What is God?

[Moonstruck888]

Why do we need empirical proof?

Because without proof, all you have are unconfirmed ideas.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Does that prove that there is such a thing as time? I don’t know.

You don’t know whether or not time exists? You poor creature.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I do not deal in empirical proof in general. Because it is a low form of proof and posterior to Logic and Good Sense; it is too easy to corrupt.

And the conception of Planck Time per se, does not require time to exist in a sensible or real or qualified or quiddiative fashion - and it can easily exist in an idealistic sense and thus it’s existence is not demonstrated by that equasion.

You seem frustrated about me saying you apply scientific method universally, yet you immediatly ask for scientific (empirical) proof for God’s properties…

I don’t apply it universally. I accept that there are limitations to knowledge. What is frustrating me is that you have a uniquely aggrevating temperement that appeals only to the homicicdal side of my nature.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because without proof, all you have are unconfirmed ideas.

With out proof in general i agree. But why do we need scientific proof?

 

[JohnDamian]

Because without proof, all you have are unconfirmed ideas.

You do not understand how ideas work.

Proof does not equate to “Empirical proof”.

Proof can be done logically.

Nessecarily, Logical proofs are more sound than “Empirical proofs”, and people who are empiricists must accept this, because the principal of “Empirical proofs” are based upon logical proofs.

There are Logical proofs for God.

I don’t apply it universally. I accept that there are limitations to knowledge. What is frustrating me is that you have a uniquely aggrevating temperement that appeals only to the violently homicicdal side of my nature.

I apologise if I am aggravating, I am just presenting philosophy in the philosophy section.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You do not understand how ideas work.

Proof does not equate to “Empirical proof”.

Proof can be done logically.

Nessecarily, Logical proofs are more sound than “Empirical proofs”, and people who are empiricists must accept this, because the principal of “Empirical proofs” are based upon logical proofs.

There are Logical proofs for God.

Well, I’m afraid you just aren’t making a believer out of me. I reject the argument that proof can be done logically. Every logical calculus has one inherent weakness. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out.

The conclusions arrived at logically must be tested.

If understanding how ideas work is the cure for demanding evidence based on results, then I’ll stick with the disease, thank you.

 

[Moonstruck888]

With out proof in general i agree. But why do we need scientific proof?

Because the scientific method is the only method ever devised for proving or disproving ideas that actually yields any tangible results.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You don’t know whether or not time exists? You poor creature.

Neither do you sir. Neither does anyone yet. Einstein, the foremost expert on time who has so far ever lived, referred to time as a persistant illusion. Even he didn’t know what it is.

 

[JohnDamian]

Because the scientific method is the only method ever devised for proving or disproving ideas that actually yields any tangible results.

But what proves scientific method is correct?

 

[Moonstruck888]

I apologise if I am aggravating, I am just presenting philosophy in the philosophy section.

Fortunately, settling this the old fashioned way isn’t terribly practical over an internet connection.

 

[Moonstruck888]

But what proves scientific method is correct?

Centuries of results.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Neither do you sir. Neither does anyone yet. Einstein, the foremost expert on time who has so far ever lived, referred to time as a persistant illusion. Even he didn’t know what it is.

Change is the actualization of potentiality. Change is self evident. You poor creature.

 

[JohnDamian]

Centuries of results.

Yes… Centuaries of results because philosophers took it upon themselves to devise a system for testing basic things. At present there is no such “empirical” system for testing complicated or metaphysical things - so we use logic… I do not see how that is hard to understand.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because the scientific method is the only method ever devised for proving or disproving ideas that actually yields any tangible results.

So, according to you, science gives us certain knowledge? Does it provide us with certain knowledge that physical reality objectively exists?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Yes… Centuaries of results because philosophers took it upon themselves to devise a system for testing basic things. At present there is no such “empirical” system for testing complicated or metaphysical things - so we use logic… I do not see how that is hard to understand.

Oh, you can test complicated things empirically. The standard model has a lot of moving parts.

Metaphysical… It seems to me that by definition, metaphysical things are going to be impossible to prove beyond any doubt.

You see, the difference is that science tends towards concensus, whereas logic tends towards argument. If there were a simple way for you to demonstrate to me that God exists using logic, you’d have done so a long time before we got to this stage. You haven’t because you can’t.

Any philosophical argument you give me, I can google another philosopher who disagrees with it. How do I know you’re right and he or she is wrong?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Einstein, the foremost expert on time who has so far ever lived, referred to time as a persistant illusion. Even he didn’t know what it is.

You do realize that Einstein was speaking as a philosopher here and not as a scientist don’t you? You do realize the difference don’t you? I mean…i don’t know about you, but its completely evident to me that Einstein in his potentiality has never given scientific evidence that proves to us empirically that time is a persistent illusion. You do know that don’t you?

You are a very strange fellow. The poverty of your intellect is quite saddening. Quite irrational i might add.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So, according to you, science gives us certain knowledge? Does it provide us with certain knowledge that physical reality objectively exists?

You don’t need to do that. I dare you, double dare you to level a loaded firearm at your cranium and pull the trigger as a test of whether reality exists.

 

[JohnDamian]

Any philosophical argument you give me, I can google another philosopher who disagrees with it. How do I know you’re right and he or she is wrong?

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

This is the Treatise on First Principal by Scotus

As far as I am aware, it has yet to be refuted.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You do realize that Einstein was speaking as a philosopher here and not as a scientist don’t you? You do realize the difference don’t you? I mean…i don’t know about you, but its completely evident to me that Einstein did not give scientific evidence that proved that time is a persistent illusion. You do know that don’t you?

Yes, I know that. Even I ask myself unscientific questions on the nature of existence sometimes. I don’t see how one can avoid it.

You are a very strange fellow. The poverty of your intellect is quite saddening.

As is your dedication to the mindless and vapid trumpeting of your own words. If I am intellectually impoverished, you sir are bankrupt.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You don’t need to do that. I dare you, double dare you to level a loaded firearm at your cranium and pull the trigger as a test of whether reality exists.

You have scientific evidence that physical reality is not a “persistent illusion?”