spiritual science

[AirPo]

First things first: to add a (quote)(/quote) around certain paragraphs is not more difficult than to change the colour of your text. Please do it. It get´s almost impossible to answer your posts though. A guy as intelligent as you should be able to understand how this system works.

And how to get around it.

 

[dad]

[/color][/i][/b]



You keep harping on my assumptions, dad, but you yourself are making some rather hefty assumptions, like that the Bible is true. What is wrong with the Universe being the same then, now, and later?

If you can prove it, nothing at all. What do you want, some moral reason, or other belief?

I like to keep things simple, and so did William of Ockham. The best explanation is the one that fits all of the facts as tightly as possible, like shrink-wrap.

Yes, and your explanation has the whole darn universe shrink wrapped into some speck sized soup!

And the naturalistic, "physical-only" model fits the facts much better than your spirit realm.

No. In fact, I would say that the "physical-only" model really leads to absurd conclusions, and is full of holes, and even the so called experts seem just to be a little more confused about things than Joe public. The merge explains all mankind's spiritual phenomena, rather than ignoring it, and pretending it does not exist! It also is a unified principle, and is not mystified in why quantum theory, and relativity don't match up!

Unless you show something which breaks out of my theory and can be explained by yours, something which you have conclusively proven, is not subjective, and can be specifically cited, I don't have to worry myself with your unwarranted castles of spirits and myths.

[I don't know about castles, but you need to ask yourself how indeed do you know it was always physical only, besides belief, and assumption.

How do you know there WAS? .

That needn't concern you. We simply need to seek the simplest model, that has evidence. The big bang, and granny are not simple, but no one even knows how they supposedly came about exactly. They are just attempts at alligning reality to the physical only we now see, while religiously ignoring it is without any evidence, the underlying assumption that we must carry over today's Po into the past and future, because thats all we can see now.

Do you see? On purely factual grounds, we can say there may be a spiritual realm or there may not be.

Do you see? On purely factual grounds, we can say there may have been a physical only past and fure, or there may not be

Ockham's Razor tells me to seek the simplest model, and that means filing the spiritual realm in the same box as phlogiston and the Fairy Queen. You just don't need it to explain the facts!

Ockham's Razor tells me to seek the simplest model, and that means filing the belief that all there ever was was the physical only in the same box as phlogiston and the Fairy Queen. You just don't need it to explain the facts

So what you're saying is that you can't prove it to me because I'm stupid. Ho ho!

Not you personally, but mankind, and our present science. As you may realize, it can not even detect the known spiritual world, so, for those who push themselves away from the bible, and God's help, no, with their own puny devices, they cannot begin to get a clue!

Sorry, arrogance and abuse don't count as proof, dad.

It isn't arrogance to understand spiritual men can understand some spiritual things, with the help of God, and the guidance of His word. Thems the simple facts. Also, that, without His help, men cannot on their own detect or understand their way out of a paper box, is mere observation as well, and not arrogant. It is arrogant to try to foist a belief that leads to insane conclusions, that is based on physical only, and has NO evidence, however!

What about the Bible? All I said was that it should not be taken as a literal account of history or science.

What about the bible?

There is nothing of the spiritual which you can cite as well-known which has the Christian god as a unique explanation, or even the most reasonable one.

Why would I even try to cite that to someone who, if I am not mistaken, does not so much a believe in any spiritual? Or do you?

And why shouldn't they reach into the future or past? I already asserted that they did, and given arguments as to why that should be taken as the default assumption unless proven otherwise.

Yes, but your arguements were merely that that was what you, and some others believed, without proof. It isn't my default. It is your belief.

Now, why should they not reach into the past and future? Well, why should they or shouldn't they is the question. Can you tell me why they should? Can you even tell me why they should not? Seems like all you can tell me, is what you believe!

So now you're making emotional arguments about death and decay. Death, decay, life, color, whatever, it's just part of life. I don't believe in God, your Bible, or your spirit realm, and it's not like I'm some kind of goth or necrophiliac.

It is only part of physical only life. There is no death, or sickness, or decaying, in the past, and coming merged universe. People have come back even from the dead, and told us about what is coming. (Already there, in a sense, but let's not get too fancy here)

Godless? Yes, very. Hostile? Hostile to who, dad? Baseless? Not at all. It's just that I have natural forces right here in front of my face that I can explain man with,

So then, we should look no further than the nose on our face? Some theory.

so why bring God, which I don't even know exists, into the picture? Once again, Ockham's Razor: I can explain the facts with what I've got, so I don't need God to explain it for me.

Tell you what, you ease up on Ockie, I'll ease up on the Almighty! Besides, Ocky is gone, and dead as a doonail. The Almighty is alive and well.

Why are you so fond of the word "baseless"? What is "baseless" is your twisted, tortured science, since it's based on one book and a mountain of logical fallacy.

That means without base. Without proof. Without foundation. A belief that there always was and will be only the physical is baseless.

You're also fond of the word "belief," I see, but keep in mind that "belief" does not necessarily mean "false."

No, it doesn't necessarily mean much at all. Which is the value of your belief in a physical only past and future.

You believe that your senses are true, don't you? You believe that you're alive, don't you? So stop harping on the word as if just using it instantly makes all of my arguments false. After all, it's not like your arguments are the pinnacle of absolute truth.

Senses can lie. And being alive doen't require a whole lot of belief. Some beliefs have more evidence than others. Yours has none at all.

What's your problem with a physical-only past or future? What makes YOU so sure that this is not the case? .

What makes any child believe what he or she is taught? I don't know, but they seem to generally be quite moldable. If you plan to teach them they are doomed, and this death and decay of the physical only is all they have to look forward to, and is all that ever was in our world, then you better have some proof.

Because it seems to work pretty well as a scientific model so far. The only thing it doesn't work with is your Bible, which is not quite a rock-hard wall of refutation

Science has nothing to do with science falsely so called. Don't try to piggyback on our successes with the real world!

It's the best we have.

No. It is a p poor belief, with no merit or proof.

It's certainly better than creating a whole world of boxes, spirits, and gods, just so you can cling to your precious book.

The spirit world is not created by men, or imagination, and has always been well known. Deny it at your own mental peril. The physical only is very limited, and certainly has it's boundries, just as a box does. No one says there is some real cardboard box that contains the universe, or some such foolishness. Remember who it is that thinks the whole universe was in a little teensy speck sized soup! You!

Witnesses? I see no witnesses. Miracles? I see no miracles.

You may remain in denial, that is fine.

Proven Bible? What a laugh. You haven't proven one word of the Bible.

No sense arguing that here, your mind is made up. I guess us billions of people who think that there are angels, ghosts, esp, healings, heaven, God, spirits, etc. are all delusional in your book. I'm not here to get you to pull your head out of the sand, but just to demonstrate it is in there!

So basically, you have nothing. I have a few centuries of empirical observation and simple principles of logic and sense.

No, I have that. We all have that. That does not include baseless beliefs of some nightmarish past.

..So where exactly do you get off saying that I have no proof?! You're the one with your very own fairy-land of talking snakes and miracle apples.

If you think you have proof that the world was physical only in Adam's day, give it to us now, or stop talking big.

Good, you've admitted that neither of us has any proof - but only in the creationist's definition of proof. It's spiritual realm vs. no spiritual realm, isn't it, since "physical only" is really just a Universe sans the spiritual realm you describe. And as far as I'm concerned, the spiritual realm is in the same basket as the Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee, an entity that has no evidence behind it but that someone still says exists. To say that I have no proof is like me challenging you to prove that the Rhinobee doesn't exist.

Hey if you invent a Rhinobee, and want to teach it to children as science, you better prove it exists! People who do that should not even be allowed in parks, near where children play!

So? Do it. Unless you're so closed-minded and cavemanish that you don't believe the Rhinobee exists. You don't have any evidence that it doesn't exist! I have this journal right here! Look, it says right here: "They hunted a Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee," and on the next line, "This is divinely inspired." Really! See, it's true! The Rhinobee is just hiding! But it will eventually come, and you'll be proved wrong, stupid caveman person!

Sounds like we need a restraining order if someone wants to teach that as science. You may personally believe in your strange creature if you like, and even that it spat out the little universe containing soup, if you want to. You may even believe the Rhinobee ensured that it was a physical only world, and always will be if it cranks your gears. But it is just your personal baseless belief.

Do you see how silly your arguments look now?

Perhaps your Rhinobee is having a good laugh? Guess it sure showed me a thing or two.

 

[AirPo]

You keep harping on my assumptions, dad, but you yourself are making some rather hefty assumptions, like that the Bible is true. What is wrong with the Universe being the same then, now, and later?

If you can prove it, nothing at all.

Well if that's all it takes why don't you start by proving your merged past.

What do you want, some moral reason, or other belief?

Just the facts sir.

 

[AirPo]

Unless you show something which breaks out of my theory and can be explained by yours, something which you have conclusively proven, is not subjective, and can be specifically cited, I don't have to worry myself with your unwarranted castles of spirits and myths.

I don't know about castles, but you need to ask yourself how indeed do you know it was always physical only, besides belief, and assumption.

Because the only thing that indicates otherwise is your story.

 

[dad]

In other words, your spiritual realm, since it can have any properties you want it to, not only proves itself via the Bible but also absorbs any evidence used against it. That's a "Goddidit" argument, and it is the height of intellectual laziness.

You are out gunned, thats true. But "Godidnotdoit" arguments are the height of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

Possibility is not proof. You keep harping on how we can't prove that the physical was all that was at work in the past, but we don't have to. YOU need to prove that your spiritual realm belongs in the basket with strawberries,

If you take your belief into the past or future you must demonstrate why we must do this. It's like saying there is a room at the end of the hall. If I say God is in it, and you say your rhinabee is in it, we will have to chalk it up to beliefs. In this case God is the spiritual, and your imaginary critter is the physical only past. Both need to be left out of physical, modern science. You can't piggyback your rhinobee belief on science. You cannot prove it existed.

and not in the basket with the Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee. If all we can observe now is physical, what else to assume was there in the past? Since we don't know for sure,

Then don't pretend you do!!!!!

we can say that there was spiritual, that there was mathematical, or that there were tiny pink fairies. Science is about analyzing what we know, not randomly stuffing religious beliefs into what we don't know.

Amen, so keep your PO past beliefs, and rhinobees out.

..It's okay to admit that no, we don't know for sure what it was like in the far past, but when we start assiging random speculations to it just because we don't know, we delve into the realm of insane mumbo jumbo.

My point, exactly! Keep rhiny, and your dark deathly baseless nightmare beliefs out of science!

Far better to imagine the past and future based on the present.

No. This leads to insane conclusions, because it is not at all true!

Don't we? I see no evidence to the contrary.

Look a little futher than in front of your face!

Really? Well, I think that your theory of God is a biased preference over my theory of Oscar the Grouch. What's your point?

Point is that assuming a physical only is a biased belief.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. This isn't proof, it isn't even a valid analogy. Oh wait, it's perfectly true under your spiritual science, because you can make your spiritual science whatever you want so you can just make it say that people don't die until their heads fall off.

That was a silly story to illustrate a point. Point is, or moral of the story is, that the evo oriented's time is very limited.

Sigh... you don't get it, do you? We make an educated guess about the past and future based on the present, because the present is what we know.

Yes, so stick to what you know. If you want educated guesses and beliefs about an unknown past and future, then you would need to educate yourself on something other than physical only!

If we say we don't know what happened in the past, therefore X and Y might be the case, then we might well believe in Oscar the Grouch producing the world from his trash can. You can't disprove it, can you? Use your brain a bit.

Depends what x and y are! And, regardless of what they are, since you only have assumptions and belief, keep it out of science class.

 

[Ledifni]

Sounds spooky, no idea what you're talking about, but has a certain ring to it!

See dad, that's your problem.

You have no idea what anyone's talking about... but they're wrong. You're quite sure of that, anyway.

 

[dad]

Well if that's all it takes why don't you start by proving your merged past.

Just the facts sir.

Beliefs need not be proved in science class, or is this news to you!?

 

[dad]

Because the only thing that indicates otherwise is your story.

Then I'm happy to be the one to break the news to you. It was not a physical only past, and it will not be a PO future. The only thing that indicates otherwise is your story, baseless, and dark, and Christless a belief as it is.

 

[Caphi]

If you can prove it, nothing at all. What do you want, some moral reason, or other belief?

The burden of proof is yours.

Yes, and your explanation has the whole darn universe shrink wrapped into some speck sized soup!

I see. So you're randomly pasting together expressions I used to make me look stupid. Childish, and totally inappropriate to the debate.

No. In fact, I would say that the "physical-only" model really leads to absurd conclusions, and is full of holes, and even the so called experts seem just to be a little more confused about things than Joe public. The merge explains all mankind's spiritual phenomena, rather than ignoring it, and pretending it does not exist! It also is a unified principle, and is not mystified in why quantum theory, and relativity don't match up!

What absurd conclusions? People die. The Sun goes out. That's not absurd, you just don't like it. Stop using emotional arguments.

I don't know about castles, but you need to ask yourself how indeed do you know it was always physical only, besides belief, and assumption.

And I need to ask you how you indeed you know that there is no Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee, besides belief and assumption.

That needn't concern you. We simply need to seek the simplest model, that has evidence. The big bang, and granny are not simple, but no one even knows how they supposedly came about exactly. They are just attempts at alligning reality to the physical only we now see, while religiously ignoring it is without any evidence, the underlying assumption that we must carry over today's Po into the past and future, because thats all we can see now.

We imagine the past and future by what we know, the present. You can't simply stuff your beliefs into something just because you don't know FOR SURE what's there. As it stands, belief that the past and future have the same basic characteristics is one that's doing just fine, so there's no reason to replace it with religious gobbledegook just because we "don't know" what was there.

Ockham's Razor tells me to seek the simplest model, and that means filing the belief that all there ever was was the physical only in the same box as phlogiston and the Fairy Queen. You just don't need it to explain the facts

You don't get it. A naturalistic Universe sans spiritual influence is the SIMPLER explanation. Since both your belief and mine, strictly speaking, explain what we know today, I take the simpler one. If we say that we can't project what we know today into the past and future, sure, we can bring up spiritual realms - or Oscar the Grouch. Such theories are only necessary if the simple story - that the Universe is uniform across time - doesn't measure up to reality or logic. But it does.

Not you personally, but mankind, and our present science. As you may realize, it can not even detect the known spiritual world, so, for those who push themselves away from the bible, and God's help, no, with their own puny devices, they cannot begin to get a clue!

The spiritual world is not known at all. It's as proven as the Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee, which science also can't detect, so of course, you cannot begin to get a clue of the Rhinobee's power!

You continue asserting the existence of something that you have not proven and which defies all forms of commonsense.

It isn't arrogance to understand spiritual men can understand some spiritual things, with the help of God, and the guidance of His word. Thems the simple facts.

No, it's just special pleading.

quote]Also, that, without His help, men cannot on their own detect or understand their way out of a paper box, is mere observation as well, and not arrogant.[/quote]

Are you sure? Because the scientific community has totally ignored God since separation of Church and Stage a few hundred years ago, and they seem to be understanding the world just fine.

It is arrogant to try to foist a belief that leads to insane conclusions, that is based on physical only, and has NO evidence, however!

You have no evidence, either. Physical-only, as you call it, is the explanation that works and is based on what we understand. If we discard it simply because we don't "know for sure" that it's true, that opens up the door for pixies, Oscar, and the Rhinobee. Thanks, I'm sticking with what works.

Why would I even try to cite that to someone who, if I am not mistaken, does not so much a believe in any spiritual? Or do you?

Don't try to wiggle out. I asked for your evidence, and you haven't given a shred. Now where's my Rhinobee basket?

Yes, but your arguements were merely that that was what you, and some others believed, without proof. It isn't my default. It is your belief.

Now, why should they not reach into the past and future? Well, why should they or shouldn't they is the question. Can you tell me why they should? Can you even tell me why they should not? Seems like all you can tell me, is what you believe!

Hah. You forget that neither of us, no matter what you say, has a definitive claim on reality. We can only argue what makes sense, what is most likely. And I say it's more reasonable to believe, until a real and provable alternative is given, that what we understand now applies to the entire Universe of space and time. If we discard that maxim, to apply the known to the unknown, then we can just stuff anything we want into the realm of the unknown - muppets, Rhinobees, and the Bible. And that's exactly what you're doing. You've decided to take something you don't know for sure about, the past, and rather than applying what you DO know, viz. the present, you fill it up with the Bible and then argue that since you don't know, it just might be. I don't know for sure what happened either, so why not say that Oscar the Grouch dug the Universe out of his trash can, and he's going to eat it for lunch? You can't disprove it, right?

It is only part of physical only life. There is no death, or sickness, or decaying, in the past, and coming merged universe. People have come back even from the dead, and told us about what is coming. (Already there, in a sense, but let's not get too fancy here)

You haven't proved your merged Universe, and I haven't heard of anyone coming back from the dead. Source and proof, please.

Tell you what, you ease up on Ockie, I'll ease up on the Almighty! Besides, Ocky is gone, and dead as a doonail. The Almighty is alive and well.

Ockham's Razor is a logical principle which doesn't lose any of its validity merely because its creator is dead. Your Almighty is worse than dead - he hasn't even been shown to exist.

That means without base. Without proof. Without foundation. A belief that there always was and will be only the physical is baseless.

Logically, it's got more base than the belief in the spiritual realm.

What makes any child believe what he or she is taught? I don't know, but they seem to generally be quite moldable. If you plan to teach them they are doomed, and this death and decay of the physical only is all they have to look forward to, and is all that ever was in our world, then you better have some proof.

Go first. It's more logical to apply our certainties (about the present) to the unknowns than to apply our fantasies (like the Bible) to the unknown. If, as you say, we really do know nothing about the past, then why not Oscar? Why not argue that the world came into existence on my third birthday, since that's all I know for a fact? If we're going to assume anything to the unknown, why not the known?!

The spirit world is not created by men, or imagination, and has always been well known. Deny it at your own mental peril. The physical only is very limited, and certainly has it's boundries, just as a box does. No one says there is some real cardboard box that contains the universe, or some such foolishness. Remember who it is that thinks the whole universe was in a little teensy speck sized soup! You!

That's exactly what the spirit world has been created by. If it has always been well-known, there should be consistent reports about it. Instead, we have a few thousand distinct religions, all proclaiming to know what the spiritual world is like, and all in almost perfect contradiction to one another. If there is a real spirit world, explain the diversity of religion.

No sense arguing that here, your mind is made up. I guess us billions of people who think that there are angels, ghosts, esp, healings, heaven, God, spirits, etc. are all delusional in your book. I'm not here to get you to pull your head out of the sand, but just to demonstrate it is in there!

Billions? Bull. There are about 1.9 billion individuals calling themselves christians circa 2000 (The Vatican Yearbook), and how many of those do you think literally believe the Bible? How many of those do you think believe in angels and ghosts? Meanwhile, there are a thousand or so other religions in existence, not to mention all the sects and cults, and all of them have almost mutually exclusive descriptions of your spiritual. Why is the Bible so special?

Hey if you invent a Rhinobee, and want to teach it to children as science, you better prove it exists! People who do that should not even be allowed in parks, near where children play!

Good job! Now change "Rhinobee" to "spiritual world" and you understand my position perfectly.

Sounds like we need a restraining order if someone wants to teach that as science. You may personally believe in your strange creature if you like, and even that it spat out the little universe containing soup, if you want to. You may even believe the Rhinobee ensured that it was a physical only world, and always will be if it cranks your gears. But it is just your personal baseless belief.

What are you talking about? I have holy, proven books and billions of personal experiences with the Rhinobee! You have to prove that it doesn't exist, otherwise it's just a stupid dream. </mock>

By the way, dad, I'm emulating your arguments as faithfully as I can, merely replacing "Bible" and "spiritual" with "Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee." Any refutation you make relating to that argument, you make relating to yours. There really is no difference at all, except that your book is older.

Perhaps your Rhinobee is having a good laugh? Guess it sure showed me a thing or two.

It should. The Rhinobee, as well as Oscar the Grouch, is a point-to-point analogy of your assertions. Amount of evidence and all.

 

[AirPo]

How do you know there WAS?

That needn't concern you.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

We simply need to seek the simplest model, that has evidence.

Your spirit model has no evidence.

The big bang, and granny are not simple, but no one even knows how they supposedly came about exactly. They are just attempts at alligning reality to the physical only we now see,

Which is how it is supposed to work. Observe reality, attempt to explain it, test explaination, repeat.

while religiously ignoring it is without any evidence, the underlying assumption that we must carry over today's Po into the past and future, because thats all we can see now.

Because there is nothing to support doing otherwise.

 

[Caphi]

You are out gunned, thats true. But "Godidnotdoit" arguments are the height of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

Of course. As opposed to creating your very own science that explains itself by circular logic and eats all evidence thrown at it just because of the way you made it up, I'M being intellectually lazy. That's a laugh.

If you take your belief into the past or future you must demonstrate why we must do this. It's like saying there is a room at the end of the hall. If I say God is in it, and you say your rhinabee is in it, we will have to chalk it up to beliefs. In this case God is the spiritual, and your imaginary critter is the physical only past. Both need to be left out of physical, modern science. You can't piggyback your rhinobee belief on science. You cannot prove it existed.

All right, this time I'm going to respond using dad's logic.

<dad hat>

Exactly! Beliefs! It's your BELIEF that the Rhinobee doesn't exist, but you can't prove it doesn't exist! All you have are your tortured dreams of a Rhinobee-less existence, which is nothing but closed-mindedness! Don't you realize that your spiritual science can't even cope with the Rhinobee? Boy, you'll be surprised when he comes out of hiding and tramples your towns!

Amen, so keep your PO past beliefs, and rhinobees out.

I still don't see how a PO-Universe is somehow insufficient to describe reality.

My point, exactly! Keep rhiny, and your dark deathly baseless nightmare beliefs out of science!

No, keep your Bible out of science. Without factual knowledge, we assume that the unknown behaves along the rules of the known. When we throw out this maxim and start assigning religious beliefs to what is strictly speaking "unknown," we start breaking down logic. That's what you're doing. When I find a closed box that I can't open, I assume that it's something which follows the realities I know, be it a squirrel or an atom bomb. I don't decide that since I don't know what's in it, it's probably Thumbelina, who I think is true because it's in one of my sister's picture books. Yet that's what you're doing.

No. This leads to insane conclusions, because it is not at all true!

You keep blathering on about insane and absurd conclusions, but I have yet to hear one thing science, or if you prefer, physical science, predicts that could not possibly happen according to the physical laws which you say aren't true anyway. You've got a terribly confusing position with nothing behind it, dad.

Point is that assuming a physical only is a biased belief.

No, it's a logical belief based on analyzing the unknown based on the unknown. See the cardboard box example above.

That was a silly story to illustrate a point. Point is, or moral of the story is, that the evo oriented's time is very limited.

How does your cute, if utterly nonsensical, story prove evolution theory's fall? Or are you just making threats like Samus?

Depends what x and y are! And, regardless of what they are, since you only have assumptions and belief, keep it out of science class.

It does not depend on what X and Y are. They might be God and Allah, or they might be pixies and purple elephants. The point is that rather than assigning random religious beliefs to something just because it's unknown, we should think about the unknown in the frame of what we know. If society thought like you did, arbitrarily generating myths for every tiny hole in knowledge, we'd still be marking our maps, "HERE THERE BE DRAGONS." Thankfully, scientists recognized their capacity for theory and abstract thought and came up with a reasonable model which, along with some annexes and slight adjustments, we still use today, and which you are trying to tear down on the false basis of 1/1 certainty.

 

[AirPo]

Then I'm happy to be the one to break the news to you. It was not a physical only past, and it will not be a PO future.

And your know that how? You don't, it's just a story.

The only thing that indicates otherwise is your story, baseless, and dark, and Christless a belief as it is.

Except, of course, the reality that surrounds us.

 

[AirPo]

Ockham's Razor tells me to seek the simplest model, and that means filing the spiritual realm in the same box as phlogiston and the Fairy Queen. You just don't need it to explain the facts!

Ockham's Razor tells me to seek the simplest model, and that means filing the belief that all there ever was was the physical only in the same box as phlogiston and the Fairy Queen. You just don't need it to explain the facts

I do not get the imperssion that you know what Ockham's Razor means. The PO model is a sufficient explaination in and of itself. The merged model has superfluous information. Ockham's Razor tells us that the model without the superfluous information is the better one.

However, Ockham's razor is not really apropriate here since is it assumes two equally valid models. Since the merged model has no evidence other than storytelling, we do not have to go to Ockham's razor to tell us that the PO model is better.

 

[Caphi]

However, Ockham's razor is not really apropriate here since is it assumes two equally valid models. Since the merged model has no evidence other than storytelling, we do not have to go to Ockham's razor to tell us that the PO model is better.

True. But, since he's gone down to questioning core precepts of logic, evidence, and indeed, faith, I feel that I should use the Razor lest he accuse me of making baseless assertions - or, more annoying, lest someone else accuse me of "denying their faith" or whatever words are used to cloak the persecution complex these days.

 

[dad]

The burden of proof is yours.

If I claimed that the world had a physical only past and future, it would be. You are the one doing the claiming.

 

[dad]

However, Ockham's razor is not really apropriate here since is it assumes two equally valid models. Since the merged model has no evidence other than storytelling, we do not have to go to Ockham's razor to tell us that the PO model is better.

No, you have to go straight to pure baseless belief! Cut to the chase.

 

[Caphi]

If I claimed that the world had a physical only past and future, it would be. You are the one doing the claiming.

What kind of bizarro world are you living in? YOU are the one who created this topic for the purpose of endorsing your pseudoscience.

 

[AirPo]

If I claimed that the world had a physical only past and future, it would be.

Incorrect. You claimed a merged model and offered nothing other than storytelling. I'm sorry, but claiming your claim is not proof.

 

[AirPo]

No, you have to go straight to pure baseless belief! Cut to the chase.

Which is the PO model. Maybe you do get Oackham's.

 

[dad]

And your know that how? You don't, it's just a story.
Except, of course, the reality that surrounds us.

If someone is in jail, the walls that surround them do not surround the universe. Any joker can sit in the box, and say anything else outside is a story. But if that joker tells us of his baseless belief that all that exists is the physical only in an unknown past and future, then said joker is merely telling a story with no proof. If you want to claim that earth's future and past were physical only, then you need something more than twiddling your thumbs and trying to piggyback a ride on actual science, which is observable, and testable. How do we test your belief that all that ever existed was the physical only? We can't!!!!!! So get your baseless fairy tale stories out of science class!