Science can prove a god must exist

[Welsh cake]

Ultimate Reality has the unique distinction that It cannot derive from anything else! And all else derives from It. I don't want It confused with other things.

Makes about as much sense as asserting Hyper Reality has the superior distinction of being the most utmost of realities, the driving force behind them and Ultimate Reality is merely part of its all-encompassing framework.

I see no point in moving the goalposts like this. Reality is what is real, what demonstrably exists. The definition stands. Tacking on "ultimate" to it simply creates baggage. You'd best prove your alternate dimension "ultimate reality" exists.

Here you go amigo

Thanks! :>

And why does it annoy you anyway?

Because you feeling the need to emphasis every occasional word comes off as condescending and obnoxious? We can read.

[Zaki Aminu]

Ultimate Reality has the unique distinction that It cannot derive from anything else! And all else derives from It. I don't want It confused with other things.

Makes about as much sense as asserting Hyper Reality has the superior distinction of being the most utmost of realities, the driving force behind them and Ultimate Reality is merely part of its all-encompassing framework.

I see no point in moving the goalposts like this. Reality is what is real, what demonstrably exists. The definition stands. Tacking on "ultimate" to it simply creates baggage. You'd best prove your alternate dimension "ultimate reality" exists.

Here you go amigo

Thanks! :>

And why does it annoy you anyway?

Because you feeling the need to emphasis every occasional word comes off as condescending and obnoxious? We can read.

Why do you find it "condescending" and "obnoxioius" though? I thought you'd welcome clarity and precision in expressions to avoid misunderstandings. And aren't emoticons devices for emphasis also. Are you equally against their use - or is this just about me?

---

Ultimate Reality has the unique distinction that It cannot derive from anything else! And all else derives from It. I don't want It confused with other things.

Makes about as much sense as asserting Hyper Reality has the superior distinction of being the most utmost of realities, the driving force behind them and Ultimate Reality is merely part of its all-encompassing framework.

I see no point in moving the goalposts like this. Reality is what is real, what demonstrably exists. The definition stands. Tacking on "ultimate" to it simply creates baggage. You'd best prove your alternate dimension "ultimate reality" exists.

Here you go amigo

Thanks! :>

And why does it annoy you anyway?

Because you feeling the need to emphasis every occasional word comes off as condescending and obnoxious? We can read.

There is a clear distinction between "reality" and "Ultimate Reality" - which is why the dictionary found it necessary to use the latter rather than just the former. The only possible reason for objecting to greater clarity is if one actually desires confusion. No research scientist doing cutting-edge work would settle for anything less than the most precise tools affordable. I'm shocked to see people objecting to greater precision. Preferring instead approximations. Astounding!

[The Grand Nudger]

It astounds you that I would call you on obvious bullshit? I thought you'd be used to it by now.

[Zaki Aminu]

It astounds you that I would call you on obvious bullshit? I thought you'd be used to it by now.

I do wish the conversation could be lifted above this juvenile level. Can't you at least try?

[frankiej]

You would rather have it at the level where you use pretentious philosophical terms and definitions that don't actually mean anything?
As far as I can see, that is all you have been doing.

[Zaki Aminu]

You would rather have it at the level where you use pretentious philosophical terms and definitions that don't actually mean anything?
As far as I can see, that is all you have been doing.

Oh dear! I think I've touched a raw nerve somewhere. I was under the impression that I was dealing with well-informed and highly intellectual atheistic persons who would not be phased in the least by philosophical terms - pretentious or not. My mistake.

I'll try and approach the juvenile level as much as possible - but there is a limit below which I cannot go. Some matters simply cannot be discussed in the language of children - which is why they're not caledl upon to grasp them. You do understand that, don't you?

[frankiej]

Arguing almost entirely from philosophy is a bad idea... It just raises more and more questions that don't need brought up, without answering anything.

And your immature condescension is not wanted or needed here.

[The Grand Nudger]

To be clear Zaki, many of us will have a discussion regarding philosophy, specifically apologetic arguments with you. Most of us won't be convinced by these arguments, and instead prefer evidence. However, if you wish to have some sort of discussion relying solely on philosophic arguments for the existence of god, you will have to provide a valid, sound argument for said concept. You have not. You have been shown why this is the case, repeatedly. You continue to use the same "argument". This is why you are being ridiculed. I'm going to go ahead and give you a link here so you'll know; before you even post, exactly how I would respond.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

(if you would like links to each and every time someone has taken the time to post showing you the fallacious reasoning involved in your arguments, in case you missed them, you need only ask)

[Zaki Aminu]

Arguing almost entirely from philosophy is a bad idea... It just raises more and more questions that don't need brought up, without answering anything.

And your immature condescension is not wanted or needed here.

Er, no. You can't do science without a philosophy of science. There has to be a logically justifiable objective methodology in place - otherwise all one has is something more akin to politics; where you gather people who agree with you and together you form a pressure group to fight for your parochial interests. That might be a good way to assert your will in society - but it's hardly appropriate for studying the cosmos, is it?

I'm sorry if I'm making you uncomfortable. Are you wanting me to leave the forum? I won't stay where I'm not wanted.

---

To be clear Zaki, many of us will have a discussion regarding philosophy, specifically apologetic arguments with you. Most of us won't be convinced by these arguments, and instead prefer evidence. However, if you wish to have some sort of discussion relying solely on philosophic arguments for the existence of god, you will have to provide a valid, sound argument for said concept. You have not. You have been shown why this is the case, repeatedly. You continue to use the same "argument". This is why you are being ridiculed.

(if you would like links to each and every time someone has taken the time to post showing you the fallacious reasoning involved in your arguments, in case you missed them, you need only ask)

How do you determine what is "evidence" and what is just an assertion without logic though? There is no way to do that, is there?

[The Grand Nudger]

Standards of evidence and the burden of proof are already well defined, and I won't argue about them with you. That would only provide you with something other than your own claims to waffle on about. What's next?