Desertphile writes “YET ANOTHER FINE EXAMPLE”

Be grateful I am here to give you something to talk about 🙂

YET ANOTHER FINE EXAMPLE:

———-

Michael 2
October 6, 2016

Desertphile writes “no matter how desperately he wants to”

Why do you assume I am a “he”?

BBD writes “A forensic pathologist could confirm the details.”

To some degree, yes, by inspecting residue if any exists.

But that merely moves the point of faith from what you claim to be true to that of the forensic pathologist making claims.

If he saved some samples, then you can inspect the samples, but now you have the problem of having faith that it came from you.

As you can see, it is likely that all people operate on faith regularly; using some things known for sure, by you, to anchor many things accepted on faith.

I sense that we are converging on understanding and that you assume that I am more opponent of your beliefs than is actually the case.

Therefore while you know what you ate you cannot prove it to anyone else.

A forensic pathologist could confirm the details.

The problem here is that you are flat-out wrong (again) and (again) are too dishonest to admit it in good faith.

As a consequence, your discourse is worthless.

Wow writes “Well, he can’t logically know, but he can have belief.”

Trivially true. I do not know things by logic. Logic starts with what you know, massages it in various ways, to argue for the existence of a thing you don’t know. But logic is not the foundation of what you know to start with.

i believe what I know. The alternative seems to be to NOT believe what I know, and that seems strange to me. Not impossible, but strange. Many of your arguments seem strange.

Knowledge implies or includes belief, but belief does not imply (or exclude) knowledge.

Logic is useful in understanding faith. You start with something you know, and through the processes of logic arrive at something you don’t know, but have faith “must be so” because of the proper application of logic to knowledge.

Wow, straining at gnats, writes “There’s people out there who KNOW they’re Napoleon”

Likely so. “There are 9,706 people in the U.S. with the first name Napoleon.”
[http]://howmanyofme.com/people/Napoleon_Harris/

“They’re wrong, but hell, they know different, because they’re bloody lunatics.”

No, they are simply named Napoleon.

“After all, where would M2 be without…”

No matter where I go, there I am.

BBD writes “Since there is no empirical evidence for (or against) the existence of God, you cannot know that God exists.”

I see. Do you know what you had for supper yesterday? I will assume “yes”. Is there any empirical evidence of it NOW? Probably not. You could perhaps produce some empty packaging, but that is proof only of empty packaging. It is evidence of a meal, but proof only of packaging.

Therefore while you know what you ate you cannot prove it to anyone else. This may be surprisingly normal; how little of everything you know can actually be proved to another person.

I have asked many times but I’ll probably die of boredom or old age before an atheist answers the simple question of what exactly would you accept as “empirical evidence” for God? While we are at it, perhaps a definition of God would be appropriate since some are more likely than others. Perhaps a definition is itself not appropriate; it’s just a word used to describe the “things not seen” for which evidence exists.

I have in the past used a metaphor of two fish, one arguing for the existence of “water” and the other mocking the first. The one asserting “water” is curious and scientific; accepting the challenge of proving the thing that is everywhere present. The other’s purpose in life is to mock. It hardly matters what or who.

“Your assertion that it does is an act of faith (look up the definition of faith, M2).”

Yes, let us look up the definition.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” [https]://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A1&version=KJV

The evidence of things not seen. The packaging from your last meal is evidence, the meal itself is no longer visible. Scars on a lightning rod are evidence of a thing no longer seen and certainly not presentable to other people.

HOWEVER, what M2 is trying to pretend is somehow that faith that makes you “know” god is real is the same as evidence that lets you “know” that electrons all have the same electrostatic charge. Which is, as BBD says, bollocks.

After all, where would M2 be without the pointless lies to promote more argument for the moronic troll to prattle around in self-resplendant idiocy?!?!

Stop posting bollocks.

Obstreperous Applesauce wrote “What Desertphile said! That’s it in a nutshell: Bad faith.”

I see that you are still ignoring me 😉

Now, back on topic. These past few comments should illustrate why the United States is unlikely to “catch up” to goals a few persons set for everyone else. People are not the same. Really, really not the same. The Unitted States in particular was populated from all other nations and self-selected because the ancestors of Americans did not fit into the societies of Europe primarily.

Australia is somewhat similar but drawn primarily only from England.

The result is that insufficient number of “sheep” exist in the United States for a small cabal to control. You can do that in Europe, but not the US. Not yet. Coming soon to a theater near you however.