The circular argumentation revisited
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2016, 12:32 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
Popcorn
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
10-08-2016, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 12:53 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:29 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 12:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You fail to even understand what God is.
You called yourself a god. How can I not understand this? The atheists prefer to be called "humans", not "gods".

Who said I'm an atheist? Can you not see my avatar? What part of "I AM" do you not understand? Why do you fail to recognize your own divinity? Metaphysical retardation?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:43 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
Oh, I just wandered in here to catch a rare Butterfree.
Gotta catch em all. Carry on.
Chase

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cactus's post
10-08-2016, 01:05 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:26 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What studies are studies of metaphysical limits of science?
For example, I quote "we know what singularity is, the singularity is when we do not know what to do." Thus, the singularity is not physical subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 01:08 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:31 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What relevance is what "the atheists" prefer?
The atheist, who calls himself "god", is not atheist, but the anthropo-theist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 01:11 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
At work.

Oh for crying out loud.

I'd use the head bang wall emote if i knew its shortcut.

'B' ? Please stop trying to have a 'Deep' conversation in a language YOU DO NOT KNOW!

Watching/reading your posts is becoming more an exercise in futility than anything else. No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 01:14 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
Um. Let's just call creationist scientists what they REALLY are.... fucking religious nuts.

There ya go. I'm done with this thread.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
10-08-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 01:14 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  There ya go. I'm done with this thread.

So soon. Party pooper.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
10-08-2016, 01:21 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 01:08 PM)theBorg Wrote:  The atheist, who calls himself "god", is not atheist, but the anthropo-theist.

Again. Who said I was an atheist?

Metheist is more accurate and descriptive.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
10-08-2016, 02:11 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 03:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  The Creation Scientists are way too limited in the research area. Therefore, let us call a Science, which studies the metaphysical limits of the Secular Science, as the Creationism.

The Secular Science is based on the circular reasoning, e.g. "time is that what the clock measures, and the clock is what shows the time."

Therefore the Creationism can use following scientific baseground: "The Bible exists, because God thinks so, and God exists, because the Bible tells so."

Your comments are welcome. What do the people think?

I think you should lay off the drinking.

Your analogy is false. One can see the clock measuring a known phenomenon. Your god is absent.
Spacetime is not only what a clock can measure.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/quantum-theory-flow-time/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: