicates the deistic creation argument) and/or has done so infinitely through all history.

With the same logic (ie that something can exist infinitely) we can posit that existence has been here and/or has been here into infinity of history.

Addendum:

I don't expect that you are willing to simply accept that any of the above should be 'true' however I would ask that you think on what I've written here, there are many resources that you can use to research for yourself.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

If you have any further questions, or wish to talk further on this, you know where to find me!

Continue