(July 8, 2012 at 12:50 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: No more mental backflips to avoid the questions.
An observation and a memory. They evidence matches up. Prove to me that doesn't mean a thing.
Right, all you're proving is that if the memory and the experience match up, then the memory and the experience match up. That's obvious.
What I'm asking is different. What I'm asking is how you can know that your memory is accurate.
How you know p is true is different than whether p is true.
Quote:You keep asserting that I'm hopeless and can't show anything for my belief. I tell you the evidence is very much real and out there. Then you subtly try and change the question and pretend like that's what you didn't ask.
My belief is justified. Show me why I can't believe the data otherwise you've got nothing.
You haven't given any data. All you've said is that if the memory of an experience corresponds to the experience, then the memory is accurate. But that was never in dispute.
You haven't given any evidence that your memory is reliable.
Quote:Two, and just to push you on this point, how do you know that the evidence exists?
Because the experiments have been done. [/quote]
How do you know that the experiments have been done?
Quote:Let me ask you, what happens if I put mentos into a Coke bottle?
Depends on what's in the Coke bottle.
Quote:Ok, let's go there. My argument is circular. What changes?
Well, it means that you've admitted that you haven't supported your belief that your memory is accurate.
Quote:P.s. I'll just note that you still haven't answered me in the other thread. I'll just leave this right here for you:[/quote]
Quote:Tick tock, tick tock....
I take it you've realised your belief in God is even less rational than believing that 5 minutes can actually pass. Congratulations.
Okay.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
