• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Kent Hovind Is Out Of Jail ...

Paranoid Android

Active Member
Sophomoric gambits like this make it clear you don't have any. Hardly a surprise.


.


You haven't offered any proof thay what you see corresponds with what actually is out there. What independent, verifiable proof do you have ? Because I can't trust what you see, hear, taste or feel. That is all interpreted by your brain. How do I know what you perceive corresponds with reality ? I don't.
So, I must insist on a verifiable, independent way to know reality. An example is you are made of atoms. Do you see the atoms ? No. But scientific evidence have been given for their existence. I must insist that the method you use must be verifiable and independent.

Nice ad hominem.
 

Paranoid Android

Active Member
No more than you deserve. But let me make a guess here. Your in your 1st, maybe 2nd week of an introductory philosophy 101 course. No need to confirm.


.


You still haven't offered an independent, verifiable test to prove your assertion is true. What test will you use ?
 

jojom

Active Member
You still haven't offered an independent, verifiable test to prove your assertion is true. What test will you use ?

Which assertion is that,


A) I 'd ask for evidence.

B) Sophomoric gambits like this make it clear you don't have any.

C) Hardly a surprise.

D) No more than you deserve.

E) You're in your 1st, maybe 2nd week of an introductory philosophy 101 course.

F) No need to confirm.


.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What if I told you the world as it seems too you is simply a mental picture that your mind makes up ? That what you see and perceive is not really the real world, but you're interpretation of the real world ?

In a certain aspectual manner, such can be used as a valid argument based on sensory limitations alone, yet there are still tanagble interactions that a belief or claim alone cannot possibly meet, of what can be considered as an interaction in a conventional sense, and that which lacks interaction, conversely remains strictly conceptual in nature.

Such a statement tends to be hopelessly locked within the realms of thought, notably lacking the required interaction by which a person establishes what is factual and what remains mental in the first place.

By saying something is entirely a mental picture alone, would actually fall short by which we distinguish and determine things like this.
 

Paranoid Android

Active Member
In a certain aspectual manner, such can be used as a valid argument based on sensory limitations alone, yet there are still tanagble interactions that a belief or claim alone cannot possibly meet, of what can be considered as an interaction in a conventional sense, and that which lacks interaction, conversely remains strictly conceptual in nature.

Such a statement tends to be hopelessly locked within the realms of thought, notably lacking the required interaction by which a person establishes what is factual and what remains mental in the first place.

By saying something is entirely a mental picture alone, would actually fall short by which we distinguish and determine things like this.


There is a way to know. According to Dementheology, humans are not in tune to reality. When they DO see reality, people think there insane. In fact, most prophets in the Tanhk suffered from "mental illness". Though I would argue they were struck by seeing things for what they TRULY are, and did not have the vocabulary or experience to frame there experience.
 

philbo

High Priest of Cynicism

outhouse

Atheistically
According to Dementheology, humans are not in tune to reality.

Personal faith is personal, unless you can provide credible sources, you carry ZERO weight in any debate here.

What your stating is just in your mind, and the rest of the world moves forward not following that absurdity.
 
That's a new one to me. What makes him think that the Big Bang had any net angular momentum in the first place?
The fact that there is no absolute center of the universe means that there is no direction in which angular momentum could be calculated.
 
Top