Originally posted by scottishinnz
Kelly has not, despite my numerous posts on the subject, got it into his head that his definition of "believe" (based on his "gut feeling"😉 and a scientists definition of believe (based on empirical evidence) are entirely different. Same as the popular usage / scientific usage of the word "theory".

Wasn't it you that told me you could come up with an explanation
for nearly everything? I'd say that is quite a leap of faith on your
part! You want to make out that your looking around at the universe
makes your 'belief' about it some how different that mine, that
the knowledge you draw is different than mine, go ahead! I
acknowledge I only know in part, I know I have to fill in the blanks
with what I 'see and know' with what I believe. You believe when
you do that, when you 'think about the evidence' it makes your beliefs
some how purer than mine, that only acknowledges that you have
beliefs! If they are some how purer some how, or of a higher standard
isn't really important, everyone who believes they are right has that
feeling within.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wasn't it you that told me you could come up with an explanation
for nearly everything? I'd say that is quite a leap of faith on your
part! You want to make out that your looking around at the universe
makes your 'belief' about it some how different that mine, that
the knowledge you draw is different than mine, go ahead! I
acknowledge I only know in pa ...[text shortened]... really important, everyone who believes they are right has that
feeling within.
Kelly

It's all about basal assumptions. Mine can be shown empirically to be true, yours cannot.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I thought it was a given. Sorry to leave you hanging! 😉

Feel better now! 😏

[edit; p.s. you had me at "screw you, ignorant, atheist pig-dog!"]

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Feel better now! 😏

[edit; p.s. you had me at "screw you, ignorant, atheist pig-dog!"]

You said you'd leave our PM's out of public domain.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It's all about basal assumptions. Mine can be shown empirically to be true, yours cannot.

You'd better explain the word "empirically" to KYJelly...it's not a word found in the bible!

Originally posted by howardgee
You'd better explain the word "empirically" to KYJelly...it's not a word found in the bible!

But 'jackass' is found there, so we all have a reference point for you.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It's all about basal assumptions. Mine can be shown empirically to be true, yours cannot.

What you believe you can argue for, but beyond that, it is just you
and the other faithful believers that attempt to tell the world your
faith is some how better than the guy who is next to you, who may
believe something else.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What you believe you can argue for, but beyond that, it is just you
and the other faithful believers that attempt to tell the world your
faith is some how better than the guy who is next to you, who may
believe something else.
Kelly

Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what the word "empirically" means.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What you believe you can argue for, but beyond that, it is just you
and the other faithful believers that attempt to tell the world your
faith is some how better than the guy who is next to you, who may
believe something else.
Kelly

No, I can show it to be true. That's what empirical evidence is.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, I can show it to be true. That's what empirical evidence is.

As long as you can define everything, much like your perfect
knowledge on time. You base a lot on assumptions and call your
conclusions facts or something close to a fact.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As long as you can define everything, much like your perfect
knowledge on time. You base a lot on assumptions and call your
conclusions facts or something close to a fact.
Kelly

These "assumptions" are rigourously tested, and are verified multiple times by multiple methods where appropriate. Remember that piece of string I was talking about?

Originally posted by KellyJay
As long as you can define everything, much like your perfect
knowledge on time. You base a lot on assumptions and call your
conclusions facts or something close to a fact.
Kelly

The contrast could hardly be sharper:

Scientists have theories about the universe which they attempt to prove by reproducible empirical experiments.

KellyJay has theories about the universe, such as that God exists, which he claims to have experienced, but is not prepared to even discuss these experiences.

The contrast is stark:

Science vs Religion.
Empiricism vs Blindness.
Sense vs Lunacy.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
These "assumptions" are rigourously tested, and are verified multiple times by multiple methods where appropriate. Remember that piece of string I was talking about?

Yea the one where I started asking basic questions and had them
left unanswered.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea the one where I started asking basic questions and had them
left unanswered.
Kelly

Please repost them.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Why is there no rational proof for God?
Surely God, a being who is omnipotent - over logic as well - would make it easier for people to be certain of His existence. Why is that people like scottishinnz are deprived of knowing God just because they were endowed with an empirical intellect? (I could point to many atheists on this site, where the question st ...[text shortened]... aith so abstract and implausible thatit is almost impossible for scottishinnz to believe in it.

Mathematics--in contrast to mere calculation--is an abstract intellectual activity that began in Greece in the sixth century BC. Pythagoras was a key figure, as were his successors, Euclid and Archimedes. Their studies focused especially on geometric objects such as straight lines, circles, ellipses, and conic sections (i.e., the curves made by cutting a cone with a plane).

In the third century BC, Appolonius of Perga wrote eight monumental volumes devoted to these curves, describing their properties as "miraculous." Yet the geometric and mathematical formulations to which they devoted themselves were actually descriptions encoded into the very fabric of nature. Imagine the delight of Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) some eighteen centuries later, when he discovered that the orbits of planets around the sun conformed to these same beautiful but abstract mathematical forms. Kepler declared: "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics."