Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
To emphasise the point that nothing I said came close to what you thought I said. It was used to indiciate the amount by which you missed the point. Granted it is hyperbole, but it was in context.
Essentially adds nothing to a true or false statement. It's like saying "2+2 = essentially 4".
What does "its not" mean? It doesn't exist? Logic does not demonstrate anything of the sort, in fact based on logic the opposite could easily be said. Science has a limited role, and only illustrates your requirement for science to determine whether it is true or false. Oddly, your logic seems to be based on scientific evidence, so you may as well disregard the inclusion of logic as a prerequisite for your conclusion.
A faith in what? You have faith in believing science and your logic may answer the question.
I'm proposing it as an option, not as my belief. You refuse to accept it as a possibility as everything must be observable.
Try not to get your knickers in a twist sweetie.
That's all anyone does in this type of discussion, don't take it personally. I get told I'm a moron as I don't think the same as many here. I find it moronic that many here restrict their beliefs (and logic) based on science.
The difference between a unknowable first cause and an uncaused universe are different as one is impossible to define as it can not be determined or defined (apart from being a first cause). An uncaused universe is defined as it requires the universe to be eternal, which in turn makes an observer look towards scientific evidence and use of logic to the existence of an eternal evidence. Or if the universe just began without reason, then causality must be dismissed.
Any form of explanation is different to something which cannot be known, that's why it's different
Why are you asking me to repeat something I've written? I didn't stutter. You use science to reach a conclusion on a topic it does not address.
The whle crux of your perspective is based on the evidence you require, and the form of evidence which you will accept. I don't care that you think it is on me.
As is yours. Just don't say yours is objective as it's based on science. Otherwise, you're misrepresenting what science is.
You seem to miss the point and have a tendency to view a post in isolation and out of context. You asked for a reason why something defined and undefined were different. I then said something defined and undefined are different. To me,it would be like saying black and white are different. I don't think this requires an explanation, but you require one. You're welcome to present your persepctive on why something undefined and defined require an exaplanation to account for their differences.
It's not that it doesn't require an explanation, it may just be impossible to obtain. Of course, back you go to requesting evidence. If you can account for existence with evidence, then another explanation is not required. Until then you're just pissing into the wind.
Your sarcarm is really misdirected on me.
I don't think it would be a man, nor be in the sky. The rest of your bible rant is irrelevant to anything I consider to be true or have said.
The thing I enjoy most about discussing this with the Atheist here is the failure to recognise the faith required to accept their position. If you are convinced that science must be able to provide an answer to a cause of existence. And if you don't think that science must be able to answer this question, why do you place any value when attempting to answer this question.
Many here like to use Bertrand Russell's teapot as an example. You could also use "One of the most painful circumstances of recent advances in science is that each one makes us know less than we thought we did" to illustrate your level of faith in science.
|
I'm sorry Science doesn't give a meaning. Science is the best system we have to find a description of what we have now you are putting words in my mouth.
I'm sorry But Faith is belief without lack of sufficient evidence. Science is a utilization of evidence in order to find some way to describe WHAT IS in reality.
I don't see how..using this operational (and I'd say generally true) Definition of Faith i Require "Faith" in Science.
Something being clever does not equate it being true.
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
C'mon is that really all you have? Proposing something which serves no purpose or even has no need to be proposed?
|
That's how religion started wasn't it?.
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Whereas I'm proposing the possibility that a first cause may be unknowable. You use circular logic to proclaim you're correct irrespective of what it science can or can't prove.
I really didn't realise the reasons "for" Atheism were as weak as what you lot proclaim them to be. It's kinda sad really.
|
YOU TOTALLY USE CIRCULAR LOGIC BEFORE
Quote:
|
I then said something defined and undefined are different. To me,it would be like saying black and white are different. I don't think this requires an explanation, but you require one. You're welcome to present your persepctive on why something undefined and defined require an exaplanation to account for their differences.
|
see that you clearly dodged the question. I asked a legitimate questoin because what I DEFINE as Undefined may be different than what YOU DEFINE as Undefined.
I'm trying to eb reasonable here. You literally just snubbed me providing no evidence for your reasoning.
It's not a faith issue but you don't have any scientific evidence to back up your claim.
You have also yet to Disprove my all powerful ability to reconstruct reality