Sup, im a christian

[Kyuuketsuki]

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?

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

[fr0d0]

Nice dodge. And repetition. I expect no more. But you presume time is physical right? Along with everything else Purple Rabbit pointed out wasn't consistent with your worldview.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Nice dodge. And repetition. I expect no more.

Repetition yes, dodge no!

But you presume time is physical right? Along with everything else Purple Rabbit pointed out wasn't consistent with your worldview.

My best guess is that time is an abstract concept like most systems of measurement.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Fr0d0 - Time exists as an abstract concept indeed...and guess what fr0d0? There's no evidence that it exists in any other way than an abstract concept. So PR is wrong if he asserts it exists...just as he is wrong to think consciousness is non-physcial just because it can't be physically detected - in the end it turned out that he was just defining non-physical to just mean 'not shown to be physical' - which doesn't mean it's actually non-physical - and I accepted that definition. So it's just playing with words because there's no actual evidence for anything non-physical.

I will accept any valid evidence fr0d0. So long as it's valid...if you can prove science wrong and it's non-empirical, that's fine by me - as long as it's valid. You'd be pulling a miracle off from my viewpoint, but I believe for God to exist it would have to be a total miracle anyway, so go figure.

The 'God is a twat' thing was me making an analogy and pisstaking what you have said in the past, about because there's no evidence for God you therefore have to have faith in him. So I was pretending to believe that God is a twat and then saying since there's no evidence for that I have to have faith in that.

EvD

[fr0d0]

I have no intention whatsoever of proving science wrong. What we say is that god is non temporal and unknowable BY DEFINITION. Therefore God cannot be proven in the temporal realm. JP put it better: Want testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method?

Yeah but EV - thoughts you ASSUME to be physical right? And previously you said that time must be physical too right? Because there is no other 'known' reality other than the physical reality. Have you changed your mind on this then?

[Edwardo Piet]

No....I haven't changed my mind? That's what I'm saying....that time and thoughts aren't physical because there's no evidence for the non-physical. There's only a failure to show that something is physical in some cases...this doens't mean its' non-physical. And as PR for instance, does - defining not shown to be physical as non-physical is misleading and gratutious. Because just because something hasn't shown to be physical doesn't mean it isn't physical.

EvD

[fr0d0]

An abstract concept is of course physically existant by default because there is no proof of anything non existant.

Yeah yeah, we've heard it all before. & it was bullshit then too.

[Edwardo Piet]

Bullshit when there's no evidence to the contrary so no reason to cherry pick out the contrary?

Or IOW bullshit cos you say it is.

EvD

[Dotard]

This thread is crazy. Maxbigwood logs in and introduces himself and ya'll launch into this.

Ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves. Hijacking intro threads.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I have no intention whatsoever of proving science wrong. What we say is that god is non temporal and unknowable BY DEFINITION. Therefore God cannot be proven in the temporal realm. JP put it better: Want testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method?

Then your definitions are BOLLOCKS until such time as you can demonstrate a means by which you can validatably differentiate your god from something that doesn't exist!

Yeah but EV - thoughts you ASSUME to be physical right? And previously you said that time must be physical too right? Because there is no other 'known' reality other than the physical reality. Have you changed your mind on this then?

Thought is NOT non-physical for the reasons I have already given primarily because thought is UTTERLY reliant on infrastructure (nerves/brain) and can be shown to change significantly when that infrastructure is damaged. To claim thought is somehow un-physical is exactly the same crap those metaphysical twat-heads claim when they insist min d is separate from body ... ALL the available evidence indicates otherwise!!!!

Kyu

---

Yeah yeah, we've heard it all before. & it was bullshit then too.

It's bullshit only because you prefer to believe in fairy tales!

Kyu