God is a logical conclusion.

Your little rant about what belief and faith are and how they work is like listening to a 3year old giving his/her dissertation on brain surgery. Remember, you are the one who abandoned faith.

As for the knowledge thing... well, just remember, even scientists lean on 'intuition' as a source of 'KNOWLEDGE'.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/ Interesting comments that include some relating to 'intuition'.

 

Please provide definitions, verifiable and reproducible, for the words "yeppir" and "thinggie"?
Who has said they are locked in a box?
Who is on a playing field, and how does it fit in a house?
Who has been talking about the color of cookware?

You see how anyone that is inclined toward idiocy can play your games?
Answer all these questions or declare yourself the clown you have consistently represented on these boards.

 

And yet you don't refute anything I said.
I certainly abandoned faith as a resource of knowledge. It isn't relevant to it.

 

"The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance, and this Einfühlung [literally, empathy or 'feeling one's way in'] is developed by experience."

Sure, intuition... based on experience that can be replicated.

 

Both are slang expressions... the one for 'Yes sir' the other for "thing".

I said that they were locked in a box.

Me and Graspingforpeace... no-one said anything about the playing field fitting in a house... that is your distorted imagination. "House rules" is another colloquial expression meaning the rules established by the facility (usually a gambling casino where such term is commonly used).

I was.

Well, I answered your questions so they must not have been too filled with idiocy unless you are presenting yourself as one who plays such games.

You lose.

 

Being replicated is again a personal thing with regard to intuition and I have replicated intuitive thoughts by recall. But thanks for the acknowledgment.

 

The refutation was displayed in my comparison of your statements with the dissertations of a 3 year old on the subject of brain surgery.

 

But that's not a refutation.
It's a tantrum.
Make an argument.

 

No, being replicated is not a personal thing as dictated by the scientific method.

 

The first two are not citations or verifiable. Fail.

Since you are using commonly used slang expressions and admitting it, will you agree to stop using that stupid attack on people when you see them doing the same thing? Can you agree to retiring at least this one childish waste of bandwidth that you use repeatedly?

This previous post of mine is an example of satire. It was exceedingly stupid, wasn't it? Do you want me to post a LONG list of you doing these things and wasting everyone's time that has the misfortune of stumbling on your posts?

Or are you ready to become an adult?

 

That is correct. Replication can be done by a disinterested third party. It is verifiable, which faith obviously is not.

 

And by the way, you HAVE to stop using Einstein to try to justify your views, he was probably one of the harshest critics of religion during his time.

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[8] And to Eric Gutkind he wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

 

Actually, if you re-read what I posted, the context of what I was pointing at Einstein was saying was focused on the intuition subject. I simply did not want to take the time to cherry pick the quotes out of the lot of them. So he did not hold a reverence toward God... he makes this obvious in the quote that you provided... on the other hand, the quote you provided did not make an emphatic statement that God does not exist.... He merely stated his opinion based on his feelings about the subject of God.

 

So now you are saying that the scientific method can replicate personal experiences such as 'intuition'?

 

So Zeus, thor, etc do exist? It can't be proven they don't. Hare christna? Buddah? et el?

 

Well of course they exist... you are making reference to them: are you telling a lie about them when using their titles?

 

The question that is trying to be answered is, What came first, the chicken or the egg? Only what you believe to be true, is actually true. As no one can prove with 100% certainty which came 1st.

 

So zeus produces the thunder. That's what I thought too!

 

The egg. Dinosaurs laid eggs before chickens were invented.

 

The egg.

1) The first chicken hatched from an egg laid by something that was not a chicken.

2) Chickens were domesticated sometime within the last 8,000 years. Animals were laying eggs at least 200 million years earlier.

 

Gee... then you figured out that the scientists were wrong for so many years. Amazing accomplishment on your part.

 

Another amazing display of conscious awareness. Bravo.

 

Thread is over 500 posts. Feel free to start another.


Thanks
Shangrila
Site Moderator