Khuutra said:
Okay If we follow historical precedence, you're about to find a tautological proof of God Does it stand to reason that, in fact, you are reasoning? |
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
appolose said:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. |
Do you believe that you believe? Does it stand to reason that you are thinking? Are you sure of your own mind?
| Rath said: No I'm not going to argue because while I am willing to acknowledge that the theory of evolution, or indeed anything that I believe in, is not absolute you are not willing to acknowledge this. As such arguing in favour of anything that contradicts the literal interpretation of genesis that you have against you is pointless. Also the only way for two observations to be irreconcilably contradictory is if the laws of logic are broken. Otherwise it merely means that are currently established theories are flawed and should be modified or discarded. |
You weren't arguing in favor of evolution, you were arguing that it was science, which does not, one way or the other, contradict the Bible.
I gave the possibility the divine as being the reason for two contradictory observations; logic is not broken. Modifying or discarding one of them would contradict the assumption science makes (that the empirical method is a trustworthy method). You're left with either discarding science or accepting the supernatural.
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
appolose said:
You weren't arguing in favor of evolution, you were arguing that it was science, which does not, one way or the other, contradict the Bible. I gave the possibility the divine as being the reason for two contradictory observations; logic is not broken. Modifying or discarding one of them would contradict the assumption science makes (that the empirical method is a trustworthy method). You're left with either discarding science or accepting the supernatural. |
Can you give me an example of such a contradictory observation (doesn't have to be a real example - just one which doesn't break the laws of logic and would cause either discarding science or accepting the supernatural).
Rath said:
Can you give me an example of such a contradictory observation (doesn't have to be a real example - just one which doesn't break the laws of logic and would cause either discarding science or accepting the supernatural). |
You are asking a very, very, very difficult question here, one that appolose isn't going to be able to answer in a satisfying way.
One could say "A fire that burns in a vacuum and consumers no fuel but never goes out" as somthing that breaks every known law of physics, but that dos not deestroy physics, it just changes our understanding of physics. Our understanding of the world would change in order to absorb this new, strangee phenomenon.
Khuutra said:
Do you believe that you believe? Does it stand to reason that you are thinking? Are you sure of your own mind? |
See my debate with Finalfan (everything comes back to this, it seems ;) ).
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
appolose said:
See my debate with Finalfan (everything comes back to this, it seems ;) ). |
Look, that's a yes/no question
I will only accept a yes/no answer
Rath said:
Can you give me an example of such a contradictory observation (doesn't have to be a real example - just one which doesn't break the laws of logic and would cause either discarding science or accepting the supernatural). |
Matter cannot be created physically, matter came into existence at some point.
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
Khuutra said:
Look, that's a yes/no question I will only accept a yes/no answer |
OK then.
Yes.
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
appolose said:
Not at all; if you cannot prove a single thing about reality, you can't decide which assumption about it is more likely to be true. Anything that you could use to lend credit to your assumption would be based off of other assumptions as well. |
Somebody made an assumption about reality concerning electronics, and that is the reason you are on a computer right now. You could have assumed that the reality is that gods power computers through prayer so you dont have to plug the cord in, but then we wouldnt be having this conversation would we?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
