Lets not be too harsh, he’s either parroting apologetics he has read, or has Googled him, and is taking him out of context dishonestly.
You know what, be as harsh as you feel is appropriate…
Well. Should we be unconcerned? I know you aren’t. But doesn’t the big, black, scary nothingness kindof concern you?
Oh. In that case it wasn’t me. I don’t work on servers. Just power poles and devices.
He makes a hell of a thousand islands dressing too!!! 
No, I have explained why I feel this way.
You seem to have answered your own question? Also those adjectives are meaningless, since for billions of years I was dead, and yet experienced nothing like those ideas?
Ok, so no then…
You honestly don’t think it’s absolutely true that jumping off a 100 ft cliff will kill you? Or that ingesting rat poison will kill you? How about jumping out of a jet in the middle of an ocean without a boat? What you have said has to be incongruous with how you live in reality. These are simple self evident realities that i’m sure you don’t need science for and that are absolutely true. I’m sure an honest person can think of many other examples of absolute truths that are self evident realities. This logic is inconsistent with reality. Even an infant will cry when hungry. Because somethings we don’t need a scientific method for it’s part of being human like hunger.
So death is an absolute then? What an odd claim for a theist? Personally I don’t know, but since there is no objective evidence we can survive our own physical deaths in any meaningful way, I content myself with disbelief, and make no absolute assertions. It seems you don’t have even the most facile grasp of what an absolute claim means, even here, where you hint that your superstitious beliefs are so ill founded they are contradicted by (what you here claim) is an absolute. The irony is palpable.
What a spectacularly stupid assertion. It seems you still don’t understand what an absolute claim is. Though the idea reality does not need science is almost as hilarious as it is idiotic.
I’m sure facile platitudes of this nature are demonstrable of a weak and ill thought out rationale. For example, you have used yet another No True Scotsman fallacy here, and seem unable to learn this most basic flaw in your reasoning, despite it being explained more than once?
You haven’t even the most basic grasp of logic, as is evident from your relentless use of known logical fallacies, so using the word logic here is purely rhetorical and utterly meaningless.
I bow to your expertise of the infantile.
Yet another spectacularly stupid assertion, the mind boggles if you think science can’t explain hunger.
@WhoAreYou, I’ll try again. Perhaps third time is the charm.
And once again, we see a complete lack of rigour from a mythology fanboy.
First of all, no competent scientist claims that the empirical sciences deal in “truth”, so let’s bury this strawman with a stake through its nonexistent heart, shall we?
What scientists deal in, is correspondence with observational data. If a postulate is found to be thus in accord with observational data, it is regarded as a reliable description of the system under consideration. A postulate that is regarded as increasingly reliable, if [1] it continues to be supported by new data, and [2] it allows the formulation of testable predictions, which, when tested, are again supported by the relevant data.
Outside of the requisite specialist disciplines, people have a habit of regarding said postulates as being “true”, despite such a view being non-rigorous. But we already find ourselves in something of a conceptual minefield here, because, for example, pure mathematics provides an alternative method of testing postulates in a different arena, a method that is considered likewise to be rigorous, namely whether or not those postulates are consistent with the axioms of the current system of interest. Once again, those outside the discipline are tempted to regard the resulting postulates as “true”, despite having been subject to a different class of test.
At this point, it’s tempting to turn to philosophy to try and resolve the issue of what constitutes “truth”, but this again fails for several reasons. Two important ones being that the arena of philosophy is frequently infected by nebulous assertionist cant, of the sort that Nietzsche among others was so scathing of, and that the proper purpose of philosophy isn’t to answer questions, but to determine which questions are pertinent to ask. This latter process being, of course, the essential business of knowing just what it is we are talking about, a business that pure mathematicians have pursued with at times terrifying relentlessness. The Bourbaki exercise alone is a sometimes hilarious, and sometimes chilling, pointer to this basic fact, which, if memory serves, took 92 pages of definitions, axioms and theorems of set theory to arrive at a proper definition of “zero”. Ironically, Willard Van Ormand Quine, in his textbook Methods of Logic, arrived at a similar definition through far greater brevity, but I digress.
The above should be telling any honest reader, that the whole business of what constitutes “truth”, is problematic from the mere standpoint of constructing a proper definition alone, never mind the business of coupling postulates to whatever abstract entity is thus defined. At the moment, the best we have to offer that remains reliable and possesses utility value, is to regard postulates covered by the tests of empirical science and pure mathematics as our best exemplars of whatever “truth” happens to be.
None of which, of course, in any way validates mythological assertions, especially assertions that are known not merely to be false, but absurd.
Quite simply, those of us who paid attention in class regard science as providing reliable support for its postulates. Something that has never happened in the world of mythology fanboyism.
I don’t think you can conclusively prove that you had no existence prior to this one. You have no recollection of it, but how much of your infancy do you recollect?
I’ll keep trying. You are in the Massachusetts area, aren’t you? Maybe I’ve got the wrong guy.
Depends on what is below in the landing area. Also depends on several other factors. I’ve jumped from 100 foot cliffs a few times in my life, yet I’m still here.
I’ve jumped out of quite a few different aircraft before, and sometimes it was over water. Yet, here I am typing this reply. Must be a fucking miracle.
There have been countless cases where people have ingested rat poison and even worse types of poisons and survived. Simply depends on how much is ingested, what medical treatment they get, and how quickly they get it.
Uh, what else you got?
(Edit for adrenaline fix.)
4 Likes
I admire your optimism, but don’t share it, @WhoAreYou seems content to parrot this canard relentlessly, I’m not sure if he doesn’t understand, or if it’s just wilful dishonesty on his part. I suspect the latter…
1 Like
Oh I’m pretty sure that’s just your subjective opinion, I think the evidence is conclusive, and overwhelming that I didn’t exist prior to my birth. It’s certainly the smaller claim than one for supernatural magic anyway, so in order to believe otherwise I’d need more compelling evidence than the overwhelming evidence I did not exist.
Not even in the US, though I’m surprised that magic respects international boundaries?
Christ fulfilled more than eight. Eight prophecies alone leads to that probability. Christ is returning and will fulfill the prophecies yet to be fulfilled.
Is claimed to have…remember you have only unevidenced anonymous hearsay he said or did anything, and these claims pervade other religions with equal zeal, at best you have an inexplicable event, and this makes it a rather large assumption, that the claimed prophesy and it’s fulfilment including the timeline of events are accurate and unambiguous.
BS, lets see the maths please. Then you can demonstrate objective evidence for the prophesy and it’s alleged fulfilment. Then explain how an inexplicable event is evidence of anything at all, and not just an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I suspect you are again holding an empty bag.
Only two l’s in fulfil, and what possible value do you think a bare subjective claim like this has in a debate? None is the answer, in case you were wondering.
1 Like
I suspect it’s full of hot air.
1 Like
What @WhoAreYou is failing to grasp, is that even though I don’t believe we can survive our own physical death in any meaningful way, I cannot claim it as an absolute. He seems unable to grasp why it is epistemologically impossible to satisfy the burden of proof an absolute demands. Though the hilarity of his example, the absolute certainty of physical death, is pretty hilarious, given he believes in an afterlife.
2 Likes
Origin of Life people appeal to natural selection to overcome improbabiliites and any paradoxes, which is a kind of a demigod. This is their intelligent designer.
That seems pretty handy! You get to say your jesus fulfilled a few prophecies in a story written after those prophecies were made (again, very handy) and then assert that the ones not fulfilled will be so in the future.
Wow! I find it astonishing that anyone would find this a credible reason for belief.
1 Like
What in the wide, wide world of sports is an “Origin of Life” person?
To what specific improbabilities are you referring?
How are you measuring them as improbable?
How is natural selection a demigod?
How is natural selection intelligent?
1 Like
Godel’s theorems can be summed up by: “Given any formal system of logic powerful enough to describe all the truths in arithmetic, it will be either incomplete (there will be truths it cannot prove) or inconsistent (it will be infected with paradoxes and therefore totally unreliable).”
Quoting Bertrand Russell: “I wanted a certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith…I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than elsewhere. But…after some twenty years of very arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge indubitable,”
“Richard Dawkins’ assessment of human worth may be depressing but why on atheism is he mistaken when he says ‘There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object’s sole reason for living.’”
1 Like