Quote from: nsimmons on February 25, 2015, 11:21:05 PM

Quote from: the joint on February 25, 2015, 08:56:51 PM

Quote from: nsimmons on February 25, 2015, 06:46:53 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 06:30:59 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 06:23:49 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 06:16:44 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 06:01:25 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 05:53:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 04:00:41 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 08:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 08:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion.

I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air.

This is the current trend, claiming atheism is a religion. I have total belief in the the lack of belief. BADecker pulls out the typical shit from fox news, its fairly obvious if you pay attention to the media at all. He doesn't think for himself he's just a parrot, which makes for an excellent zealot.

I caught this just a few weeks ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jcUIu-1p8s

I was hoping you would respond to my response to your post, shown here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10573928#msg10573928

I will think on it and respond in a bit...

[edit]

You've taken a big jump away from empirical science, of which i admit i chased BADecker from the evolution thread to here.

Quote

And if you're suggesting that logic is incapable of making comment about reality..

I don't think that for a second, and did not mean to represent my position as such. I readily admit, we place faith, of such, in our perception of reality. Descartes' demon may well be real, and this world is a deception. And yes I do admit, as well I think most others, that I am taking my existence and my perception of the world on faith. There is an indefinite continuum from what we can say we know to what, at some point, we must assume.

I briefly looked through the pdf you posted, but at 56 pages, it would take considerable study to analyze. Fundamentally, my opinion is such concepts are most likely unknowable nonetheless fascinating to discuss. Anyone who claims to have an answer to an unsolvable problem, particularly in a stone age text, stifles this conversation. I perceive it as a credible threat to our species, whether we exist or not.

What's the problem with moving away from empirical science? The point I made is that empirical science carries assumptions that cannot be empirically falsified via its own methods. To reconcile or discredit these assumptions necessarily requires a purely logical approach. Phrased another way, empiricism relies upon non-empirical assumptions, and so it, too, moves away from empirical science in order to establish its own assumptions (e.g. there is absolutely zero evidence for a Positivistic Universe, etc.).

I agree, the paper I linked is dense, and I've likely spent several hundred hours analyzing it and researching claims counter to it. However, the structure of the model is self-referential such that any attempt to disprove the model actually reaffirms it (because the model not only explains everything else, but also itself).

Edit: Descartes was wrong about dualism. Also, the Evil Demon scenario would be accounted for by the model I linked.