Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 4:27 AM
17 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 121 of 396 (499614)
02-19-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Stile
02-19-2009 12:12 PM


Re: Observable Laws do not point to Design
Yes, thank you Stile.

I meant something that undeniably points to design, not something that can points to design as well as many other things.

So, Bertot, care to take me up on my challenge? Name ONE thing that undeniably points to design, or, if you can't admit you were talking nonsense.


I hunt for the truth

What you can do in my country and get away with:

Softdrugs? Legal!
Legal drinking age? 16!
Birth control (the pill)? Free!
Gay marriage? Legal!
Abortion? Legal!
Euthanasia? Legal!
Age of consent? 16 (14 if you have the parents permission)!

Yep, only one way down for us!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 02-19-2009 12:12 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 5:47 PM Huntard has responded
 Message 127 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 8:40 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1148 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 122 of 396 (499668)
02-19-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Huntard
02-19-2009 12:49 PM


Just a bump
Hi Huntard,

Name ONE thing that undeniably points to design,

I'd like to predict that you'll get complexity as the one thing that points to design, for a response. Which you will then argue, as per the thread topic, that if complexity is the marker for design then the designer is complex as well and would also require a designer. To which you will get a response that the designer is not subjected to the same conditions because said designer just so happens to be outside of our natural laws. To which you'll respond that that is complete bullshit and not an answer at all. To which Bertot will respond by making some lame joke in an attempt to sound cool and hip - probably about your name or default pic - when really he has no argument other than incredulity and assertions about nature - and he's old and very, very, very lame.

Also, if the designer designed everything then not only does he/she design complex things but also non-complex things. That would confuse things a bit about complexity being the one thing that you could point to that requires design. It would mean that non-complex things would also require design, so there really is no ONE thing that can be pointed to. If the designer designed everything then nothing can be signaled out.

But, I highley doubt you'll get an admitance from Bertot that he was wrong. You will get some kind of shitty joke though, which offends me on a personal level. :D

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 02-19-2009 12:49 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2009 7:30 PM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Huntard, posted 02-20-2009 1:23 AM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 8:33 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6403
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 123 of 396 (499688)
02-19-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by onifre
02-19-2009 5:47 PM


Re: Just a bump
I doubt Bertot will even show up to debate here.

Well maybe just to spite me.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 5:47 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 124 of 396 (499726)
02-20-2009 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by onifre
02-19-2009 5:47 PM


Re: Just a bump
Yeah probably, however there's also a second catch to Bertot claiming that the designer is supernatural, which I already explained to him in the previous thread, but which he seems to ignore.

When dealing with supernatural stuff, you enter the world of religion. He has been adamant that ID is not religion, so he'd do best to avoid that argument.

But you're probably right, even IF he decides to answer me, it won't be a real answer anyway.


I hunt for the truth

What you can do in my country and get away with:

Softdrugs? Legal!
Legal drinking age? 16!
Birth control (the pill)? Free!
Gay marriage? Legal!
Abortion? Legal!
Euthanasia? Legal!
Age of consent? 16 (14 if you have the parents permission)!

Yep, only one way down for us!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 5:47 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 8:50 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 125 of 396 (499758)
02-20-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Stile
02-19-2009 12:12 PM


Re: Observable Laws do not point to Design
Stiles writes:
So, if "observable laws" are not restricted to a designed universe.. how can you say that such information would "point to" a designed universe? It doesn't make sense.

How can such a simple principle and question not make sense to a person that is listening?

You have heard of that guy that talks all day and never says anything. That is what this post of yours tries to do, avoid the question at all costs. Since Huntard refused to simply answer the question, Ill ask you. Is it a very real POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No. Is there anything wrong with that deductive conclusion?

BTW, Bertot will show up for the debate, its simply that I dont have as much time in the day to devote to the site as I would like. That is if one wishes to call this topic a debate. It appears that one really has to strain at knats and swallow camels to get a discussion out of such a simple topic, but if it makes you feel youself feel better to talk in circles, please go for it.

D Bertot

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 02-19-2009 12:12 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 8:47 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 126 of 396 (499760)
02-20-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by onifre
02-19-2009 5:47 PM


Re: Just a bump
Onfrie writes:
But, I highley doubt you'll get an admitance from Bertot that he was wrong. You will get some kind of shitty joke though, which offends me on a personal level.

How can a very well thought out and well delivered joke such as mine always are, offend, a dirty and no talent comedian, ha ha. Rodeny Dangerfield you not boy.

You know, "That lady is not two-faced, if she were she wouldnt wear that one", "Call me when you have no class", Now thats comedy feakshow.

D Bertot

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 5:47 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 127 of 396 (499761)
02-20-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Huntard
02-19-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Observable Laws do not point to Design
Huntard writes:
I meant something that undeniably points to design, not something that can points to design as well as many other things.

So, Bertot, care to take me up on my challenge? Name ONE thing that undeniably points to design, or, if you can't admit you were talking nonsense.

Oh by all means, if the first sentence here is all you have got. It appears to both make no sense and at the same time admit the very real posibility of a designer. I guess the debate is over.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 02-19-2009 12:49 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 128 of 396 (499763)
02-20-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Observable Laws do not point to Design
Bertot writes:

Is it a very real POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No. Is there anything wrong with that deductive conclusion?

I don't care.

I was talking about this:

Stile writes:

So, if "observable laws" are not restricted to a designed universe.. how can you say that such information would "point to" a designed universe? It doesn't make sense.

And what you've said in no way "points to" Design. Again, it simply does not contradict Design. But, it also does not contradict a non-designed universe. Since it doesn't focus any more on one then the other, then it doesn't "point to" one or the other.

However, if you'd like to change the subject, I can answer your questions as well.

Is it a very real POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No. Is there anything wrong with that deductive conclusion?

The answer to your question is No.

You need to get rid of that "very real possibility" part. It's certainly "a possibility" in the sense that it is not completely ruled out just like any number of imaginary thoughts.

However, it most certainly is not a very real (or even "kinda real") possibility unless it has at least a bit of verifiable, objective evidence that actually "points to" Design.

As long as there is no verifiable, objective evidence that actually points to Design... it reamins a simple, strictly-theoretical, cannot-be-distinguished-from-imagination possibility. Such things are not "very real" or even "kinda real" the are "very imaginary."

However, if we alter your question slightly:

quote:
Is it a theoretical POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No.

Then the answer is Yes.

But, of course, you have to admit that it's in the same boat as this statement as well:

quote:
Is it a theoretical POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well be Einstein's boogers, Yes or No.

And the answer to this is, again, Yes.

Not really great company.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 8:23 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 9:00 AM Stile has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 129 of 396 (499764)
02-20-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Huntard
02-20-2009 1:23 AM


Re: Just a bump
Huntard writes:
When dealing with supernatural stuff, you enter the world of religion. He has been adamant that ID is not religion, so he'd do best to avoid that argument.

But you're probably right, even IF he decides to answer me, it won't be a real answer anyway.

Your kidding me again, you honestly believe that observing and explaining design as a very real posibility in the universe along with its laws and structure is religion. I always thought it was just deductive reasoning. Again throwing words at deductive reasoning does not make it otherwise, you do understand this very real principle correct?

Isnt it interesting that you are the only one mentioning the word religion and I am not even brining it up?
D Bertot

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Huntard, posted 02-20-2009 1:23 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 130 of 396 (499767)
02-20-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Stile
02-20-2009 8:47 AM


Re: Observable Laws do not point to Design
Stile writes:
And what you've said in no way "points to" Design. Again, it simply does not contradict Design. But, it also does not contradict a non-designed universe. Since it doesn't focus any more on one then the other, then it doesn't "point to" one or the other.

Well I am at a lose to try and answer such folly. I will take your very twisted statement here and the whole post as a YES to the answer to my simple question. So in answering the question in the affirmative, (atleast in some parts of the post),one is not irrational, delusional or insane for having good reasons for believing in a designer? Wow, where do you go from that?

D Bertot

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 8:47 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 9:15 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 131 of 396 (499770)
02-20-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 9:00 AM


Do you understand what you're saying?
Bertot writes:

Well I am at a lose to try and answer such folly. I will take your very twisted statement here and the whole post as a YES to the answer to my simple question. So in answering the question in the affirmative, (atleast in some parts of the post),one is not irrational, delusional or insane for having good reasons for believing in a designer? Wow, where do you go from that?

Feel free to "take my whole post" any way you'd like. I can't stop you.

However, when I quite explicitely answer your question with a No:

quote:
The answer to your question is No.

...and you "take my whole post" as a Yes answer... well, I think it's pretty obvious where the irrational, delusional and quite possibly insane thoughts are coming from.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 9:00 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 9:31 AM Stile has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 132 of 396 (499771)
02-20-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Stile
02-20-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Do you understand what you're saying?
Bertot writes:
Is it a very real POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No. Is there anything wrong with that deductive conclusion?

Stile writes:

However, if we alter your question slightly:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a theoretical POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then the answer is Yes.

Then stile writes:

However, when I quite explicitely answer your question with a No:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer to your question is No.

Who gave you the right to alter my question to fit your answer. Since my question is one that conforms to physical realities and is not theoretical in nature (no pun intended) you have no right to rearrange my question, so the answer to my question is YES in this form:

Stile writes:

And what you've said in no way "points to" Design. Again, it simply does not contradict Design
The answer then becomes maybe yes, maybe no.

You have drawn an unwarrented conclusion in that you are assuming my question is only speculative and imaginary in nature, it is not. Its conclusions or reasons are verified agaisnt a physical property that is niether theoretical or imaginary, thus its conclusion is a not only a very real possibility, but one of great consideration, in other words it does not violate principle of reason or plausability

D Bertot

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 9:15 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 9:47 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 133 of 396 (499772)
02-20-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 9:31 AM


It's not hard, really
Bertot writes:

Who gave you the right to alter my question to fit your answer. Since my question is one that conforms to physical realities and is not theoretical in nature (no pun intended) you have no right to rearrange my question, so the answer to my question is YES in this form:

Percy gave me the right when he decided to host this site. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I quite explicitly answered your question un-altered, and then went on to alter it in such a way that the answer I'm guessing you're looking for becomes possible. This obvious desire of yours to force your question to one specific answer without having any verifiable, objective evidence to do so is the hallmark of people doing things for their own private, selfish goals with no respect for honesty or truth.

There is a big difference in the existence between "very real possibilities" and "theoretical" possibilities. One being that real possibilities actually exist and theoretical possibilites do not. We know this because all real possibilities have some sort of verifiable, objective evidence that "points to" them as being possibilities. Until you can show this is true about the question you're proposing... then it will remain as only a theoretical possibility.

And as long as you insist on your question including the words "very real," the answer remains an emphatic NO until you're able to provide some verifiable, objective evidence that shows your possibility can actually exist outside of theoretical musings.

Bertot writes:

Stile writes:

And what you've said in no way "points to" Design. Again, it simply does not contradict Design...

The answer then becomes maybe yes, maybe no.

The answer only becomes "maybe yes, maybe no" once you have shown some real, verifiable, objective evidence to support your position. Until you do that, your position remains unavoidably equal to all other purely imaginary, theoretical speculations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 9:31 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 10:18 AM Stile has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 134 of 396 (499776)
02-20-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Stile
02-20-2009 9:47 AM


Re: It's not hard, really
Stile writes:
There is a big difference in the existence between "very real possibilities" and "theoretical" possibilities. One being that real possibilities actually exist and theoretical possibilites do not. We know this because all real possibilities have some sort of verifiable, objective evidence that "points to" them as being possibilities. Until you can show this is true about the question you're proposing... then it will remain as only a theoretical possibility.

And as long as you insist on your question including the words "very real," the answer remains an emphatic NO until you're able to provide some verifiable, objective evidence that shows your possibility can actually exist outside of theoretical musings.[/qs]

In response to your quite obvious inability to distinquish between an actual argument and an imaginary one, I will try and help you. Lets put it in another question form to help you.

Does the physical universe exist?
Does the physical universe appear atleast to follow some sort of physical laws that are in motion?
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.

Now while any conclusions that are derived may be inconclusive (not provable), apart from direct revelation (the scriptures)the question itself is in no way imaginary or non-structured to become theoretical, given the fact that the first two principles actually do exist. Further, given the fact that there are only two possibilities, it was designed or it was not, the physical realities, would lend as much credibility to designed as self constructed.

Warrented conclusions drawn against obvious physical realities and considering there are only really two are not imaginary or musings. You know that they are very real possibilites. Thus you insistence that my question is theoretical in simply nonsense.

There is a big difference in the existence between "very real possibilities" and "theoretical" possibilities. One being that real possibilities actually exist and theoretical possibilites do not. We know this because all real possibilities have some sort of verifiable, objective evidence that "points to" them as being possibilities

Atually you have answered your own question. The reality we are looking for at present is not God, only design. If the universe atually exists and it has laws it follows, that is real, therefore the conclusion that it may have very well have been designed IS AS REAL. If as you suggest "real possibilittes have some form of verifiable evidence, that points to them as being possibilities, then the phisical universe certainly falls within that category. Nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a designer, as you have now fully admitted.

The answer only becomes "maybe yes, maybe no" once you have shown some real, verifiable, objective evidence to support your position. Until you do that, your position remains unavoidably equal to all other purely imaginary, theoretical speculations.

What position are you searching for verfiale evidence for, for design or the existence of God. If for design, it should be wrapped up in the only two real possibilities against the physical reality of the universe and its laws. If God, then thats another topic.

If the physical universe (reality) and its laws exist, then it is obious that this serves as verfiable evidence of the real possibility of a designer, even if you dont like its conclusions.

There may be theoretical speculation about God at this point, but there is certainly no speculation about nature and its reality. Take a deep breath Stile and slow down and think about what you are trying to say, you are confusing two different ideas. Take your time son and think about it.
D Bertot

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 9:47 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 10:55 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 137 by onifre, posted 02-20-2009 11:44 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 135 of 396 (499781)
02-20-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 10:18 AM


Re: It's not hard, really
I don't think you're understanding. But I'll try again:

Bertot writes:

Does the physical universe exist?

For the purposes of this line of questioning... Yes.

Does the physical universe appear atleast to follow some sort of physical laws that are in motion?

Yes.

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.

No.

Bertot, the only thing that EVER takes an idea out of the realm of theoretical non-existence and into the realm of "very real" reality is verifiable, objective evidence.

Being "based against objective, verifiable realities" is not enough.

My idea that this universe is Einsteins boogers is "based against objective, verifiabe realities." That's not enough to consider it as a "very real" possibility. It is only enough to consider it as a non-existing, not-real, theoretical possibility.

You can prove me wrong, though. All you have to do is come up with one thing that does exist of which there is no verifiable, objective evidence that points to its existence. Show that, and you'll show that things can exist without necessarily having verifiable, objective evidence. Personally I think this task is impossible. But you can certainly prove me wrong if you're able to show such. Once you've done this, you're theoretical possibility that has no verifiable, objective evidence that points to it's existence would then become a "very real" possibility as well. Without this, your possibility only exists as imagination. And, like the rest of our imagination, it is not real.

My imaginary possibility of the universe being Einstein's boogers has no verifiable, objective evidence that points to it's existence. Therefore it is most certainly is not a "very real possibility", it is "a possibility" but only in the kinda lame can't-distinguish-it-from-imgaination sort of way.

Your imaginary possibility of the universe being Designed has no verifiable, objective evidence that points to it's existence. Therefore it is most certainly is not a "very real possibility", it is "a possibility" but only in the kinda lame can't-distinguish-it-from-imgaination sort of way.

Further, given the fact that there are only two possibilities, it was designed or it was not, the physical realities, would lend as much credibility to designed as self constructed.

No.

The physical realities do not lend as much credibility to being Designed as being self constructed.

The physical reality we exist within shows us that almost everything that exists is self constructed. From galaxies to quarks. Almost everything has verifiable, objective evidence pointing to them being self constructed. We're talking 99.9999999...9999 (something incredibly rediculous) percent. There are a few things that we know to exist (because they have verifiable, objective evidence pointing to their existence) but we do not yet have verifiable, objective evidence pointing them to be self constructed. This is likely just because we haven't progressed enough technologically yet, but it's also possible that such evidence just doesn't exist at all for some certain things. However, to say that such a thing in itself is "verifiable, objective evidence" that they are actually Designed is incredibly irrational, delusional and quite possibly insane. Especially when considering the next point:

The physical reality we exist within does not show anything to be Designed. From galaxies to quarks. Nothing has a single piece of verifiable, objective evidence pointing to them being Designed. Not one single thing that exists. Not the biggest, not the smallest, not anything in between. There are a lot of things "that exist" and absolutely NONE of them have ANY verifiable, objective evidence pointing to them being Designed.

They seem to be extreme polar opposites. They most certainly do not have the same credibility from our physical reality. One exists as a "very real possibility", the other is only a theoretical possibility that is not real because it only resides in our imagination.

You know that they are very real possibilites. Thus you insistence that my question is theoretical in simply nonsense.

What are you talking about? There's that irrationality, delusion and insanity of yours coming out again. I am most certainly, very explicitly, very plainly telling you that I know "self-constructed" is a "very real possibility" such that it has verifiable, objective evidence pointing in it's direction just like every other thing that exists. I am also very simply telling you that I know "Desinged" is only a theoretical possibility because it does not have any verifiable, objective evidence pointing in it's direction just like every other thing that does not exist in reality and only resides in our imaginations.

Bertot writes:

Stile writes:

There is a big difference in the existence between "very real possibilities" and "theoretical" possibilities. One being that real possibilities actually exist and theoretical possibilites do not. We know this because all real possibilities have some sort of verifiable, objective evidence that "points to" them as being possibilities

Atually you have answered your own question.

More delusion and irrationality?

I never asked a question in that quote you seem to be answering, Bertot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 10:18 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 11:19 AM Stile has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
27NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019