Search results

There are plenty of scientific principles which are unfalsifiable to, ie Copernican principle So if this is your line of argument for what is reasonable to believe in, then I don't feel that it holds much weight. Even properly basic beliefs are unfalsifiable - hence why we have called them...

YouBROKEmyLIFE, I've been thinking and doing a little digging to do with our previous discussions and although I don't think that I have come to a succinct answer yet, I thought I would add this in. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The only time we can say this is: 1. When we...

You pretty much summed up my whole thoughts on the issue here. It seems beyond all sensibilities to indicate that there are sins worse than others and that these change over time. I guess the Catholic church doesn't believe in the absolute authority of the bible - and with that in mind why...

I have to confess that my mind is in a vicious cycle here, just going round and round trying to make sense of what you are saying. On one hand, I agree that it is our meaning ascription that allows us to identify data as information (the same information as found through written works etc)...

Interesting listen. Certainly made me laugh but I don't feel that his analogies were as accurate as he would have liked. ie a man's sacrifice for his own well being is very different to a mans sacrifice for another's well being. We also know that Jesus didn't have to die as the man eventually...

You just change the persons name of who you are quoting. For example {QUOTE=ThePersonYouWantToQuote}text text text {/QUOTE} (And of course make sure they are the square brackets and not the ones I just used in the example. The square ones look like this [ ] So just copy and paste the text...

It doesn't matter if they are human constructs or not. We have no way of proving our own logic or reasoning yet we don't seem to regard that as a human construct. It's problematic because once you start saying things like "It's a human construct" that can be applied to absolutely everything...

The reason I didn't address it was because you ignored what I was saying in my last post and went back to the other argument again. To me we can substitute any reason in for something happening that we do not understand and none of them will hold a significant value over another. ie pixie vs...

Ahh, thanks Boris. I'm catching up Kfunk!

I'm not asking you to show the cause of love, I'm asking you to prove that it exists full stop. Whether this proof relies upon it's causes is up to you. The volcano example is pretty different since you know it exists based on your properly basic belief in your eyesight. You do not have this...

How does one find this out? :P

Ok so you're saying that there are other ways that this information which we recognize as have an intelligence can arise? I would agree that natural reactions and causes can cause information, but not the same sort of information we see in written works or in DNA. The information in normal...

First thing to mention is that I am not in approval of the Crusades. They are a blemish on the churches record and I am willing to admit that. But onto the main issue here. Is God a hypocrite because he has ordered the death of people yet commanded that we should not murder? The misconception...

I've been thinking this and I thought I would take the question back further. How do you know love actually exists youBROKEmyLIFE? If it is as mystical as you make out, why do you believe in love and not God? If it is not mystical, then you must have proof of it being so - in effect showing why...

Ok, so I am pretty sure that I understand what you are saying now, but I don't know that I follow your conclusion with as much confidence as you seem to have. Surely just saying "simply because we recognize it as such! it is constructed through our meaning ascription." does not prove that such...

Well I'm going to hop off-line now anyway but the idea is far from over for me. It doesn't have to continue in discussion with you if you would prefer not to, but I would like to see how Kfunk weighs in when he's back online.

So I thought I would bring in the dictionary meaning of arrogance: Now in all honesty, I don't mind that you think I'm arrogant. In fact, I've come to expect that sort of reaction whenever I acknowledge that I am a Christian. I would like to make sure though that what you see of my opinions is...

Surely our consistant approach to various matters relies heavily upon our intelligence though?

So then, you're asserting that logic is objective while intelligence is not?

For the same reason that it is illogical to prove that our logic is logical. We only have our intelligence to rely on in all interpretations of data, so if we discount it in recognising what we would normally regard as intelligence why not disregard it for anything for which itelligence is required?