Your stump speech is becoming tedious. I don’t think you have actually read my responses at all.
I am now going to play your game:
- Unicorns exist.
Please use linear logic to disprove this statement, or admit that you cannot.
I have never disagreed with this.
You could continue to tell me what my philosophy is, ignoring where I have clearly corrected you, somehow assuming that you know it better than I do. And, we could just continue to go 'round in circles about it, if you do decide to take that route.
Dear MMortal03:
Again, you have refused to enter the process of proof. You have beat about the bushes but never committed to the hunt.
So, I will do what you have refused to do.
- If a single unicorn was proven to exist and then it was destroyed I could I then say that unicorns do not exist?
- To this date unicorns (of hystoric tales) haven’t been verified to exist. Although malformed/misdeveloped rams and deer have been found to exist resembling the mythical creature.
- Therefore, it is scientifically, logically, and philosophically impossible to prove that they do not exist somewhere in a manner/state yet undiscovered.
- Rationale for the possibility of their existence: The discovery of new species such as the mountain horses of Asia that were discovered less than a decade ago. They are very unique in their physiology, body dimensions, and appearance as compared to all other species of horse…especially in the cranial/skull design. If you asked someone ten years ago if this previously flourishing undiscovered species could stay hidden in Asia (due to its population density and probability of discovery) for thousands of years one would say that it was likely impossible. Yet, they exist in areas not having a horse-related/dependent human culture.
- Therefore, it is reasonable to doubt the existence of unicorns, but is scientifically necessary to hold out the possibility of their existence until proof shows otherwise.
This is the meaning of the challenge. Science demands proof…not hyperbolic assumptions. It also holds out for hope of discovery of the unseen, the unknown, and the undiscovered. Just because we cannot see it, feel it, touch it, smell, it, taste it, hear it, etc. does not mean that we cannot sense it in reality.
This is why we cannot materially prove that time does or does not exist. Yet, we understand, quantify, and sense its reality and effect.
You approached these problems again and again in a defensive manner. Take the time to re-read your own responses. The entire point of the questions was for you to use linear thought to make your points through a positive proof…rather than a negative disproof. This is what science requires.
So, please be intellectually honest enough to admit that you approached the questions from the wrong perspective. You approached them from the perspective of a personal opinion or belief in your problem solving and defense of a negative…not the discovery of a positive. This is not scientific in method or linear in logic…this is how you feel. I feel that God exists but that does not make it a rationale position scientifically nor can I approach it in that manner from a scientific or logic problem solving perspective.
It is often difficult to remove yourself from the fight long enough to discover the true conflict. Did you even once attempt to sit down and truly try to solve the equations? No you did not…at least that is what your responses indicate.
What you missed is that some things we know exist yet we cannot prove; like time because they are beyond our tangible reality.
Does this demand that God exists through science…no it does not. But, more importantly, it does demand that God might exist and that our lack of faculty (ability to sense and prove) something does not mean that it does not exist.
Science doesn’t take sides. And there is no shame or ignorance in just saying “I cannot prove that unicorns exist and I cannot likewise prove that they do not” as I now do so.
Yet, without the possibility of proof to the contrary the possibility exists that there was once at least one single anomaly from which we see the legend grow…maybe a horse with a bony protrusion like the Chinese man with the bony horn (see the Guiness Book of Records).
Which, if true, would prove that at least one once existed but no longer does…that is what the question was actually about. Again, why did you read so much into it?
You approached it from a perspective of advancing a belief rather than logical discovery. And, you failed. My success was not in proving my assertion or belief. Rather, it was in admitting that I cannot be certain and that I depend on some faculties (senses) that cannot be materially explained…like my concept and belief in the reality of time.
Maybe in the future you will decide to approach the problem from a simple and logical scientific approach…maybe not. But one cannot logically say “This is true or untrue, this exists or does not, and we reject the use metaphysical understanding and non-quantifiable means to prove it” unless you can apply that method to every situation and concept…again, such as time.
I do not assume that I have a greater understanding of anything over you. Again, my previous statement about such assumptions was in reference to many atheists. I simply have maintained an adherence to logic and scientific method while you have diverged from that path.
The challenges I offered were reduced to their simplest values in all 4 cases. By attempting to expand the problem into variant paths you attacked your own method (the use of logic and science method over spiritual/metaphysical and otherwise unproveable means)…not the ones presented by the challenges in my posts.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
Yours in Christ,
Veritashunter
