RE: Question(s) for the Religious
August 9, 2013 at 5:40 pm
(This post was last modified: August 9, 2013 at 5:47 pm by fr0d0.)
There are no doubts about the basis of theology. Without a basis in logic they are worthless. Complex maths is likewise disputed. Conclusions are varied. Sometimes only one is right. Sometimes a few are right. Sometimes there is only one answer.
I understand alchemy. It's bs. Dismissed.
Of course it's to do with evidence. Like I've said to you before, and you failed to respond... why does science refer to empirical and non empirical evidence if, like you say, there is only empirical evidence?
Do you deny logic? Can you not conclude that because A > B, then B < A? Does that kind of logical proof not pay a huge part in your day to day functioning? I can't see how it wouldn't.
(August 9, 2013 at 5:03 pm)Chas Wrote:(August 9, 2013 at 4:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Does there need to be a physical instance of something for it to be understood?
That has nothing in particular to do with the question of evidence.
I understand alchemy - but there is no evidence that it is true.
I understand alchemy. It's bs. Dismissed.
Of course it's to do with evidence. Like I've said to you before, and you failed to respond... why does science refer to empirical and non empirical evidence if, like you say, there is only empirical evidence?
Do you deny logic? Can you not conclude that because A > B, then B < A? Does that kind of logical proof not pay a huge part in your day to day functioning? I can't see how it wouldn't.
