Search results

I don't make such assumptions. My point is that I stick to my provisional truths (useful analytical statements / empirical hetero-phenomenological experiences) and say that everything outside of that is meaningless as I simply have no way to construct meaning about any of it, so it may as well...

Transcendence is a human construct?

You don't understand what the scientists are talking about, for starters they only ever talk about the beggining of time for our observable universe. It is very well possible that there is something beyond this which is simply unobservable to us... Take for instance 'cosmic microwave background...

God is very obviously a human construction, now whether there actually is a God of some type is another question... but your 'idea' of God is without a doubt nothing more than your construction. You are a being living in a reality of provisional truths trying to make assumptions about the nature...

I don't make that mistake tbh. I accept that we do not 'know enough about nature' to make final conclusions about the nature of objective truth, but I do think we have provisional truths which work as well as anything and actually tell us something meaningful about our reality as best we know...

Yes and such a belief is equal to claiming the 'nature of such a thing' is the flying spaghetti monster. There is no acceptable epistemology imo that could lead you to accept the existence of 'god' (idk what you mean by that, it may just be white noise) as the nature of such a creator over any...

I'd prefer the atheist label, if only because I would also say that no red zebra's exist. But tbh it matters little to me other than than as a somewhat political statement... Philosophically I see little difference between the unknown and the non-existent, that which is unknown to us may as well...

Ultimately I'm agnostic just as ultimately I'm a skeptic about all our knowledge. I believe in provisional truths i.e. If we existed in 1388 and after doing an extensive survey of the known lands found all swans were white, then it would be a provisional truth that all swans are white. Now...

My dad had cancer, he ate a whole bunch of pasta, cured. Simple. FSM works.

The 'FSM' is one interpretation of what the creator may be... If your argument rests upon 'something created our universe' but you don't provide any explanation at all about the nature of such a thing then this doesn't seem at all to me to be proof of god (even if I accepted it) but merely proof...

The second argument you mocked there is probably the only real atheist argument and it's actually a fairly good one. You can mock it all you like but tbh that's all I've ever seen from you when you enter this debate and it's pretty boring. I don't know what all atheists are 'saying' in regard...

It's actually a good one mate... In the end your religion is no better than the FSM. Even if I were to go as far as to conceed a supernatural, intelligent and personal origin for our universe.

Huh? By "a noun" do they perhaps mean that there was at least "a noun" in a bunch of examples he gave which 90% of the students missed? Because I find it truly unlikely that 90% of students do not know what a noun is.

WHAT isn't appropriate for adults to view? Child Porn?

I'd disagree with these goals, but even if they were your goals... getting rid of the state's judiciary seems to be throwing away the baby with the bath water just to get the baby back again. You can be perfectly rational and not know what is best for you simply as time is in scarce supply and...

So do you personally think there can be no 'just' coercion? What if I am coercing you to do something which leaves you with qualitative better freedom? Was it really better for me to let you be and enjoy some some qualitatively worse, but quantitatively greater freedom? The reason for my...

I think it very well may... as I feel most government if privatised would eventually come back. I'm not sure what the difference is between a supreme private authority and a supreme state authority. Unless you just mean that plaintiffs will have to pay to have their cases heard etc and no taxes...

While I don't think that's an accurate picture in reality of our government (though perhaps somewhat on paper), I accept that we cannot eliminate the power of large blocs of people. All I can say is that it seems to me for it to be mutually beneficial for all these blocs (including the...

James hardies kills off 50,000 Australians using unsafe practices. All those people launch a case against them by starting up their own court... now they don't agree to accept these people's court. So what happens is these people have to set up a private army (or police force maybe a better...

Who does this? A private army? It seems to me that under such a system it's likely that the whims of powerful blocs are going to end up being more important than an individuals' rights. I'd much rather us all be under the whim of the most powerful 'bloc' which we are all as individuals taken to...