You see how I'm talking calmly and only giving my own beliefs and you continue to attack me due to your own arrogance? Enlightening......it's almost like I'm talking to one of my bible thumping red neck hick relatives. Hue.

yes, I am.

I do not need to dance around the topic like OP

I do not open my mind to claims without evidence.

This post was edited by Vocaloid on Dec 6 2013 05:11pm

You haven't attacked me once because you're so calm and righteous? You haven't insinuated that my ideas are wrong and that your ideas are right? really? you haven't? so enlightening, no wonder you're related to red neck bible thumping hicks!



so you admit your mind is closed - and at the same time there is no way you could ever know everything. right? you can't know everything, everything there is to know has not been known.



Why does flying have to be constricted to flesh and blood? You bring up the possibility of biotech mechanisms, but you dismiss the possibility of spirit capabilities? Why? Is it because you could plausibly explain an Iron Man suit that allows people to fly, but it would be harder to explain a spirit existing through time and space on another level than our metaphysical world?

Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein themselves questioned the existence of spirit worlds, God, angels and demons, heaven and hell, and many other things that could not and still can not be explained.

People specifically in this thread refuting what I'm saying are literally pretending to know everything. It sounds like a grand claim to make, but they are literally claiming to know everything. Physics and logic are all that exist to Valconoid, he said it clear as day?

You use words such as SEEM and PREDICT, meaning that they are not 100% accurate. Therefore you CAN'T know, you DON'T know. Stop trying to pretend like the world is controllable, it's not.

Where I can believe what I WANT the truth to be? A man knows that what he wants isn't always what matters, but what needs to be. I'm not on here claiming to know anything other than the fact that it is impossible for us to prove much of anything as absolute truth.

I DON'T have to give you a strong reason, you can't refute it.

Science is not 100% accurate, I can say that with a certainty. Would you really say that there has never been an event that happened that could not be explained by science? Not for a lack of knowledge, but literally COULD NOT be measured by the greatest minds in the universe no matter how badly they wanted to? You think things happen randomly? Do we live our lives accidental like and whatever happens happens? Are we existing on a combination of random occurences combined with our own choices? Or are we living in a universe that is dictated by how far you can measure a test tube up your ass?

Talking about useless walls of text |0()|

There are things that can't be explained, but by saying it must be god (and using that as a reason) is really irrational and prevents any scientific progress. If its unknown its unknown.

Wow 14 pages and i didn't even help create this.

kudos

This post was edited by iCK on Dec 6 2013 08:53pm

Who said it must be God?

Yea I wouldn't respond to someone who just threw my face in the dirt either.

I think your misunderstood my point.

I am not saying that science is always accurate or anything like this. I clearly stated that anyone saying so is plain stupid. I said its only a frame in which we try to understand the world and for now, its doing a pretty good job. If you doubt that, just look at all the technology around you.

Seriously though, you really did not understood a single word in my post;

I never said that we can explain everything,
I never said science was always right,
A lots of science's predictions are accurate (so I really dont understand how the use of the word ''prediction'' can lead to any kind of inaccuracy),
Yes you have to give me a good reason, cause if you want to play the unfalsifiable hypothesis game, we are going to be here for all eternity with idle talk.



This is, in my opinion, the core of your argument I dont agree with. Plz read on relativism as a knowledge theory (not some kind of moral or aesthetic text, but epistemic ones). As I stated in my first post, lots of your premisses have been the subject of debates over philosophical history, which makes it very hard to be as radical in your relativism.

A beautiful paradox is relativism, isnt it? While claiming the there is no truth we can access, they themselves propose an ultimate, universal and absolute truth, which is that there can be no truth for us. Relativism is hardly a position you can keep when you want to make it a generalized epistemic theory since in its core, it proposed only the truth that fits its speech, which is that there is none.