Okay so what you are calling falsifiable evidence is actually just logic. In logic though it isnt called falsifiable, it would be valid or invalid, sound or unsound. Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Not sure what your point is, but there's definitely evidence of words having meaning and pre established usage.
Yeah it just isn't how I thought you meant it. So if that is the case then why are logical arguments for a creator not persuasive in your opinion? Here is one of the most pre-eminent philosophers in this area if you want to listen to 5min of this one argument. Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Saying a God is the cause of his argument is speculatory bullshit with no evidence, and it's just as true or possible as any other theory that our primitive minds could speculate or understand. There could be causes that are not God that we don't have the capability to understand. Everything could have simply existed and never had a starting point, everything could have came from other material things that formed from nothing, and the fact that they formed from nothing would be a false equivalency to say that something "transcends" the material world, since it's all material. Nothing here is convincing because there is no evidence of anything he says relating to a creator, and his view of existentialism is just as unproveable as anything else so far, which is why scientists haven't reached any conclusion. Therefore, if he actually whole heartedly believes in God without evidence, he's retarded, for the reasons I specified. Literally all he's doing is putting one theory against multiple others we can think of, and possible infinity ones that we can't. No evidence, no substance.
Well I am going to tap out of such discussions with you for now, hopefully someday you will avail yourself to how philosophy an logic work and we can talk about these things again. Until then, Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
So apparently my post leads you to assume I don't have an idea of how philosophy and logic work. Perhaps I'm not the most well versed, but dispute anything I said. I mean, did I say something incorrect or that misrepresents what he's saying? Or are you just tapping out due to cognitive dissonance.
I do not believe there is anything wrong with being illogical, as long as the notion of logic exists then so will the illogical if we take life only through words we will bind ourselves only to here and tether ourselves to the world of being and non being we can transcend that (which is the concept of God, the name is something representative of the transcendent, something that cannot be named or explained in any way, we can up with the word God in an attempt to make sense of the power the universe uses, the power which created the cosmos, what was before and what the start was, even if it was random set of event it is that power that is referenced in our divine and holy concepts) it falls down to the individual at the end of the day, what you think is logical and illogical whats true to you and false.. etc.. but you can go above that and realize that ultimately it is the individual creating this and using these concepts you are a vehicle of consciousness and when you see that in yourself and in others then your whole world opens up it illuminates you.. that is what is transcendent, that energy of the cosmos.. dont take religious metaphor seriously, it will only cause you trouble.. there is something deeper im rambling and I dont know if my thoughts made any sense
What do you mean by "make sense"? Logical sense or illogical sense? Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
holy fuck it took me a while but i bursted out laughing i like what you did there calling out the field of duality I live in lmao I like you man
That is the problem with opposing either/or logic, we think in either/or logic. Some people say they are both/and but that begs the question Is it either/or or both/and or can it be both? In other words, if you ask that question from a both/and perspective, you would have to say both, but how can it be both either/or (one or the other) and both/and (both at the same time) If you evaluate it from either/or perspective you would have to say that it is either either/or OR both/and, and in either/or logic it cannot be both/and so it must be either/or. So it seems to me either/or logic is more consistent. Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Hmm, I think there are different types of evidence.. Hearsay..Intuition, Superstition.. psychic senses/6th sense.. Belief making one feel good.. Vs dis belief making people feel bad.. Sense data in general.. Scientific apparatus.. as any tool used to aid science..and the abstract notion of science itself.. Religious miracles witnessed or believed..