(August 23, 2009 at 3:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If that is all that is 'valid' Kyu then that doesn't cover the problem in question. EV did mention at one point that to him, personal logical reasoning was evidence enough. I want to see if that's still the case. What he seems to link that to now is verifiable evidence - a circular argument.
And that just brings us back to you defining your god out of science but just because you can so define it doesn't mean it exists or even that its existence is possible. As I said earlier your god and the evidence for it shows a strong (as in 100%) correlation with the kind of evidence we'd expect for things that don't exist so, pray tell (sic), how the fuck do we tell them apart?
(August 23, 2009 at 3:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: For you to explain 'time', for example, you have to assume time is physically existent - a marginalist (ie unbelievably stupid) presumption.
In practical purposes time is just a means of measuring something, a metric. I'm sure there's more to it than that but you'd have to talk to a physicist I suppose and I'm not one.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
