P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Okay, so show where YOU actually used logic in the discussion.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You sadly prove the old saying true.
“Debating creationists is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
Say “Hello,” to the flock for me.I can see that talking to someone as unreasonable as you is pointless.
Blind assertions and ignoring demands for proof isn’t exactly impressive.
I’ll go look for someone who I can take seriously in a debate.
I’ll stay here and clean the **** off the board.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Eternity has no past. The past is only a phenomena within the universe. There is no infinitely eternal past to traverse if the eternal simply exists, i.e., is eternally “present,” so to speak.Fair enough.
However, if an eternal universe exists, we could never traverse the present. For an infinite past can never bring us to a present moment in time. Why? Because it is infinitely eternal, in the past.
Consider Aquinas’ God as the Pure Act of Being Itself.
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
snickersWhen Winterwolf speaks of being “trapped,” what he fails to realize is that someone who thinks the external world is all there is, is just as “trapped” - in fact more so - than a religious fundamentalist or cradle believer.** He is trapped in the world of physical reality,** but as “person” he is a foreigner in a strange land subject to strange physical laws (which is why many seek to escape feeling thus ‘trapped’ by drugs, alcohol, sex, enterprise, good times or whatever.)
Yes I am indeed in touch with reality.
And your preaching about drugs is rather presumptive seeing as you know nothing about me and have to stick to promoting malicious stereotypes.
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
The equivalent of “I know you are but what am I.”Say “Hello,” to the flock for me.
I’ll stay here and clean the **** off the board.
Just as devoid of substance.
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
Demanding proof for claims that faith and revelation are valid methods of discovery is pretty logical.Okay, so show where YOU actually used logic in the discussion.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
About as logical as insisting that “meaning” or “significance” exist as physical entities or “facts” in the observable world that can be discovered by contriving an experiment or described by referencing a mathematical equation.Demanding proof for claims that faith and revelation are valid methods of discovery is pretty logical.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Old proverb:snickers
Yes I am indeed in touch with reality.
And your preaching about drugs is rather presumptive seeing as you know nothing about me and have to stick to promoting malicious stereotypes.
Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that barks the loudest is the one that was hit.
No, I am not implying that you are a dog, just as I wasn’t promoting malicious stereotypes by bringing up alcoholism, drug addiction, lust, workaholism or hedonism. That you made a specific connection to drugs, however…
My advice: sometimes letting sleeping dogs lie is the best option.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And yet when asked to do the same thing for science your response was…Demanding proof for claims that faith and revelation are valid methods of discovery is pretty logical.
Why would I have to prove it?
R
Ryan_Peabody
Guest
I think the rise of scientism is truly an unfortunate trend in current discourse. While may give us hunches in our belief/disbelief in God, I think philosophy is the only route in which we can try to find this answer (I am not even guaranteeing 100% success with this i might add). The problem with science and God is very simple: how can the study of natural systems every jump across the bridge into the supernatural?
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
And yet here you are using the internet.I think the rise of scientism is truly an unfortunate trend in current discourse. While may give us hunches in our belief/disbelief in God, I think philosophy is the only route in which we can try to find this answer (I am not even guaranteeing 100% success with this i might add). The problem with science and God is very simple: how can the study of natural systems every jump across the bridge into the supernatural?
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
This is called quote-mining, it’s what someone does when they prize being right over being honest .And yet when asked to do the same thing for science your response was…
You left out the rest of the quote.
Why would I have to prove it?
I didn’t claim it was.
It’s the only one I’m AWARE of.
Reading comprehension.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Not only do you not understand how science works, as I have shown on thread page 15 below, but obviously you do not even know the difference between science and scientism:And yet here you are using the internet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
One can fully and deeply embrace science in all its wonders and power (heck, I am a scientist myself), but reject scientism. I am among those who do both.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
In defense of RPeabody, that is irrelevant to what scientism is.And yet here you are using the internet.
It has yet to be demonstrated–and really it CAN’T be demonstrated–that the scientific method can be applied to the more pressing questions of life, such as the meaning of life and how we ought to live.
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
Yes actually I do and you’ve shown no such thing.Not only do you not understand how science works, as I have shown on thread page 15 below, but obviously you do not even know the difference between science and scientism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
Granted that things like questions of morality may not be as simple as 2+2=4 but might be much like language and there not being one ‘right answer’.In defense of RPeabody, that is irrelevant to what scientism is.
It has yet to be demonstrated that the scientific method can be applied to the more pressing questions of life, such as the meaning of life and how we ought to live.
I grant that.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I have shown no such thing? It will obvious to anyone but you who cares to read my post on page 15 below, that I did.Yes actually I do and you’ve shown no such thing.
By the way, I talked about this with a scientist colleague of mine and he agrees with my assertions in that post.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
So you are agnostic about everything that doesn’t involve the scientific method?Granted that things like questions of morality may not be as simple as 2+2=4 but might be much like language and there not being one ‘right answer’.
I grant that.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So if there is “no right answer” to questions of morality, how can anyone be obligated by moral principles?Granted that things like questions of morality may not be as simple as 2+2=4 but might be much like language and there not being one ‘right answer’.
I grant that.
How do you reconcile “no reason for x” with “must do x?"
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
…a scientific method that he doesn’t even understand.So you are agnostic about everything that doesn’t involve the scientific method?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.