Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

I will say I am not against skepticism, since I too believe it is important.

It seems you hold to some form of materialistic skepticism (ie: empiricism). It also seems you believe objective physical laws exist and then deny objective moral values.

If you do believe that the physical laws exist, then that should tell you that there is more to reality then just the physical.

I must say I have found your position somewhat contradictory at times and quite boggling.

Anyway lets leave it at this point for now.

Cheers.

I guess this is one of those issues we can agree to disagree on. If everybody thought the same, we wouldn't be having these type of discussion forums and the world would be a little less interesting huh?
It's been nice conversating with you my friend!

Peace
Ken

Kenny,

Squible is being polite. Your posts make no sense. They're not logical. I'm just going to be blunt. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You'd do yourself a big favor if you listened to some of the people here.

Rant over. Now go back to your polite walk into delusion.

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Squible is being polite. Your posts make no sense. They're not logical. I'm just going to be blunt. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You'd do yourself a big favor if you listened to some of the people here.

Rant over. Now go back to your polite walk into delusion.

I should clarify it is like some odd form of hard empiricism, quasi realist/anti-realist views, with a sprinkle of skepticism.

And while we are at it let's throw the law of non-contradiction in the bin and get some double-think happening....

I am simply baffled.. I actually tripped out on my back verandah for about half an hour trying to wrap my mind around it...

However I still maintain, Kenny is polite, kind and charitable... I find great respect in that.

Seriously I think I had an exception error occur and I had to scandisk and then defragment.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

I will say I am not against skepticism, since I too believe it is important.

It seems you hold to some form of materialistic skepticism (ie: empiricism). It also seems you believe objective physical laws exist and then deny objective moral values.

If you do believe that the physical laws exist, then that should tell you that there is more to reality then just the physical.

I must say I have found your position somewhat contradictory at times and quite boggling.

Anyway lets leave it at this point for now.

Cheers.

I guess this is one of those issues we can agree to disagree on. If everybody thought the same, we wouldn't be having these type of discussion forums and the world would be a little less interesting huh?
It's been nice conversating with you my friend!

Peace
Ken

Kenny,

Squible is being polite. Your posts make no sense. They're not logical. I'm just going to be blunt. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You'd do yourself a big favor if you listened to some of the people here.

Rant over. Now go back to your polite walk into delusion.

We were both being polite, however; to sling mud as you just did accomplishes nothing other than giving the appearance of an inability to reinforce your position with logic and reason.

When I disagree with someone I quote them line by line and offer my rebuttal after each quote.
Perhaps you should do the same

Ken

Squible wrote:Seriously I think I had an exception error occur and I had to scandisk and then defragment.

You don't impress me with that computer geek talk!

Ken said 'rebuttal.'
snicker

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:Seriously I think I had an exception error occur and I had to scandisk and then defragment.

You don't impress me with that computer geek talk!

Awwww snap!! why don't you tell me what you really think...

Squible wrote:

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:Seriously I think I had an exception error occur and I had to scandisk and then defragment.

You don't impress me with that computer geek talk!

Awwww snap!! why don't you tell me what you really think...

It's pretty obvious what I think. I'm computer illiterate, and I have no idea what you said. You might as well be speaking Chinese.

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:Seriously I think I had an exception error occur and I had to scandisk and then defragment.

You don't impress me with that computer geek talk!

Awwww snap!! why don't you tell me what you really think...

It's pretty obvious what I think. I'm computer illiterate, and I have no idea what you said. You might as well be speaking Chinese.

Fair enough. Can't help it sometimes, it's the software developer side...

Did Kenny say logic?

Squible wrote:

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:Seriously I think I had an exception error occur and I had to scandisk and then defragment.

You don't impress me with that computer geek talk!

Awwww snap!! why don't you tell me what you really think...

It's pretty obvious what I think. I'm computer illiterate, and I have no idea what you said. You might as well be speaking Chinese.

Fair enough. Can't help it sometimes, it's the software developer side...

Did Kenny say logic?

And reason.

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:Did Kenny say logic?

And reason.

Does that surprise you?

K

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:Did Kenny say logic?

And reason.

Does that surprise you?

K

Not this again I don't think I can handle another...

A and ~A at the same time

or

p1 → p2 → … → pn → p1

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:Did Kenny say logic?

And reason.

Does that surprise you?

K

Not this again I don't think I can handle another...

A and ~A at the same time

or

p1 → p2 → … → pn → p1

My response was not directed at you.

K

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:Did Kenny say logic?

And reason.

Does that surprise you?

K

Not this again I don't think I can handle another...

A and ~A at the same time

or

p1 → p2 → … → pn → p1

My response was not directed at you.

K

I got that news flash, I have been wondering if this solves other ironies...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFPdnIw ... wzlWmVGirr

*just for laughs*

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:My response was not directed at you.

K

I got that news flash, I have been wondering if this solves other ironies...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFPdnIw ... wzlWmVGirr

*just for laughs*

I could not pull up the video so I have no idea what it said.

Now I realize my position doesn’t make sense to you, but have you ever thought that maybe your position don’t make sense to me either?
Lets look at what you said in your last response;

It seems you hold to some form of materialistic skepticism (ie: empiricism). It also seems you believe objective physical laws exist and then deny objective moral values.

If you do believe that the physical laws exist, then that should tell you that there is more to reality then just the physical.

Here you conclude I hold to materialism (that of the material world) and empiricism (knowlege through observation via 5 sences) then you somehow conclude if I recognize the existence of physical laws (motion, gravity, energy, etc. Stuff that can be experienced via 5 senses) that I should believe there is more to existence than the physical! ( like stuff that can't be observed via 5 sences)

Now this makes no sense to me at all ! It makes sense for a person of empiricism to accept physical laws because they can be experienced via 5 sences; but why would that mean I should also believe in that which is not physical? If I did I wouldn’t be a person of empiricism as you concluded. Then you say I am contradictory? Sorry I am just not getting this; maybe someone else who shares your POV can explain it to me 'cause it sounds to me like your position is contridictory.

Ken