Sup, im a christian

[fr0d0]

I have no intention whatsoever of proving science wrong. What we say is that god is non temporal and unknowable BY DEFINITION. Therefore God cannot be proven in the temporal realm. JP put it better: Want testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method?

Then your definitions are BOLLOCKS until such time as you can demonstrate a means by which you can validatably differentiate your god from something that doesn't exist!

Haha LMAO Yeah right. Unrefutable logic isn't enough for you is it

Yeah but EV - thoughts you ASSUME to be physical right? And previously you said that time must be physical too right? Because there is no other 'known' reality other than the physical reality. Have you changed your mind on this then?

Thought is NOT non-physical for the reasons I have already given primarily because thought is UTTERLY reliant on infrastructure (nerves/brain) and can be shown to change significantly when that infrastructure is damaged. To claim thought is somehow un-physical is exactly the same crap those metaphysical twat-heads claim when they insist min d is separate from body ... ALL the available evidence indicates otherwise!!!!

Oh yeah - because the brain is physical the yes OF COURSE thoughts are physical too - how didn't I see that? .....erm... because IT'S A COMPLETELY IDIOTIC CONCLUSION TO DRAW perhaps??? Hmmm... MAYBE!!!

[Kyuuketsuki]

Then your definitions are BOLLOCKS until such time as you can demonstrate a means by which you can validatably differentiate your god from something that doesn't exist!

Haha LMAO Yeah right. Unrefutable logic isn't enough for you is it

Not when the very same system of logic justify almost anything you want! That's the fucking problem! That's why empirical evidence is NECESSARY!

Thought is NOT non-physical for the reasons I have already given primarily because thought is UTTERLY reliant on infrastructure (nerves/brain) and can be shown to change significantly when that infrastructure is damaged. To claim thought is somehow un-physical is exactly the same crap those metaphysical twat-heads claim when they insist min d is separate from body ... ALL the available evidence indicates otherwise!!!!

Oh yeah - because the brain is physical the yes OF COURSE thoughts are physical too - how didn't I see that? .....erm... because IT'S A COMPLETELY IDIOTIC CONCLUSION TO DRAW perhaps??? Hmmm... MAYBE!!!

Or maybe ... you just prefer to believe the usual bollocks you theists always fucking believe!

Come on then brainache ... YOU tell me why it is that there is never any real, validatable evidence for any of these things you like to claim? You tell me why it is (and this is the question you constant side-step) why the things you claim exist, the things that you claim are non-evidential and cannot be proven by the usual methods show such a consistent correlation with things that DON'T EXIST!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Then your definitions are BOLLOCKS until such time as you can demonstrate a means by which you can validatably differentiate your god from something that doesn't exist!

Haha LMAO Yeah right. Unrefutable logic isn't enough for you is it

Not when the very same system of logic justify almost anything you want! That's the fucking problem! That's why empirical evidence is NECESSARY!

So you're scared to consider logic because you're afraid of the unknown? Is that your logic for denying it?

Thought is NOT non-physical for the reasons I have already given primarily because thought is UTTERLY reliant on infrastructure (nerves/brain) and can be shown to change significantly when that infrastructure is damaged. To claim thought is somehow un-physical is exactly the same crap those metaphysical twat-heads claim when they insist min d is separate from body ... ALL the available evidence indicates otherwise!!!!

Oh yeah - because the brain is physical the yes OF COURSE thoughts are physical too - how didn't I see that? .....erm... because IT'S A COMPLETELY IDIOTIC CONCLUSION TO DRAW perhaps??? Hmmm... MAYBE!!!

Or maybe ... you just prefer to believe the usual bollocks you theists always fucking believe!

Come on then brainache ... YOU tell me why it is that there is never any real, validatable evidence for any of these things you like to claim? You tell me why it is (and this is the question you constant side-step) why the things you claim exist, the things that you claim are non-evidential and cannot be proven by the usual methods show such a consistent correlation with things that DON'T EXIST!

Kyu

Well just to consider logic would be a start Kyu. After that you can start thinking what your opinion is on the questions at hand.

Want testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method?

They are in consistent correlation with things that don't exist but the logic of them distinguishes them as rational conclusions. Simples.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Not when the very same system of logic justify almost anything you want! That's the fucking problem! That's why empirical evidence is NECESSARY!

So you're scared to consider logic because you're afraid of the unknown? Is that your logic for denying it?

What fucking part of what I said led you to the conclusion that I fear it? Only a moron would conclude that!

Well just to consider logic would be a start Kyu. After that you can start thinking what your opinion is on the questions at hand.

Want testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method?

Yeah Jon Paul's interminable prattle ... been there, done that and this time I bought property!

They are in consistent correlation with things that don't exist but the logic of them distinguishes them as rational conclusions. Simples.

Or not ... what you like to conveniently ignore is that HAVE considered it and REJECTED IT on the simple basis that philosophy and metaphysics alone HAVE NEVER PROVEN A THING TO BE SO!

What's more you have STILL avoided the question (why am I not surprised?) ... why is it that the things you claim exist, the things that you claim are non-evidential and cannot be proven by the usual methods show such a consistent correlation with things that DON'T EXIST!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I did directly address your question Kyu. You didn't see the answer.. perhaps it's those coloured lenses you view the world through? But now I've had enough of your kindergarten debating style. Until next time