(June 19, 2021 at 9:01 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Why do you exclude non empirical arguments ?
Because for me they do not constitute evidence. If something isn't backed up by testable data, and if it does not match up with common sense, and if it has no other redeeming qualities (e.g. a popular movie character that simply doesn't interest me), I have no reason to bother with it.
Quote:It's obvious that a timeless being can't proven empirically(=inside space and time).
And that's why I reject the concept - it's no more than a wild imagining that can't be tested.
Quote:You skipped some steps before this one, like proving that some abrahamic religion is true.
Well, you've done a piss-poor job of that so far. I believe all of the Abrahamic religions to be no more than obsolete cultural practices that are irrelevant to my own life in 2021. There is nothing of value in them that cannot be obtained elsewhere without the gods-and-demons woo-woo.
I also believe that "revelation" is pure unadulterated bullshit, a 100% human invention with 0% gods in the mix.
Quote:It's clearly an argument from incredulity, and you should be ashame of yourself for defending a fallacy, which I think you're aware of.
Congratulations, K. You've just made me your enemy. Suffice to say that I would not micturate upon you if you were in a state of combustion.