Near perfect existence

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not concerned with what's right and wrong here, I'm concerned with what we all agree is rational thinking. The two statements I made are rational statements and the fact that you have difficulty agreeing with me is showing me that maybe you're not thinking rationally.

So, you feel like you can just declare that you are being rational and everyone who doesn't agree is thus by definition irrational?

How irrational of you.

 

[Chriliman]

As I said, I am not having this absurd discussion again with you.
I just wanted to tell you that and how you were mistaken in your reception of what people here tell you.
It´s not "You mustn´t beiieve in an afterlife" (as you pretended was their intention), it is "The existence of an afterlife is not a rational conclusion."

Is this statement irrational:

"If it's rational to conclude that science can explain truths that are not yet known, why isn't it rational to conclude that something can explain all truths that are not yet known?"

 

[quatona]

Is this statement irrational:

"If it's rational to conclude that science can explain truths that are not yet known, why isn't it rational to conclude that something can explain all truths that are not yet known?"

You are not going to draw me back into your absurd discussions.
Again:
I just wanted to tell you that and how you were mistaken in your reception of what people here tell you.
It´s not "You mustn´t beiieve in an afterlife" (as you pretended was their intention), it is "The existence of an afterlife is not a rational conclusion."

 

[Chriliman]

So, you feel like you can just declare that you are being rational and everyone who doesn't agree is thus by definition irrational?

How irrational of you.

I never said you disagree, I said if you do disagree then I question your rational. I assume you agree, but just don't want to say it for some unknown reason.

 

[Chriliman]

You are not going to draw me back into your absurd discussions.
Again:
I just wanted to tell you that and how you were mistaken in your reception of what people here tell you.
It´s not "You mustn´t beiieve in an afterlife" (as you pretended was their intention), it is "The existence of an afterlife is not a rational conclusion."

Judging by what's happened in human history the truth can seem absurd to those who are unwilling to believe it, but just because someone is unwilling to believe the truth does not make it any less true.

Thanks for your time

 

[DogmaHunter]

I never said you disagree, I said if you do disagree then I question your rational. I assume you agree, but just don't want to say it for some unknown reason.

I explicitly disagreed and explained why.

 

[quatona]

Judging by what's happened in human history the truth can seem absurd to those who are unwilling to believe it, but just because someone is unwilling to believe the truth does not make it any less true.

Thanks for your time

I just wanted to tell you that and how you were mistaken in your reception of what people here tell you.
It´s not "You mustn´t beiieve in an afterlife" (as you pretended was their intention), it is "The existence of an afterlife is not a rational conclusion."

 

[Chriliman]

I explicitly disagreed and explained why.

But what you explained just confirmed that it's rational to conclude that science can explain unknown truths. But science cannot explain something like love or beauty, so knowing that, it then becomes rational to conclude that science cannot explain every truth in the universe.

 

[Chriliman]

I just wanted to tell you that and how you were mistaken in your reception of what people here tell you.
It´s not "You mustn´t beiieve in an afterlife" (as you pretended was their intention), it is "The existence of an afterlife is not a rational conclusion."

I understand that it's not a rational conclusion for you to make, otherwise you'd agree with me.

 

[quatona]

Let´s pretend this is the philosophy forum, and not a logic101 class.

 

[quatona]

I understand that it's not a rational conclusion for you to make, otherwise you'd agree with me.

I just wanted to tell you that and how you were mistaken in your reception of the criticism people have about your posts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But what you explained just confirmed that it's rational to conclude that science can explain unknown truths.

No, that's not what I said.

What I actually said was the when it comes to explaining phenomena of reality, science is the our best available method for doing that.

That doesn't mean that all phenomena of reality can and will be explained by science.

It only means that science is currently our best hope of success.

But science cannot explain something like love or beauty

I kind of disagree with that.

Love as an emotion sure can be explained by neuro-science.
"beauty" is more like a subjective opinion, in the eye of the beholder. Which doesn't actually require an explanation, as I see it.

, so knowing that, it then becomes rational to conclude that science cannot explain every truth in the universe.

Again, I never said science can do that.
What I said was that science is our best shot at explaining unkown phenomena.

If you are unwilling to recognize the difference, that's your problem.

 

[anonymous person]

Philosophy is one of several disciplines humans engage in.

I think all of us would benefit more if we lived and walked in love as opposed to just knowing the definition thereof.

 

[Chriliman]

No, that's not what I said.

What I actually said was the when it comes to explaining phenomena of reality, science is the our best available method for doing that.

That doesn't mean that all phenomena of reality can and will be explained by science.

It only means that science is currently our best hope of success.



I kind of disagree with that.

Love as an emotion sure can be explained by neuro-science.
"beauty" is more like a subjective opinion, in the eye of the beholder. Which doesn't actually require an explanation, as I see it.



Again, I never said science can do that.
What I said was that science is our best shot at explaining unkown phenomena.

If you are unwilling to recognize the difference, that's your problem.

I think we're conveying the same rational thought, only with different words. What I'm saying and what you're saying can both be considered true statements as of right now based on our current knowledge of reality.

 

[Davian]

Ask the same questions and get the same answeres.

Interestingly, your answers have been all over the place, from evasion to obfuscation.

We're not talking about the god that you have preconceived through your repetition of this same question.

So you do not believe in a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

Ask unique questions and you might get new answeres.

Describe this "God" that you believe in , and why I should consider it of significance.

 

[Chriliman]

Interestingly, your answers have been all over the place, from evasion to obfuscation.

So you do not believe in a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

Describe this "God" that you believe in , and why I should consider it of significance.

Asking me to describe God in a way that would convince you to believe in God, would be like me asking you to describe an infinite timeless entity, in a way that would convince me that God does not exist.

If we assuming God exists then only God can convince you of His existence and you'll never convince me that God does not exist.

If we assuming God does not exist then all conversations we've had because of God become meaningless, which means from your perspective, you're waisting your time, but if we assume God does exist then from my perspective my time conversing with you becomes very meaningful.

Think about that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

All that shows is that you're not that "something" that can explain the truth behind every single question man can think of. I'm not that "something" either, but it's possible that "something" exists that can do this. What's wrong with me believing that "something" can explain the truth behind every question man can think of?

It's wrong because I just proved that providing an explanation doesn't mean the explanations are true.

Then, on top of that, you have paradoxes...which aren't necessarily true or false.

So truth exists independently of your "something".

 

[Davian]

Asking me to describe God in a way that would convince you to believe in God, would be like me asking you to describe an infinite timeless entity, in a way that would convince me that God does not exist.

If we assuming God exists then only God can convince you of His existence and you'll never convince me that God does not exist.

If we assuming God does not exist then all conversations we've had because of God become meaningless, which means from your perspective, you're waisting your time, but if we assume God does exist then from my perspective my time conversing with you becomes very meaningful.

Think about that.

So you do not believe in a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? Can you at least point out where that is not accurate for you?

 

[Chriliman]

So you do not believe in a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? Can you at least point out where that is not accurate for you?

You're funny. Why would I agree to believe in a god that you're creating from one paragraph of information? I believe in the God that brought life into existence and brought the words of Scripture to life. Try to expand out from this paragraph of information that you've created and stop trying to shove God into it.

 

[Davian]

.