For the Creationists

[Michael]

What makes you think that Hinduism culminates in the view that there are many gods held as being ultimately and independently responsible for the creation of the universe?

Really it doesn't matter what the dogma says. Reality is what Reality is.
Substitute Greek or Egyptian or African Polytheism if it makes you feel better...

[lightgigantic]

So, LG et al, perhaps there is a necessity to rename it to "Intelligent Project Management"? Also, I'm glad you made the mistake of "project manager steering committee". You do realise you simply re-expanded your own argument of 'one' right back to 'many'?

Fighting this point is a farce. Logic does not dictate that there must be only one designer if any at all.

it does however illustrate that design is inherently linked to a singular desire - whether that singular desire arises from a singular person or a committee was not the point the analogy was elaborating on.

However since you brought up the topic of logic, when you come to the point of the creation of elements such as time and space it is very difficult to understand how a committee was innvolved

Creationism is a wish. A fantasy. Nothing more.

Abiogenesis is a wish. A fantasy. Nothing more

So abiogenesis does pose a magical being IAC?

abiogenesis does however rely on a magical theory

Creationism is a Myth.! Every tribe, every Culture and every Civilisation that has ever existed on this world had it's own version of Genesis..

[/QUOTE]
if every culture determines that god created the world, despite vast separations of time, culture, language and geography, its not clear exactly why that indicates a myth

What is the mathematical probablity of everything created in one day.?[/B].

[/QUOTE]
for a human being, not much
for an omnipotent god, no problem

The same mathematical odds of a Hurricane blazing it's way through a junkyard and in the process assembling a fully functional Boeing 747..!![/B].

[/QUOTE]
interestingly enough you require higher odds if you want to work with conventional understandings of abiogenesis and chemical evolution

The chances of something like that happening could be 1 followed by hundred trillion zeros to the power of 1 followed by hundred trillion zeros..!![/B].

[/QUOTE]
hence the capacity for omnipotence must come into play

On the other hand, Evolution is more Logical, methodical and ofcourse fossil and Genetic evidence also exists[/B].

[/QUOTE]
fossils exist - in fact the same fossils have been existing for the past 100 years that has seen a plethora of scientific understandings on what the nature of prehistory is .....

So God is a committee???

no
god is the person upon whom all persons depend on

So God is a project manager and doesn't know squat about the individual creations...

no
god is the project manager and everyone else knows squat (to prove me wrong just name any field of knowledge you are confident we have full knowledge in)

So it is Gods then...

something like that - except you have the teeny weeny gods that are dependant on an ultimate god

Really it doesn't matter what the dogma says.

then is your statement about hinduism dogmatic?

Reality is what Reality is.

and without the use of philosophy to define statements you are in nowheresville.
For instance answer this - is abiogenesis part of reality?
(and what general principles did you apply to answer in this way)

Substitute Greek or Egyptian or African Polytheism if it makes you feel better...

so in other words you assume that the view of the vedas ultimately concludes in polytheism because there are polytheistic views in greek, egyptian and african history?

[Sarkus]

it does however illustrate that design is inherently linked to a singular desire - whether that singular desire arises from a singular person or a committee was not the point the analogy was elaborating on.

I'm guessing you've never been in such a steering committee!
"Singular desire"?
From a steering committee?
Good one!
Everyone in the committee will have their own agendas and own intentions for the project.

However since you brought up the topic of logic, when you come to the point of the creation of elements such as time and space it is very difficult to understand how a committee was innvolved

Why? Please explain how you "logically" reached this conclusion?

if every culture determines that god created the world, despite vast separations of time, culture, language and geography, its not clear exactly why that indicates a myth

Every human culture is made up of the same species, with the same inherent insecurities and curiosities.
Each would have looked up to the stars and wondered how they were created - and each would have come up with "I don't know - but we must have come from somewhere - so let's say God did it".
This is far more a likely scenario.

interestingly enough you require higher odds if you want to work with conventional understandings of abiogenesis and chemical evolution

Care to lay out the statistical analysis that has led you to this conclusion - or are you just making this drivel up to try to support your argument?

hence the capacity for omnipotence must come into play

Logical fallacy. There is no "must" at all. Just 'cos something is improbable does not make it impossible.

fossils exist - in fact the same fossils have been existing for the past 100 years that has seen a plethora of scientific understandings on what the nature of prehistory is .....

Another typical theist argument.
Science changes and improves all the time. Timescales of 100 years or so is nothing in which to try and piece things together. But you see such failure as evidence for your creationist stance? Logical fallacy.

god is the person upon whom all persons depend on

Evidence...?

god is the project manager and everyone else knows squat (to prove me wrong just name any field of knowledge you are confident we have full knowledge in)

The field of knowledge of "my favourite colour". I have full knowledge of this.
Or are you now going to restrict the challenge to only certain fields of knowledge that you dictate.

And please remind me how is this evidence for God?

[Enterprise-D]

it does however illustrate that design is inherently linked to a singular desire - whether that singular desire arises from a singular person or a committee was not the point the analogy was elaborating on.

However since you brought up the topic of logic, when you come to the point of the creation of elements such as time and space it is very difficult to understand how a committee was innvolved

1. A desire does not mean one single entity
2. Why is it difficult to consider a "committee" of gods? After all, humans invented 10,000 of them
3. As Sarkus said, how in the heck is a joint effort of a massive project such as Space-Time an illogical conceptualization? How is it logical to dismiss any other god but your own? Why is yours more logical?

Abiogenesis is a wish. A fantasy. Nothing more

abiogenesis does however rely on a magical theory

I suggest you watch this Family Guy evolution clip. It shows exactly who believes in a magical theory (dumb comedy shows sometimes puts a great spin on social commentary).

[Enterprise-D]

You're attempting to distinguish the head from the body members. It was one organization and that organization still exist today just as it did in 1985. With out that organization and control of the body memebers we would not have windows of which thousands of programs are based upon.

In the end they all had to submit to Microsoft design scheme and format.

Ooh, I missed this one Saquist. Of course they had to submit to Microsoft's design scheme and format. It was created by at least the team of Bill Gates and Steve Balmer. The point of the whole analogy was to show that complex designs do not necessarily allude to a SINGLE designer.

Please keep in mind that "Microsoft" is just a business name. Any design scheme and format would have to be agreed upon by Bill, Steve and any other stakeholder such as the board of directors. A team. More than one.

Besides which, your own US Government almost made MS two entities

[Provita]

Logical fallacy. You are arguing that if abiogenesis is wrong, somehow creationism is right! abiogenesis has supporting evidence, but not overwhelming evidence, and can always be wrong. It is still a hypothesis and under a lot of scrutiny. However, again, even if abiogenesis is wrong, that does not mean in any way that creationism is right.

[Balerion]

Saquist,

First, you don't "know" anything about anything. You believe that God is the creator and all that...but you don't know. All you know is what you've read in a book, OK? Let's get that straight right now. Enough with the preaching.

Secondly, all you creationists are trying to do here is inject your religious beliefs into science. That's all you're doing. There isn't a shred of evidence to support your claims; just because abogenesis hasn't been proven, doesn't make your stance correct. What I find hysterical (and frustrating) about this whole conversation is that the first thing you creationist whackjobs do is point out the potential errors in abogenesis, and how it hasn't been proven, but you turn right around and claim that ID is fact without having provided a single piece of evidence! You dismiss one on the same grounds you accept another!

Science has discovered evidence that supports abogenesis. Science has found none to support ID. Do you know where the whole idea of ID was formed? IN THE BIBLE. You people literally are basing your notion on the creation of the universe based on the writings in a TWO THOUSAND YEAR OLD BOOK! It's laughable! And it's laughable that you people buy into this cult...like, considering that god has supposedly created the universe, set trees ablaze and spoken through them, and all of those other fantastic things that he claims to do...why did he not write the book himself? I think that's the funniest part of this whole thing. God created the universe, but he needs a dude in sandals to write his "word" for him. ahhaha

You have nothing to support your claims, fellas. Nothing. Nodda. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Zed.

Even the top ID proponent couldn't answer simple, basic questions posed to him regarding the fallacy of his idea. He couldn't even defend himself.

Just take a good, long look at yourselves. You guys are basing your entire belief structure on words written by men thousands of years ago. Words that display an utter lack of understanding of how the world and the universe work, and even contradictory in a many places. And you live your lives by it! Not only that, but now you're trying to force these ridiculous notions into public school classrooms under the guise of "Intelligent Design". Well, your ID is bullshit, as is evident to anyone who isn't in a cult, or even to you, if you'd just open up your damn eyes.

But fine. I don't expect to change your minds. Enjoy your cult.

[VitalOne]

Creationism is true (to a certain extent)...but these atheists will never believe (they're trapped in delusion)....there's always a way to say "nature-did-it" no matter what the evidence shows you can always say that....thats there explanation for everything...even natural selection itself is unfalsifiable (but still science?)...

[Enterprise-D]

Vitee, a resoundingly clear attempt at copycat accusation. Nature doesn't "do" anything. You have consistently shown your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

You have zero evidence for your gap theories.

[ylooshi]

Creationism is true (to a certain extent)...but these atheists will never believe (they're trapped in delusion)....there's always a way to say "nature-did-it" no matter what the evidence shows you can always say that....thats there explanation for everything...even natural selection itself is unfalsifiable (but still science?)...

You have it backwards. Since delusion is a belief held contrary to evidence, it is the theistic position that is delusional, not the general position of the atheist. Obviously there are probably deluded atheists, since describing oneself as "atheist" only tells you their stand with regard to gods.

So, if you're trying to say atheists are deluded because they don't see any evidence for gods, then you are being dishonest and attempting to use the valid argument against theism (delusion) in an invalid way against atheism.

In otherwords, you're resorting to the childish argument, "I know you are, what am I?"

[VitalOne]

Vitee, a resoundingly clear attempt at copycat accusation. Nature doesn't "do" anything. You have consistently shown your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

You have zero evidence for your gap theories.

What are you talking about? Everything I said stands...you can always say nature-did-it...I'm not talking about evolution but abiogenesis...

How is abiogenesis explained? Simple:
"Some how by some unknown means, at some unknown time, some way nature just did it"

How can you falsify natural selection?

You have it backwards. Since delusion is a belief held contrary to evidence, it is the theistic position that is delusional, not the general position of the atheist. Obviously there are probably deluded atheists, since describing oneself as "atheist" only tells you their stand with regard to gods.

So, if you're trying to say atheists are deluded because they don't see any evidence for gods, then you are being dishonest and attempting to use the valid argument against theism (delusion) in an invalid way against atheism.

In otherwords, you're resorting to the childish argument, "I know you are, what am I?"

No, you have it backwards, I have it forwards....

Being delusional means believing in something false....evidence has nothing to do with it....atheists commonly use the argument "there's no evidence" but this is what you call an argument from ignorance...which is what atheism is based off of...nothing but ignorance...thus we can conclude that atheists are just ignorants...

It would be like someone in ancient times saying "blackholes are just an imaginary fantasy, there's no evidence...something in space more powerful than light? aahahaha, these delusional fools...whatever the evidence currently shows is the absolute truth...everyone else is just a delusional fool except for us, who only follow what the current evidence shows"

[SkinWalker]

No, you have it backwards, I have it forwards....

Being delusional means believing in something false....evidence has nothing to do with it....atheists commonly use the argument "there's no evidence" but this is what you call an argument from ignorance...which is what atheism is based off of...nothing but ignorance...thus we can conclude that atheists are just ignorants...

Most of the delusional claims of theism *do* have evidence to the contrary. So you're being completely dishonest in your attempt to turn the argument back on atheists.

Zombie saviors, contrary passages in biblical mythology, bullshit claims in Genesis, the myth of Noah being lifted directly from the fictions of Sumerian epics, the earth stopping for 24 hrs, the BS claim that the "walls" of Jericho were brought down by trumpets and shouting, the BS claims that Israelites "conquered" the Canaan highlands, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

So, it is your claim that [insert favorite god(s)] exists that is delusional -a delusion supported by thousands of years of fiction and mythology built upon the ignorance of Bronze and Iron age people who succumbed to magical thinking.

[Enterprise-D]

What are you talking about? Everything I said stands...you can always say nature-did-it...I'm not talking about evolution but abiogenesis...

How is abiogenesis explained? Simple:
"Some how by some unknown means, at some unknown time, some way nature just did it"

How can you falsify natural selection?

How is creationed explained Vitee?
"Somehow by some unknown means, at some unknown time, some way god just did it"

How can you falsify creationism?

No, you have it backwards, I have it forwards....

Being delusional means believing in something false....evidence has nothing to do with it....

Crapola and utter rubbish. You redefined and restricted a word to help your own argument.

Delusion: a definition on WordNet

And clearly, to call something "false" means that there is evidence that said something is indeed false. (edit, Vitee will probably reverse this on me, so I'll leave it, and reword: To call something false means that there is no evidence supporting it's true statement)

atheists commonly use the argument "there's no evidence" but this is what you call an argument from ignorance...which is what atheism is based off of...nothing but ignorance...thus we can conclude that atheists are just ignorants...

There is no evidence. You have yet to do anything other than reverse logical arguments used against you. You excel at attempting a vocabulary aikido...using our own strengths against us. Unfortunately you are only successful at appearing the parrot.

It would be like someone in ancient times saying "blackholes are just an imaginary fantasy, there's no evidence...something in space more powerful than light?

And you know what? They'd be RIGHT to question some guy coming around claiming - with no evidence mind you - that there were black holes.

aahahaha, these delusional fools...whatever the evidence currently shows is the absolute truth...everyone else is just a delusional fool except for us, who only follow what the current evidence shows"

Whatever evidence currently shows is what is accepted as true yes. However, you fail to realise that science as a field and a discipline accepts no absolutes and will change and evolve as theories and evidences are discovered and tested as correct. You are just bitter that science has no choice but to reject a theory that is dear to you. There is NO evidence of anything being correct in creationism, so why should we listen to you (et al.) at all?

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it does however illustrate that design is inherently linked to a singular desire - whether that singular desire arises from a singular person or a committee was not the point the analogy was elaborating on.
”
I'm guessing you've never been in such a steering committee!
"Singular desire"?
From a steering committee?
Good one!
Everyone in the committee will have their own agendas and own intentions for the project.

but suppose the committee has to decide what colour a pencil sharpener that they are manufacturing should be - would it be possible that they come out with the conclusion that the pencil sharpener should be simultaneously completely red and completely green?
in other words regardless of the slow moving mechanics of committees, when all is said and done they arrive at one pointed focus

“
However since you brought up the topic of logic, when you come to the point of the creation of elements such as time and space it is very difficult to understand how a committee was innvolved
”
Why? Please explain how you "logically" reached this conclusion?

Its a bit logically difficult to establish how time and space can involve the contributions of more than one contributer

“
if every culture determines that god created the world, despite vast separations of time, culture, language and geography, its not clear exactly why that indicates a myth
”
Every human culture is made up of the same species, with the same inherent insecurities and curiosities.

that doesn't mean that the relief that they seek from these problems is not factual - surely as a champion of the cause of logic you can see that without me having to explain it further

Each would have looked up to the stars and wondered how they were created - and each would have come up with "I don't know - but we must have come from somewhere - so let's say God did it".
This is far more a likely scenario.

you do realize that this is a tentative claim don't you? (meaning this claim has no foundation in the direct perception of anyone - if you advocate that "god is merely an idea and can be rejected" one can also reject your idea by the same logic)

“
interestingly enough you require higher odds if you want to work with conventional understandings of abiogenesis and chemical evolution
”
Care to lay out the statistical analysis that has led you to this conclusion - or are you just making this drivel up to try to support your argument?

since it has never been achieved in any scientific settings, the chance of abiogenesis and chemical evolution transpiring cannot actually be placed in any odds (unless of course you want to work with tentative claims - in which case we can talk of chimpanzees typing out the encyclopedia Britannica by typing randomly at a keyboard)

“
hence the capacity for omnipotence must come into play
”
Logical fallacy. There is no "must" at all. Just 'cos something is improbable does not make it impossible.

get those chimpanzees typing!!

“
fossils exist - in fact the same fossils have been existing for the past 100 years that has seen a plethora of scientific understandings on what the nature of prehistory is .....
”
Another typical theist argument.
Science changes and improves all the time.

actually my argument is that empiricism changes - its debatable whether it improves anything or whether it acts like a person who places a heavy burden from their shoulder to their back until their back gets sore, so they place it on their head, and then their head gets sore so they put it on their forearm and then it starts to get sore so they ..... (etc etc)

Timescales of 100 years or so is nothing in which to try and piece things together.

so does such empirical endeavours ultimate arrive at the point of understanding nothing or something?
(In other words is empiricism fully dependent on the medium of ignorance for progress?)

But you see such failure as evidence for your creationist stance?
Logical fallacy.

sorry
I don't see the failure

“
god is the person upon whom all persons depend on
”
Evidence...?

qualification my son
if you think it should be something else, please provide evidence in regard to any field of knowledge you care to mention

“
god is the project manager and everyone else knows squat (to prove me wrong just name any field of knowledge you are confident we have full knowledge in)
”
The field of knowledge of "my favourite colour". I have full knowledge of this.
Or are you now going to restrict the challenge to only certain fields of knowledge that you dictate.

you can get hit on the head and get amnesia and develop a different favourite colour“

And please remind me how is this evidence for God?

And please remind me how is this evidence for God?

once again my son, we are talking about theory, and not even practice, what to speak of the conclusions of practice, namely realization.

If you think it is possible to talk of evidence at the point of theory, while being bereft of the foundation of practice, please provide the evidence in any field of knowledge you care to mention

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise D

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it does however illustrate that design is inherently linked to a singular desire - whether that singular desire arises from a singular person or a committee was not the point the analogy was elaborating on.

However since you brought up the topic of logic, when you come to the point of the creation of elements such as time and space it is very difficult to understand how a committee was innvolved

”
1. A desire does not mean one single entity

desire does indeed refer to a singular entity, whether that entity is an individual or body corporate is debatable

2. Why is it difficult to consider a "committee" of gods? After all, humans invented 10,000 of them

because god is also accredited with the creation of time and space

3. As Sarkus said, how in the heck is a joint effort of a massive project such as Space-Time an illogical conceptualization? How is it logical to dismiss any other god but your own? Why is yours more logical?

how is it possible for more than one entity to exist bereft of the medium of time and space?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Abiogenesis is a wish. A fantasy. Nothing more

abiogenesis does however rely on a magical theory
”
I suggest you watch this Family Guy evolution clip. It shows exactly who believes in a magical theory (dumb comedy shows sometimes puts a great spin on social commentary).

an appeal to authority - and a bad one at that - lol

[Sarkus]

how is it possible for more than one entity to exist bereft of the medium of time and space?

If it is possible for one, how is it NOT possible for more than one?

[lightgigantic]

If it is possible for one, how is it NOT possible for more than one?

omnipresence (which also necessitates the encountering of difficulties for those who want to settle on two or more)

[Sarkus]

but suppose the committee has to decide what colour a pencil sharpener that they are manufacturing should be - would it be possible that they come out with the conclusion that the pencil sharpener should be simultaneously completely red and completely green?
in other words regardless of the slow moving mechanics of committees, when all is said and done they arrive at one pointed focus

But the point is that YOU are grouping this committee and claiming it is God - one thing - when in fact there are more than one person in a committee. Your analogy is thus flawed.

Its a bit logically difficult to establish how time and space can involve the contributions of more than one contributer

Why? You keep saying this but provide none of your thought process.
If it is logically ok for one contributor, then it HAS to be logically ok for any numbers of contributors.

that doesn't mean that the relief that they seek from these problems is not factual - surely as a champion of the cause of logic you can see that without me having to explain it further

And logic dictates that the relief they seek is irrelevant to the discussion - or can YOU not see this?
It is not the relief they are seeking that is in question - but what they are using to relieve them.

you do realize that this is a tentative claim don't you? (meaning this claim has no foundation in the direct perception of anyone - if you advocate that "god is merely an idea and can be rejected" one can also reject your idea by the same logic)

Of course it is a tentative claim. But under Occam's Razor it is more rational than an actual God.

since it has never been achieved in any scientific settings, the chance of abiogenesis and chemical evolution transpiring cannot actually be placed in any odds

Says who? Things do not have to happen to have odds attached to them.
And yet you quite happily state that A requires higher odds than B.
You are talking drivel, LG, with no support for your argument other than your own opinion in matters.

actually my argument is that empiricism changes - its debatable whether it improves anything or whether it acts like a person who places a heavy burden from their shoulder to their back until their back gets sore, so they place it on their head, and then their head gets sore so they put it on their forearm and then it starts to get sore so they ..... (etc etc)

And your evidence for this is... ?

so does such empirical endeavours ultimate arrive at the point of understanding nothing or something?
(In other words is empiricism fully dependent on the medium of ignorance for progress?)

I'm sorry -

sorry
I don't see the failure

That's called delusion.

qualification my son

Please don't patronise me - you arrogant sh1t. I am in no way related to you.
Or is this just another way of making yourself feel superior to everyone else?

you can get hit on the head and get amnesia and develop a different favourite colour

And it will still be MY favourtie colour - of which I have total knowledge. The result might change because of additional actions - but it will still be MY favourite colour at that time.

once again we are talking about theory, and not even practice, what to speak of the conclusions of practice, namely realization.

If you think it is possible to talk of evidence at the point of theory, while being bereft of the foundation of practice, please provide the evidence in any field of knowledge you care to mention

If you're claiming just theory - then please explain how your theory is falsifiable, and why you claim everything as fact without evidence?

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
but suppose the committee has to decide what colour a pencil sharpener that they are manufacturing should be - would it be possible that they come out with the conclusion that the pencil sharpener should be simultaneously completely red and completely green?
in other words regardless of the slow moving mechanics of committees, when all is said and done they arrive at one pointed focus
”
But the point is that YOU are grouping this committee and claiming it is God - one thing - when in fact there are more than one person in a committee. Your analogy is thus flawed.

actually all I am claiming is that design indicates a singularity of desire

“
Its a bit logically difficult to establish how time and space can involve the contributions of more than one contributer
”
Why? You keep saying this but provide none of your thought process.
If it is logically ok for one contributor, then it HAS to be logically ok for any numbers of contributors.

I take it you haven't read the post previous to the one you posted

“
that doesn't mean that the relief that they seek from these problems is not factual - surely as a champion of the cause of logic you can see that without me having to explain it further
”
And logic dictates that the relief they seek is irrelevant to the discussion - or can YOU not see this?

you brought it up - not me

It is not the relief they are seeking that is in question - but what they are using to relieve them.

hence its not sufficien t ot say that simply because they seek relief in the same object, the object is false - in fact it tends to indicate that the object is factual since we have no experience of anything that people express a need for in all times and circumstances that does not exist factually.

“
you do realize that this is a tentative claim don't you? (meaning this claim has no foundation in the direct perception of anyone - if you advocate that "god is merely an idea and can be rejected" one can also reject your idea by the same logic)
”
Of course it is a tentative claim. But under Occam's Razor it is more rational than an actual God.

hardly

“
since it has never been achieved in any scientific settings, the chance of abiogenesis and chemical evolution transpiring cannot actually be placed in any odds
”
Says who? Things do not have to happen to have odds attached to them.

how so?

And yet you quite happily state that A requires higher odds than B.
You are talking drivel, LG, with no support for your argument other than your own opinion in matters.

get those chimps typing!!

“
actually my argument is that empiricism changes - its debatable whether it improves anything or whether it acts like a person who places a heavy burden from their shoulder to their back until their back gets sore, so they place it on their head, and then their head gets sore so they put it on their forearm and then it starts to get sore so they ..... (etc etc)
”
And your evidence for this is... ?

why empiricism of course - what else?

“
so does such empirical endeavours ultimate arrive at the point of understanding nothing or something?
(In other words is empiricism fully dependent on the medium of ignorance for progress?)
”
I'm sorry -

its not clear whether you are advocating that empiricism advocates something or nothing - it can be cleared up by you answering this question

(In other words is empiricism fully dependent on the medium of ignorance for progress?)

“
sorry
I don't see the failure
”
That's called delusion.

its also called not relying on arguments of confidence

“
qualification my son
”
Please don't patronise me - you arrogant sh1t. I am in no way related to you.
Or is this just another way of making yourself feel superior to everyone else?

its just an attempt to make a tired argument that has been gone over a million times previously more entertaining - feel free to provide evidence Mr 1.

“
you can get hit on the head and get amnesia and develop a different favourite colour
”
And it will still be MY favourtie colour - of which I have total knowledge. The result might change because of additional actions - but it will still be MY favourite colour at that time.

hence your knowledge of what is your favourite colour is not perfect since it is not constant

“
once again we are talking about theory, and not even practice, what to speak of the conclusions of practice, namely realization.

If you think it is possible to talk of evidence at the point of theory, while being bereft of the foundation of practice, please provide the evidence in any field of knowledge you care to mention
”
If you're claiming just theory - then please explain how your theory is falsifiable, and why you claim everything as fact without evidence?

theory is falsifiable by practice - if you think otherwise, feel free to provide any evidence

[Sarkus]

actually all I am claiming is that design indicates a singularity of desire

And we have demonstrated that it doesn't - which you, obviously having never sat on a steering committee, would not understand.

I take it you haven't read the post previous to the one you posted

Yes - I had - and there was no answer to the question I raised.

you brought it up - not me

Eh? How is this in any way an answer to the question?
I am taking from this that you are unable to understand logic.
Fair enough.

hence its not sufficien t ot say that simply because they seek relief in the same object, the object is false - in fact it tends to indicate that the object is factual since we have no experience of anything that people express a need for in all times and circumstances that does not exist factually.

Oh - it exists alright - as a psychological comfort - the psychological effect being entirely material in nature. THIS is Occam's razor working.

hardly

Great counter argument, LG. One of your better ones.
You grow wearisome to debate with - as you continually try and skirt around the questions you don't want to answer.

how so?

I'll leave you to work that one out for yourself.

its not clear whether you are advocating that empiricism advocates something or nothing - it can be cleared up by you answering this question

(In other words is empiricism fully dependent on the medium of ignorance for progress?)

No - I was saying I was sorry as I fail to see the relevance to the discussion.
I'm putting it down to you trying to side-track the debate again.

its also called not relying on arguments of confidence

Only for those who don't understand logic.
And I am not going to teach you logic, LG. I again leave that for you to do on your own.

its just an attempt to make a tired argument that has been gone over a million times previously more entertaining

An apology would have sufficed.

hence your knowledge of what is your favourite colour is not perfect since it is not constant

Riiight - so define perfect to fit your own arguments and then force it on others. Pathetic.

theory is falsifiable by practice - if you think otherwise, feel free to provide any evidence

And as yet you have shown no evidence that your "theory" is able to be put into practice.