Physical.

Anybody who prefers digital should be shot.

And property owners do know what they're doing?

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 08, 2014, 01:36:54 PM

Quote from: Lady Noelle on October 08, 2014, 01:26:39 PM

Your philosophy teacher is correct.

People should be prosecuted for offending others?

Totally, it would make things interesting.

That offends me.

Enjoy your 3-year prison sentence, scrub.

If you are all powerful, then how can you turn back time? How can you pause time? How can you make things out of nothing? How do you create yourself? How do you see everything that is going on?

There are theological answers to all of those questions. Not convincing, obviously, but I can't be bothered to run through them to be honest.

Why even debate it?

Because so many people act as if it were true.

And then we have schoolgirls being shot at and abortion clinics being bombed.

Time is just a concept that humans invent

I made a thread about this in Serious, but I figured I might as well shift it here too and remove all the political fluff.

Essentially, this teacher is very shouty and in your face naturally (she also teaches drama) and we got into quite a heated discussion today. She essentially advocated the idea that people who intend to offend others should be prosecuted. I found this deeply offensive (intellectually, not emotionally) and called her out on it.

She accused me of shouting at her and then said she wouldn't ever change her mind on the issue because she'd thought about it and decided it, and kept re-asserting her right to it. After we left the lesson, I saw her go into the faculty room and heard her say to my other philosophy teacher "I could've punched Ashton in the face during that lesson".

I'm fuc­king pissed off now.

Talk about shitty teachers.

Quote from: Flee on October 08, 2014, 07:08:49 AM

absolute certainty, which is virtually impossible to achieve,

Well existence is absolutely certain.

It's still subject to gradation. You can have idealists and materialists on the spectrum, with solipsists and eliminativists at the extreme.

Then of course you have the nihilists who claim that existence lacks a qualitative valuing system, and therefore cannot be meaningful in any sense of the word.

Right, but not God himself. That's a pretty big jump to go from observing something you think God is responsible for, to claiming he exists/is responsible for that thing.

Not really. The things they apparently observe him doing necessitate some sort of omnipotent deity, and the nature of the things would seem to confirm his omni-benevolence. Adjudicating some actions are done by God isn't a huge leap because such actions could only be performed by such a being.

I'm not saying they're correct by any measure, I'm just saying the Bible offers us some fairly testable ideas about God which can reasonably be falsified. I don't know why you'd resist this since, if anything, it aids in pointing out their delusion.

But that's the thing about proving the existence of God - by definition, he is unobservable and undetectable. Your other examples rely on observation and/or detection.

That's not true at all. The Catholic Church claims to observe God's actions all of the time. A theistic deity is necessarily involved in the world, and the repercussions of its actions should be evident - especially in the case of Yahweh.

My argument is that what we do observe about the Universe and our planet doesn't at all map on to what we should see.

If you are certain 2 + 2 = 4, then yes.

Obviously.

Are you certain the laws of physics are correct, even if not complete?

What the hell kind of question is that? Am I certain the Universe operates according to certain principles?

Well Meta, are you certain that 2 + 2 = 4?

Yes because it is, by definition, correct.

1 is 1 because 1 equals 1.

Ben Affleck was promoting Gone Girl.

You can be pretty certain the abrahamic god doesn't exist. To say you're certain any sort of supernatural deity doesn't exist is where the folly lies.