Reply to thread

I have ample experience of your nonsense. Do you expect me to suffer them quietly as well?




Is this some sort of agnostic logic no one has ever heard of?


I'm saying that NOT ALL EMPIRICAL TRUTHS ARE NECESSARILY QUANTIFIABLE IN SCIENCE.


And going a step further -- NOT ALL EMPIRICAL TRUTHS ARE NECESSARILY SENSORY.


And if we can assert the above regarding empirical truths with a fair amount of certainty, what more do you expect from a metaphysical or ontological truth, hmmm?




Eh? Not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Must be some obscure agnostic logic that can only be written in very fine print.


Are you suggesting that your belief in your political or judicial system, for instance, is an emotional thing? Perhaps it gives you a hard-on speculating it?




You mean the way judaism began? Or buddhism? Or any of the animistic religion we see presently?




You mean the way two people will never see the same thing in an ink blot? Or perhaps different ways to write a computer program to do the exact same thing? Or perhaps using different symbols to express the same mathematical theorem?




Different manifestations of a singular immutable truth. What's so hard to understand, hmmm?




Did you think I was criticizing you for maintaining an open mind?


What the cosmological argument say -- that there must be a first cause -- is entirely consistent with the assertions of physical cosmology -- that the universe started from a finite point in time.


What ontology says about the nature of the first cause is no more or less than what physical cosmologists say about the nature of the space-time singularity they believe the universe came from.


So, we have proven the EXISTENCE of the same thing (by two very different routes) whose nature, is largely indeterminate.


Now, try employing your 'open mind' to that and just shove your agnosticism where the sun doesn't shine.




And the trailer park analogy didn't make sense the last time.




I speak to boneheads who don't know their head from their a$$, and consistently confuse their respective functions.


Certainly nothing more. Hopefully, nothing less.


Back
Top