@Belacqua

If god is not something that can be proven through scientific means, then why is god worth something talking about? This is something that you don't seem to get.

Just because, once upon a time, some smart people said some things that they thought were true doesn't mean that they wrote things worth reading on the subject. If god cannot even be defined, why even bother talking about it...? At best, it's a "we don't know" subject. I think you seem to come from the line of thinking that says "we cannot know," but I propose just the opposite.

For the time being, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Until we have a good idea about what we're even talking about in terms of "god," we can safely assume there is no god. It's akin to discussing some force of nature that we have no evidence of.

(October 24, 2019 at 1:00 am)EgoDeath Wrote: @Belacqua

If god is not something that can be proven through scientific means, then why is god worth something talking about? This is something that you don't seem to get.

I get all that. I said all the same things about 15 years ago, before I started studying.

(October 24, 2019 at 1:34 am)Belacqua Wrote: I get all that. I said all the same things about 15 years ago, before I started studying.

Interesting. The only thing I've gotten from studying religion, is understanding more and more that I certainly do not believe in god. That and it's helped me understand exactly what it is that I'm opposed to, whether it be the wishy-washy type of Christianity that you seem to love so much, or the more intense type of fundamentalism that we see on the TV.

(October 24, 2019 at 1:40 am)EgoDeath Wrote: the wishy-washy type of Christianity that you seem to love so much

False

(October 24, 2019 at 1:34 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(October 24, 2019 at 1:00 am)EgoDeath Wrote: @Belacqua

If god is not something that can be proven through scientific means, then why is god worth something talking about? This is something that you don't seem to get.

I get all that. I said all the same things about 15 years ago, before I started studying.

Statement of conversion is not a valid argument. Studying Flat-Earthism can make you less wise than if you had not studied it, and the same applies to theology.

(October 24, 2019 at 7:41 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(October 24, 2019 at 1:34 am)Belacqua Wrote: I get all that. I said all the same things about 15 years ago, before I started studying.

Statement of conversion is not a valid argument. 

I have not converted to anything. 

Quote:Studying Flat-Earthism can make you less wise than if you had not studied it, and the same applies to theology.

Now you are coming out as an anti-intellectual. 

You don't have to study theology. Your life will be just fine without it.

But if you want to say things about it, and make videos about it, and start threads about it, it helps to know what you are talking about. 

Did you intentionally walk away from the conversation we were having before? It's hard to get you to follow through on anything. You were making category errors concerning metaphysics and science. If you studied the subject you are pontificating about, you wouldn't make such elementary mistakes.

Belacqua Wrote:You were making category errors concerning metaphysics and science.

The questions that belonged to metaphysics once now belong to science. The question of whether time had a beginning is not a question of metaphysics now, it belongs to physics. The questions about whether reality, locality and causality exist once belonged to metaphysics, they now belong to physics (Bell's Theorem, interpretations of quantum mechanics...). The questions about whether geometry is entirely based on reason or whether it's partly empirical once belonged to metaphysics and epistemology, today they belong to mathematics (non-Euclidean geometries) and physics (special and general relativity).

(October 24, 2019 at 10:09 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

Belacqua Wrote:You were making category errors concerning metaphysics and science.

The questions that belonged to metaphysics once now belong to science. The question of whether time had a beginning is not a question of metaphysics now, it belongs to physics. The questions about whether reality, locality and causality exist once belonged to metaphysics, they now belong to physics (Bell's Theorem, interpretations of quantum mechanics...). The questions about whether geometry is entirely based on reason or whether it's partly empirical once belonged to metaphysics and epistemology, today they belong to mathematics (non-Euclidean geometries) and physics (special and general relativity).

Once again you've changed the subject rather than follow through on what was said before.

I pointed out that there are arguments -- philosophical, metaphysical -- which don't operate in the way science operates. And that you were misapplying standards.

Rather than acknowledge that, you've now made a number of different claims. As it happens, I disagree with your conclusion here, too, but from experience I know that if I take the time to type out an argument, you will respond with yet another subject. 

I think you aren't interested enough to focus on the conversation, so I'll stop here.

(October 24, 2019 at 2:49 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(October 24, 2019 at 1:40 am)EgoDeath Wrote: the wishy-washy type of Christianity that you seem to love so much

False

Huh...?

(October 24, 2019 at 6:36 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:

(October 24, 2019 at 2:49 am)Belacqua Wrote: False

Huh...?

I do not love any wishy-washy type of Christianity. And I don't know why you would say I do.

Look, you don't have to know what I think or like. There's no reason in the world why you should know or care. 

But what you say about me is false.