Stephen Fry calls God an ‘evil, capricious, monstrous maniac’

yet more semantic nonsense from you. Are you truly ignorant of such a foundational element of science as empirical evidence?

http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play.

Before any piece of empirical data is collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence


How long were you in attendance at klown Kollege?

 

Are you truly ignorant of such a foundational information regarding the scientific method as to NOT know and realize that the scientific method is founded upon assumptions... assumptions that have never been proven to be true? The scientific method begins with those three assumptions and without those three assumptions there is no scientific method.

I never was in attendance at that college, however you having knowledge of such college, it must be you that was in attendance there. Did you graduate?

 

Mister Fry speaks the truth. Anyone who has that much power that allows all of the hate and suffering in the world, equates to a kid shaking an ant farm.

Incorpreal, are you a Christian?

 

That question has already been answered dude. You need to read the postings before you write absurdities.

 

What do the assumptions underlying the scientific method have to do with your ignorance of the meaning of empirical evidence? Oh right NOTHING.

Infantile wit becomes you.

 

Quite the contrary. Why place any credibility on 'empirical evidence' when as you stated it is part of the scientific method, which I stated (and have evidence of) that the scientific method is laid to waste in knowing that it (the scientific method) is founded upon assumptions that have never been proven to be true, and without those assumptions the use of the scientific method would not be justified?

Going to continue with the personal attacks I see. Be mindful that it is likely that you will hear from a Moderator regarding such conduct.

 

Once again you attempt to either misrepresent or misinterpret.

The assumptions of "methodological naturalism" do not in any way shape or form render the validity of the scientific method or other methodologies employed in pursuit of science invalid.

Those philosophical assumptions are that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world.

As it is, there are a number of other philosophies wrt science and its methods, but NONE OF THEM "lay to waste" the normative value of the scientific method.

Not at all, merely commenting on the quality of your attempts at posting witty remarks, which seem infantile.
Perhaps I was mistaken in my assumption that it is a deliberate ploy on your part?

 

Those assumptions state that 'objective reality is assumed to exist': Beyond that there are two other assumptions that are based entirely on the acceptance of the first assumption. All three assumptions are also declared to be necessary in order to justify the use of the scientific method. So, until you and those others, who are gullible enough to accept a man made notion as true without proof, can show the PROOF of the existence of 'objective reality', all you are spewing forth is smoke and mirrors for those that are more gullible than you.

Remember. Proof is defined as 'evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.' That simply means that if you find someone gullible enough to accept your argument as true (or your evidence as true), then to that person, it is true and is proof. It is all about presenting a convincing argument or presenting a convincing evidence. So far, on this forum, you and others have failed in convincing me either by evidence or argument or even logical argument that your assertions are true. So keep trying.... maybe one day you or someone else will find that evidence or argument that will compel my mind to accept your assertions as true.

Any assumption is more than likely not going to be accurate, because as soon as you admit that it is an assumption you lose all credibility of being able to support it with PROOF.

 

lol "Incorpreal, are you a Christian?" is a absurdity? I think you need to open you dictionary back up.

 

Negative. I reviewed all 29 pages and you in fact did not state whether or not you are a Christian. So you are a liar!

 

Absolutely amazing.

words fail me in the face of an argument so intellectually superior it soars beyond objective reality, into the realm of batcrap crazy.


.

 

Yes! Your arguments are "batcrap crazy"

 

I think that if you were really interested in knowing the answer to that question, that you would read all of my posts... not just in this thread... but in threads where the same question was asked as a result of your adamant but obnoxious manner of asking. As an example. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=385118&p=1064736254#post1064736254

So, yes! The question you asked is an absurdity because of your manner of demanding... That don't work with me.

 

Why do you encourage people to demean you (not that you need much help), Nigel?

I don't like to see people of mature years carry on like pork chops when it's not in a spirit of good natured play.

 

Ahh... calling me a "liar" is good natured play? Did you perhaps miss that posting relating to the same subject matter? Calling me "nigel" is also "good natured play"? Perhaps using your screen name in a manner I am hoping you were not intending it to be used, could also be considered "good natured play" when the manner I have in mind would be demeaning to you.?

 

His gross error in logic and observation was shown to the whole world, so now you come to his rescue by attempting to make me feel something? Too bad... you lose.

 

Oh i see, the old "I'm insulted, so you're wrong" tactic.

 

Oh I see, the old projection routine. Gotcha.

 

?
Everything you say is your assumptions based upon what you believe comes directly from the Holy Spirit, isn't it?

What is the point of denying that science seems to support Genesis for people who accept ZScience?

You are intent on saying Science must be wrong, because you don't see tge support it gives Genesis, even tho' I write it out for you.
Why?

Are you trying to make Science wrong and the Bible not agree with Science?

 

On the contrary. Nothing I say about science has anything to do with the Holy Spirit. It is all secular knowledge garnered from reading information about science.

Is the "Z" a typo or is that another branch of Science? I cannot answer the question until I am certain as to the Z issue is cleared up.

No! I am intent on saying that the use of the scientific method is based on a set of particular assumptions: the first of which has never been proven to be true... to wit: The first assumption is that objective reality exists. Therefore your "Why?" is inapplicable as it is based on an incorrect assumption on your part: Your assumption of what I am intent upon saying.

No! What specifically is "wrong"? I do believe that the terms 'right' and 'wrong' are ambiguous.

 

That is just more evidence that this god, the qualities and description of him was straight out of the creative brain of man. It doesn't do justice to a creative force that created the universe, and if it does exist, is outside of time, so impossible to know much about it, much less being able to ascribe common human qualities and behavior to IT.

This is what happens when man tries to describe what the human brain cannot describe. So it falls back on what it knows, and what it knows are other humans, and their behavior. So the god will reflect the culture which created it. This doesn't mean a Creator doesn't exist, just that man has created self serving images of THAT, and then the killing begins.

 

Christ said, "I am the Truth,"... the way and the life.

In John 14, Jesus specifically tells Philip that Christ is Truth, as a personification for us to see.
He explains that the "Father" is Reality, which is the image of Truth and visa versa.

Men CAN understand Reality if they use Truth to discover it.
But you are right, that we can not "explain" Reality at all.

 

Provide a scripture which states what you have claimed.

 

John 14:6 through the whole rest of the chapter explains that Christ is Truth, itself.
In John 14:7 Philip asks Jesus to explain how he is the Truth.

Jesus explains it like this:

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
He that hath seen me, (Truth, i.e.; John 14:6), hath seen the Father, (i.e.; who MUST be Reality, then);
and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

 

I have never argued that Jesus is 'truth'. However, your insertion into the scripture via the parentheses, is not showing a scripture that plainly states that Jesus or God is the equivalent of 'Reality'. Be sensible and quit with the private interpretations.