addmoreice vs Rickiibeta

[addmoreice]

"you can go ahead and think that with enough time the improbable becomes probable, but i, sir do not have that much faith."

no. you ASSERTED that there was not a long period of time, many progressions of universes (something that we have no evidence of) then ASSERTED that the values of the universal forces are random (instead of possibly fixed or possibly in a range) then you ASSERTED further that this is not a coincidence but can be attributed to a god, but more over it's YOUR god, then you ASSERTED that it's so improbable as to be useless...without having any evidence for the 'part or the whole' (denominator or numerator) of the equation of the probability.

tell me again how this makes ANY sense?

the most we can say is this 'it's likely the universe had a cause' thats it. likely. not what it was, if it was a force or god. thats all. to assert it had to be because of things you can't even demonstrate are true? well sir thats arrogant.

 

[addmoreice]

from here i am going to break out into two reply's one dealing with the free-will= suffering aspect and the other being the intelligent design aspect.

lets try this again is your god benevolent ? does he not wish to stop evil?

Yes and yes.

worse you skip over entirely the point about your god allowing natural disasters which he could stop. the problem of suffering...I love how when you have no answer you just ignore it.

i apologize for skipping over any points you made that i thought were trivial? All people are terrible sure they may do good things, but at the core of everyone is a drive to do terrible things. every honest man will admit this fact, that there is at least one thing they would do if they would never get caught that would hurt someone else. God, however, is good and perfect in fact. why should God prevent natural disasters? because you want him to? but you are terrible, what right do you have to tell him what you want to do? God does not exist for the sake of man. you are asking for a senile benevolent grandfather in heaven, whose plan is to give you a good time. but that is not the case. nor what is possible when we are given free-will

'god can't create something with free will that can't do evil'?... where your options range from neutral to greatest good and nothing worse then that.

shakesphere said "Death is the mother of beauty." meaning, without evil there is no possibility of good. it is nonsense to imagine a free-will being that can not do good. just as it is nonsense to have two paraell lines intersect. the definition of free-will is to choose good or evil (in God's case the choice to choose Him, good, or not Him, evil)

it's like someone walking on a straight line and telling them that they have the freedom to walk however they want on that line. then you tell them that they only have two choices: stay put (neutral) or walk forward (good). but your purpose was to give them freedom to walk on the line however they want, therefore you can not limit them to walking backwards on the line, even though you intend for them to walk forwards. or in another way: i agree to play a chess game with you, but only if you guarantee you will not take any of my pieces and i wont take any of yours. that wouldn't be a chess game at all. our two options would be: sit there and stare at each other, or mindlessly move pieces that will inevitable have no outcome.

to wrap up, God's omnipotence means the power to do all things intrinsically possible i.e. it doesn't include nonsense. creating free-will without the ability to do evil is nonsense. therefore it does not impede God's omnipotence that we have evil.

this argument is also evident in non religious terms. why, in light of evolution, haven't we evolved into only neutral or good beings? well because natural selection requires evil. therefore it is impossible to evolve into something that can not be evil.

 

[addmoreice]

"God, however, is good and perfect in fact. why should God prevent natural disasters?"

because he is perfect and good? wow. that was hard. the question answered itself!

"why should God prevent natural disasters? because you want him to? but you are terrible, what right do you have to tell him what you want to do?"

I'm terrible as the perfect being made me? um...ok. evidence and explanation for that please? oh thats right, another assertion without evidence. all right.

"God does not exist for the sake of man. you are asking for a senile benevolent grandfather in heaven, whose plan is to give you a good time. but that is not the case. nor what is possible when we are given free-will"

ok, again. asserting free will requires suffering...so then god is being made to suffer?

"meaning, without evil there is no possibility of good. "

sure because without axe murderers there are no girl scouts. or how if you want to eat cake you first have to eat dog shit. because there is no way to relatively measure anything no it has to be one absolute to measure the other absolute....err right.

"it's like someone walking on a straight line and telling them that they have the freedom to walk however they want on that line. then you tell them that they only have two choices: stay put (neutral) or walk forward (good). but your purpose was to give them freedom to walk on the line however they want, therefore you can not limit them to walking backwards on the line, even though you intend for them to walk forwards."

yes, exactly. that would be my point. they still have free will....a more limited one...but then in the case of suffering it's only free will that limits NATURAL 'evil' not free will evil. why is this bad again? oh thats right because then we would have to assume god didn't want evil...oh yeah...

"or in another way: i agree to play a chess game with you, but only if you guarantee you will not take any of my pieces and i wont take any of yours."

nooo... the correct analogy would be you and I can play chess but the game doesn't get over thrown in the case of rain.

"creating free-will without the ability to do evil is nonsense. "

and so god has the ability to do evil and is hence not all good. oh except you define him to be all god. why? because you define him to be! wonderful!

"why, in light of evolution, haven't we evolved into only neutral or good beings? well because natural selection requires evil. therefore it is impossible to evolve into something that can not be evil."

no, evolution is neutral on the claims of evil. the claims of evil are human constructs. evolution HAS created creatures which are basically neutral to good. they are called algae, but in only limited circumstances but still.

evolution is pushing for survival and reproduction, nothing else. meta problems get 'solved' as they relate to reproduction and survival but they are not the 'focus' any more then you typing a single letter was the 'purpose' of you typing this message.

 

[addmoreice]

you are a moron. i only wish someone else intelligent was here to verify that. you refute common accepted logic with meaningless rhetoric.

 

[addmoreice]

"you refute common accepted logic with meaningless rhetoric."

so says the 'Something can't come from nothing' moron meme spouter. suuuure.


NOTE: This is where the discussion bifurcated into another discussion, fun how he stops talking when he has no responses....

 

[addmoreice]

"bingo. you don't know any more than i do. my logic lies in the mathematical improbability. there are mathematical calculations of certain aspects of the beginning of the bang that would be necessary to happen. the numbers on these are astronomical (teehee)."

a few weeks ago a person won the lottery. the chances of them winning the lottery are astronomically small. yet they won. there chances of having won the lottery are ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. thats right. 100%. they won.

the chances of us having this universe is....100%. we have this universe.

worse your not using probability correctly. first you will have to show that we can have any OTHER universe. this may be the only possible values for all 4 known elemental forces (or 3, or 2, or 1 or 6 depending on which if any of the known systems are correct). can't? oh thats right no one can. if you COULD you would have a nobel prize.

this is what we call a lie for jesus. there is NO calculations of this nature ever done. strobel claims it. but never provides it. strangely enough scientists HAVE done research asking 'what would change if things where different"

there findings? oh for example the weak nuclear force could be entirely eliminated and would change nothing

A universe without weak interactions

lets change the strong nuclear force shall we? oh look we change WHEN we get suns, when we get heavier elements for life but we don't wipe out all of life. only change the ranges of where it can form.

how about messing with gravity shall we? oh look we get planet formation sooner or latter, orbital distances further away or closer, suns which are larger or smaller, and smaller or larger habital zones.

what about the electromagnetic force? well this one would definitely mess with chemistry! aha! there it is! evidence!

yup. evidence that if things where different....wait for it....they would be different! and? your presupposing that the purpose of this universe is to cause life. why? it could be a simple coincidence! it could be that these are the only possible values for life or the universe. there could be a vast array of possible values all vastly different resulting in vastly different properties which all can harbor vastly different TYPES of life...or other dynamic phenomenon even more amazing then life. why do you assume life is special in this grand thing we call the universe except for the fact WE are life and think thats pretty cool? your arguing special pleading here man. even worse all of this assumes on just the VALUES of the universe....and not the rules! maybe the rules themselves can change this offers many more possibilities and even more possible universes where life could form. you haven't demonstrated that there could have been an infinite or even large number of rules. you simply assume they are random. scientists are not arguing there is randomness, they are arguing it's likely there are rules. what they are? who knows. but arguing it HAD to be random and hence HAD to be decided by some intelligent force is simply silly.

assume things could be different without evidence, claim the math indicates there are an infinite number (or nearly so) of possible outcomes then claim this specific one is the one chosen so it must have been god. sorry no.

here lets try this again, maybe you will see the problem with your 'argument'.

drop a ball.

watch it's path.

argue it could have fallen in any direction (there are an infinite number of directions it COULD have traveled).

point out that it only ever falls down.

point out this is highly unlikely and hence an intelligent agency must be causing intelligent falling.

this is essentially the argument, only we don't actually KNOW that it's possible to have any other 'settings' on those 4 dials, and even worse it fails to understand the anthropic principle. namely that even if it's possible for an infinite number of settings on the dial, if we have universes being created, only in universes possible of life would a life form 'marvel' at the fact it is 'just right' for them.

get what that means? you ALSO need to show that there is not a large number of universe or a large number of creation/destruction events. ANOTHER bit of evidence you fail to provide.

lastly. all you would have shown is that it's unlikely that our universe had formed by pure chance....but I never said it formed by pure chance anymore then the falling ball falls by pure chance. it's governed by rules and behaviors. what the universes rules might be or even if it is governed by any...I have no clue. but then, neither do you, but you seem to be claiming it.

"proof by contradiction: the universe exists."

the universe exists. ok sure. this is probably likely, arguing anything else reduces to solipsism, even if true arguing for it reduces all other options to fruitlessness so for purely practical reasons we can claim this one even if we have no more evidence then that we think we have evidence for it. from a purely practical stand point this is the base claim known as 'objective reality' on which all other claims rest. this is actually a presumption assumed without evidence.

"the universe had a begining [sic]"

maybe, who knows? did you fail to get that the big bang does not deal with the beginning of the universe anymore then christianity has anything to do with zues throwing lightning bolts? it has to do with the OBSERVED beginning. nothing more. we say NOTHING conclusively before the plank instant (which isn't even time zero, this is AFTER the universe did whatever it did).

"the universe started via big bang"

thats the best answer so far.

"this is mathematically impossible"

wow. thats a great 'argument' assert what you can't show and has been demonstratively shown TO be correct. It would be like me simply asserting god doesn't exist. it's patently stupid as an argument.

"therefore the universe was not started via big bang"

therefore you don't even know what the big bang is.

your not stupid. your ignorant. educate yourself. learn what the big bang actually says, the evidence for it, why scientists adopted it as the best answer and the subsequent experiments which have demonstrated that it is the likely correct answer for the development of the universe.

"*here i use big bang to mean the multiple theories on how the universe started"

Christianity and lightning bolts man, Christianity and lightning bolts.

the worse part about this? the big bang theory provides more fuel to YOUR argument of a creator then it does to an atheist. if it was shown conclusively there was a start to the universe (instead of back to the plank instant as we are so far) you will have demonstrated that it is POSSIBLE there was a creator (well it's possible now, but it would be a single chain closer).

if instead it's shown that the universe is infinite beyond the plank instant (crunch cycles for example or one of the other theories that explains the behavior of the multiverse/quantum foam/brane then you have an issue, no start then no creator). the big bang at least offers hope there is a spot to look at for a possible start.

 

[addmoreice]

beyond all of this nonsense, which you claim as science but actually is your made up interpretation of the big bang, i will only assert, as philosophy has proven, that there had to be a start to the universe.

easy way to explain it: if time were to expand infinitely into the past, we would never be able to reach this current moment.

complicated explanation: see: the big bang does not deal with the beginning of the universe.

oh and i am tired of you making this claim. the big bang theory states the at the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. it states that there was a bang. you can tell me till you are blue in the face that it is a temporal concept to image time before the big bang, but that is avoiding the point. if there is a bang, explosion, expansion: something caused it.

I'm done. Good day sir.
[/quote]

 

[addmoreice]

"beyond all of this nonsense, which you claim as science but actually is your made up interpretation of the big bang,..."

hmm from wikipedia:

"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day."

nothing about the 'start' there. nothing about 'coming from nothing' no it seems to be exactly as i have described it, though the wikipedia opening paragraph is a dumbed down explination. things where hot and dense then they expanded. thats all the big bang says so far. nothing else. YOU are claiming that scientists say it's the start of the universe and it came from nothing.

hmm...searching through it to 'timeline' we can see reference to the 'planck epoch' oh...whats this....oh thats right the plank instant i was talking about. oh yeah.

me: 'hey all my clothese came from my suitcase, it poped open and my clothes went everywhere'

you: 'thats impossible! clothes can't come from nothing! someone had to have made those clothes and aranged them around the suitcase'

me: 'err....thats not what i said....um...'

"..i will only assert, as philosophy has proven, that there had to be a start to the universe."

and yet philosophy doesn't prove anything. it simply makes commentaries on things. it argues values and worths and relative relationships of concepts and ideas. it never proves anything, it's not the purpose of philosophy. it's the act of TRYING to prove things that it has it's purpose. but thats another thing entirely.

"easy way to explain it: if time were to expand infinitely into the past, we would never be able to reach this current moment."

aaaand your wrong. i know you didn't think that through but thats ok.

here lets try this. imagine a ball....drop it....now imagine it goes half as high exactly after each bounce....how long will it take to come to rest?you might be tempted to say 'never'.

your wrong.

depending on how high you drop it from it really will be at a stopped state some time in the future (depending on the acceleration and the height) and it really will have had an infinite number of bounces. you can do the math yourself if you understand limits and calculas.

reverse the description, the ball bounces twice as high as before now go back how many bounces does it do? an infinite number of them....and there really will be no 'start' but it really will have reached this point and there would have been a time before where it wasn't bouncing.

even then this is NOT the standard representation of the big bang. the big bang says nothing about before the plank instance. nothing. your arguing a straw man here dude.

"oh and i am tired of you making this claim. the big bang theory states the at the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot."

no, it states that at the plank instant the universe was infintely dense and unimaginably hot. nothing before the plank instant can be stated. we don't even know if there IS anything before the plank instant and finally if quantum mechanics as it currently stands doesn't do significant changes in the future we will never be able to look before the plank instant. thats why it's called the 'observed start' of the universe, some scientists when talking to lay people or the press has called it 'the theory of the start of the universe' for all intents and practical considerations it might as well be but that doesn't mean thats what we are talking about.

"it states that there was a bang. you can tell me till you are blue in the face that it is a temporal concept to image time before the big bang, but that is avoiding the point. if there is a bang, explosion, expansion: something caused it."

and i'm saying it again. no it definately does not mean that it had to be so. where talking about a singular event unlike ANYTHING else, it's not something INSIDE our universe and so we can not be positive that the rules OF the universe apply TO the universe. furthermore, as i pointed out all ready, we have events from within our universe that may very well be uncaused as well. namely: quantum fluctuations, cassimir effect, and hawking radiation. they are not 'caused' as you normally think of them.

this research is in some cases EIGHTY YEARS OLD! you are that out of date in your understanding.

even then i'm not arguing this IS the case i simply pointed out that arguing 'nothing can be uncaused, the universe has a cause, therefore i will invoke magic man who needs not be caused to explain it!' is a bit of idiocy. you make a claim, then claim an unknown that magically doesn't have the claim applied to it...why? because we defined it to be that way of course! then say 'tada it proves it'.

sorry, no!

if your 'logic' worked then why not simply claim the universe is uncaused? it requires no special pleading of an undefined thing with undefined properties which become set in a specific way because you need them to be that way for the argument! it's called occams razor. learn it.

 

[addmoreice]

silly wikiatheist...

i'm not arguing that clothes can't come from nothing. the argument is that something caused the suitcase to pop open.

[edited]and you, sir, do not understand limits and calculus. a ball, under your assumptions, will never come to rest. it is, yes, a convergent series: but it never actually comes to rest. it will get infinitely close to coming to rest, but will never actually come to rest. the limit of the ball as it bounces as time approaches infinity is indeed the ground, but for any value of time the ball is not touching the ground.

[added] the problem with the argument that you and the youtuber are making is that if we are going to have an abstract mathematical concept such as this, then we have to be consistent in the abstraction. i.e. you cannot apply the abstract to reality. if you are going to come up with a abstract mathematical concept such as a ball bouncing an infinite amount of bounces, then you must, also, assume that you have an infinite amount of time to measure each bounce. This is the non-intuitive part for us. we can not image time to pass infinitely. in this abstract mathematical model 8.25 seconds would have to take an infinite amount of time, since a ball cannot bounce forever and also be at rest. that is a paradox. for a mathematical proof of this see the end of this post.

as for his application to cause and effect, and essentially the metaphysical world: you cannot apply an abstract mathematical model to properties the metaphysical world the way he has. as i have said, he has not shown that an infinite amount of bounces can happen in 8.25 seconds. he has shown that in that mathematical model 8.25 seconds takes an infinite amount of time.

in addition, there is no reason to think that the cause and effect of the metaphysical world is a convergent series (which is required in this model). for example: imagine that the ball, instead of bouncing 1/2 of high as the bounce before, it bounces a height of 1/n. that is to say that the ball falls, hits the ground and bounces 1/2 as high, then the ball comes down and bounces 1/3 as high as the bounce before, then it comes down and bounces 1/4 as high as the bounce before, and so on down the line without bound (infinity). will this ball ever come to rest? never. what is the total time it takes the ball to bounce (i.e. the youtuber found the answer to this question in his example to be 8.25)? infinity. this is because it is a divergent series, it has no limit. there is no reason at all to think that the metaphysic world is anything but divergent.

endnote: proof by contradiction

lets let a ball be dropped from a height of 10 and every bounce afterwards will decrease by one half, such that the first bounce will reach height 5 and the second bounce height 2.5 and so on to infinity.

now lets also assume that the ball comes to rest.

if the ball comes to rest then that means that for some value of t (time), h (height) is equal to 0

but for every value t there is a corresponding value for h that is greater than 0

therefore the ball never comes to rest. QED

no mathematician would refute this proof.

 

[addmoreice]

"silly wikiatheist..."

i love this! I don't provide a reference and you claim I'm lying. i provide a reference and you claim I'm simply presenting the ideas of others....wow. you ALWAYS win don't you? <snicker> do people actually think your making 'arguments' when you do this? or is it just something you do for yourself? well anyways on to the actual discussion.

"i'm not arguing that clothes can't come from nothing. the argument is that something caused the suitcase to pop open"

yeah except we BOTH are agreeing on this. I'm simply pointing out that while i believe the suitcase (universe) needed a cause to occur. i realize this is not definitively so because there are things we know of that don't and even then I also recognize this is a special case different then all other things and may be again different then all the others as well.

you are claiming that the suitcase didn't exist, the suitcase didn't open up, and not only that that the clothes popping out...no that didn't happen....no no! they where PLACED where they where. in specific locations. your 'evidence' for this? the suitcase had to have been opened....you do get thats retarded right?

"and you, sir, do not understand limits and calculus."

actually yes i do. I've done the math on this one because I myself thought this argument was bullshit when it was first presented to me...it works:

here and then here

yeah it works. it's not a particularly difficult limit to do either.

"a ball, under your assumptions, will never hit the ground. "

no...it would hit an infinite number of times, thats what it would do. i think i covered this in the very introduction of the problem.

"it is, yes, a convergent series: but it never actually hits the ground. it will get infinitely close to the ground, but will never actually hit the ground. the limit of the ball as it bouces [sic] at time approaches infinity.."

noooo...the limit at time x (which is determined by the initial velocity, if any, the acceleration of gravity, and the mass of the ball) will progress towards an infinite number of bounces. it's not as time approaches infinity because the limit of the VELOCITY approaches zero 'faster' then as it approaches infinite time. (wow thats a rough but useful explanation) hence why it will have bounced an infinite number of times AFTER time x.

...is indeed the ground, but for any value of time the ball is not touching the ground."

no. the ball touches the ground an infinite number of times. frankly i think you need to go back and review the problem itself, i might have presented it badly. are you considering the first version or the second version here? the second version is literally the first version 'flipped' in time. you might as well consider this same effect with t = 0 at x then run t negative.

"i am done with you, i accept your apology."

you, sir, are childish.

"wha wha wha! you mean to me! i can't prove my point! i win you lose you said sorry in my head! whaaaa!"

what are you three? if you don't want to continue the discussion then fine. but don't pretend you 'proved your point' when all you did is ignore every point that was made against you.

 

[addmoreice]

i apologize for not writing a clear resonse to your limit problem. when i said

"a ball, under your assumptions, will never hit the ground. "

i ment that a ball under your assumptions will never come to rest.

becuase you asserted:

here lets try this. imagine a ball....drop it....now imagine it goes half as high exactly after each bounce....how long will it take to come to rest? you might be tempted to say 'never'. your by the way it is "you're", but i have ignored this mistake you have made this entire discussion wrong. depending on how high you drop it from it really will be at a stopped state some time in the future

i have revised my comment to say "at rest" when i ment it to and added a rebuttal to the argument.

even your video states that it will never be at rest. the first video at 2:37

i have discovered the problem. i am sure at this point that you are an intelligent person. however you are a terrible communicator. you do not say what you mean and you do not hear what people say. i concluded this by watching this video at noting the argument he made, which you unfruitfully attempted to mimic. this is a more flattering conclusion to you than my previous which states that you're through and through a moron.

 

[addmoreice]

You are absolutely correct. I did bungle this one completely.

As for:

"by the way it is you're, but i have ignored this mistake you have made this entire discussion"

Yeah, i have an issue with 'you' and "you're", this has always been one of my issues.

Same with 'their', 'there', and "they're" can never seem to get this right. If you look through previous posts of mine to other people it's all over the place. I appreciate when people point this out to me. I'm improving on this but slowly.

my point was that the argument of "there could not have been an infinite progression prior to this point or we wouldn't have reached here" that is presented in many contexts doesn't actually work. thats what the video actually covers (...and I screwed it up. had been a while since I went over this one, hey it's a bunch of infinites, gimme a break! hehe).

 

[addmoreice]

i am glad that we can civilize this discussion somewhat. i think that we both had valid points throughout the entire discussion, but neither of us had good communication. this is probably because in order to fully get points like these across requires in-depth conversations which are entirely too much to type.

my only final thought for you is this: though science cannot explain/ does not attempt to explain what happened pre-plank moment, that only means we are bound to philosophical terms- not that we can not describe it at all. and in philosophy there may be no observable evidence, but there is still logic and truth. example: "i think therefore i am"

i should add that i value your commitment to stay involved in the discussion despite your passionate disagreement.

 

[addmoreice]

"though science cannot explain/ does not attempt to explain what happened pre-plank moment, that only means we are bound to philosophical terms-not that we can not describe it at all."

No. we are bound by logic, reason, and basic decency to admit when we have only anecdotal evidence to go on. This is our current position. Nothing else. Claiming philosophy has 'some other way of knowing' in this case is worthless.

What types of things can philosophy provide you truth on but science and reasoned evidence can not? I'm willing to bet it's only on those things no one can disprove either way.

"but there is still logic and truth. example: 'i think therefore i am'"

....or you could use the postulate theorem to explain this same thing...you know...what this basic idea is saying in philosophical terms that we can now express in scientific terms?

as in no system can demonstrate it's postulates and we must assume some postulates to be true as self evident because these postulates then allow us to build our framework of knowledge to work on. The postulate in this case is that "we are thinking beings because we are thinking we are thinking beings" it doesn't really matter what we define 'think' to be here because it's a tautology (though a useful one, in fact the groundwork one). That's a very rough and horribly annoying way to express this philosophical argument (and misses out on all the details of the concept) but that is the stark scientific form of it.

it's convoluted and annoying to present it but the philosophical description is beautiful, easy to express, and simple enough others can understand it in little time (well if they actually read the cave analogy as it was presented i think it is anyways).

"i should add that i value your commitment to stay involved in the discussion despite your passionate disagreement."

I think I'm right because if I didn't think I was right I wouldn't hold the belief I do, I would hold some other belief. However, I have been wrong about things in the past. Knowing this I must conclude that it's likely too that I am wrong about at least some belief now. The only honest answer to this is to conclude that I could be wrong then seek out evidence and discussion about my beliefs and ideas.

The only problem is that in the a/theist debate I am so often asked to ignore logic, ignore evidence, ignore standards of evidence, and ignore the conclusions of arguments. Worse I'm routinely asked to accept logical fallacies as if they where valid arguments. Like the argument from ignorance, for example.

I simply refuse to do this.

 

[addmoreice]

i used "i think therefore i am" as a example of something that can be philosophically shown but not scientifically proven.

in order to scientifically prove something you have to observe it from outside of it's environment. for example water turns to ice. we can observe this and study it using the scientific method. in light of this, there is no way to scientifically prove that we exist; because we can not observe our existence outside of our existence. therefore on this matter philosophy provides truth that science can not prove.

p.s. science does not equal reasoned evidence.

it was great talking with you, maybe sometime we can pick one subject and talk about it.

 

[addmoreice]

"in order to scientifically prove something you have to observe it from outside of it's environment. for example water turns to ice. we can observe this and study it using the scientific method. in light of this, there is no way to scientifically prove that we exist; because we can not observe our existence outside of our existence. therefore on this matter philosophy provides truth that science can not prove.

sort of. we can only make claims about our existence. we can't prove our existence. but this isn't the precisely the same thing. rough enough though. we are but saying 'we exist, because we exist to claim we exist'

it was great talking with you, maybe sometime we can pick one subject and talk about it."

frankly? hell no. you argue like a goldfish. you make a claim i refute the claim or at least point out that the claim as presented is self contradictory then you act like nothing happened. hey! 15 second memory! wake up...i just made this point like 15 seco...whatever