RE: Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy
April 30, 2013 at 3:38 pm
(This post was last modified: April 30, 2013 at 3:50 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(April 23, 2013 at 6:52 am)Love Wrote: No, I would not use empiricism to justify my belief in God.
Another example: let's suppose I have purchased a bicycle from a shop. Let's assume that nobody witnessed or has knowledge of me buying or even owning the bicycle. A few years down the line I have lost the receipt of purchase and the company from which I purchased the bicycle dissolved. Suppose in a public setting I lock the bike and lose the key, and there is another person who comes along and makes a convincing reasoned argument and claims that the bike actually belongs to him or her. With absolutely no evidence (documentary, anecdotal or otherwise), how can I possibly prove to somebody that the bike is my property? The only real possibilities are: a person is going to believe me, a person is going to disbelieve me, or a person is going to reserve judgement. For a person who disbelieves me, he or she is perfectly within his or her rights because I have provided absolutely no firm evidence that the bike belongs to me. A person might choose to believe that I am telling the truth based on intuition, in which case reason is trumped by intuition in this instance and does, in fact, lead to the truth of the matter.
While that makes an excellent argument for the existence of bicycles it falls far short of the existence of gods much less the one and only god you are promoting.
(April 30, 2013 at 8:41 am)Aractus Wrote: Often the topic of redemptive sacrifice is insufficiently explained by priests who assert that God is "forced" to punish us contrary to His wish that we instead enter Life.
I have noted the sacrifice idea requires only death with the whole crucifixion thing as unnecessary production values. No one has disagreed. [/quote]
Quote:So we didn't invent physics. The universe really performs calculations - like a computer - to function? That's the only way it can operate according to our "physics". Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model of the theorized linear substructure of the universe. It is, as I just said, linear and therefore easy to understand. General Relativity on the other hand isn't linear. GR is far more counter-intuitive. Neither is an accurate description of our actual universe. If you actually believe in wave-particle duality you're an idiot.
As the GR nonlinearity is in the covariant and contravariant tensors and as addresses statistical space unrelated to the spatial nonlinearities of GR it is unclear what you are talking about. How does statistical space relate to physical space?
