Nothingserious:



Fantastic. Then you don’t even exist seeing we have no empirical proof for your consciousness.

Your logic is also non existent seeing you don’t have empirical proof for it.

Is that okay?

What do you consider as an empirical proof


A definition that shows how XYZ can exist also shows the required proof

Crystyano:



What do you consider as an empirical proof


A definition that shows how XYZ can exist also shows the required proof

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.

Scientific evidence is closely related to empirical evidence but not all forms of empirical evidence meet the standards dictated by scientific methods. Sources of empirical evidence are sometimes divided into observation and experimentation, the difference being that only experimentation involves manipulation or intervention: phenomena are actively created instead of being passively observed.

Nothingserious:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.

Scientific evidence is closely related to empirical evidence but not all forms of empirical evidence meet the standards dictated by scientific methods. Sources of empirical evidence are sometimes divided into observation and experimentation, the difference being that only experimentation involves manipulation or intervention: phenomena are actively created instead of being passively observed.

But you don't have to bring up the issue of evidence for the existence of the person you are replying when I ask you to state the definition that shows how God/the supernatural can exist...

Crystyano:



But you don't have to bring up the issue of evidence for the existence of the person you are replying when I ask you to state the definition that shows how God/the supernatural can exist...

I only need to drive around with you the way you want it. You have ran from pillar to post severally in this discourse. I just smiled and decided to follow your lead.

So do you mind proving your consciousness to me to prove you exist?

Chatting with me here isn’t an empirical proof of your consciousness and logic. A spam bot could be responding to me from your end. Don’t you think so?

Nothingserious:


I only need to drive around with you the way you want it. You have ran from pillar to post severally in this discourse. I just smiled and decided to follow your lead.

So do you mind proving your consciousness to me to prove you exist?

Chatting with me here isn’t an empirical proof of your consciousness and logic. A spam bot could be responding to me from your end. Don’t you think so?

Well,
I'm not the one you were chatting with from the beginning...


As for my consciousness,
It depends on the definition of me
.....

Crystyano:



Well,
I'm not the one you were chatting with from the beginning...


As for my consciousness,
It depends on the definition of me
.....

Again, those are no empirical proofs for your consciousness and the logic you are applying.

You don’t just state empirical data. They are testable to others. How do I test your statements ? Can we safely assume you don’t exist and that your logic in this discussion isn’t real because you have failed to show empirical proof?

No we can’t despite your failures. That’s one of the issues with scientism and strict materialism.

Nothingserious:


Aptly put. God bless you.

“For God's [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks).

So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification], [Ps. 19: 1-4.] Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:18-22‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/rom.1.18-22.ampc

And so it is.

Nothingserious:


Again, those are no empirical proofs for your consciousness and the logic you are applying.

You don’t just state empirical data. They are testable to others. How do I test your statements ? Can we safely assume you don’t exist and that your logic in this discussion isn’t real because you have failed to show empirical proof?

No we can’t despite your failures. That’s one of the issues with scientism and strict materialism.

I never said this or that is my empirical evidence


But that doesn't mean there's no empirical evidence towards Crystyano's consciousness...


The issue is your acceptance/rejection of anything at all as an empirical evidence
..



So, give me an example of what you consider as an empirical evidence ......



....

hupernikao:


Your thesis above are more premised on creation to ascertain God whereas that same God is ever present around you. Why have to travel centuries back looking for God at creation when he is very much available even in our age. I will allow this to rest.


Now, get this well
Science, observation, evidences are so good and has given us most of the best of things.

But see. The science you see today, is still very much in its tender age, in embryo to knowing or finding God.

If science is to detect God by tools, it will take it more than a billion year to come to grow to that level of technology. Because even as of now, there so much that exist in humanity that the best scientific tool or instrument are yet to know, find or explain.

But like I always say, science will grow and will surely find God even if it takes the eternity to restart again.

I used to be of the same opinion, that someday the tools to find god would be developed but then consider that we have been on the god question though out all of recorded history spanning more than 6000 years yet we still haven't come close meanwhile we went from flightless to space travel in less than a century. Consider also that a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, atheist all drive a car the exact same way and the car is a human invention that's less than 2 centuries old. You have to wonder why the god question amongst all the world religions cannot be resolved with anything approaching the ingenuity of human technology while a supposedly omniscient god sits by and watches humans kill themselves over many centuries over the god question. Seems more likely such a god doesn't exist than it is that its a failure to use technology to find a god.

Crystyano:


I never said this or that is my empirical evidence


But that doesn't mean there's no empirical evidence towards Crystyano's consciousness...


The issue is your acceptance/rejection of anything at all as an empirical evidence
..



So, give me an example of what you consider as an empirical evidence ......



....

Na waoooo!

So what scientific or empirical evidences were you actually asking for God’s existence?

Why is same scientific or empirical evidence for your consciousness and logic now a big concept that you need me to explain over and again?

You don’t any empirical proofs for your consciousness and logic. If you do, just drop it here.

I do not doubt you exist. I know you do despite your failure to prove it.

Nothingserious:


Na waoooo!

So what scientific or empirical evidences were you actually asking for God’s existence?

Why is same scientific or empirical evidence for your consciousness and logic now a big concept that you need me to explain over and again?

You don’t any empirical proofs for your consciousness and logic. If you do, just drop it here.

I do not doubt you exist. I know you do despite your failure to prove it.

In your mind,


Whatever you say is a big concept,



I never asked for any evidence of God!

What on Earth would you accept as an empirical evidence??


Drop it here

Crystyano:



In your mind,


Whatever you say is a big concept,



I never asked for any evidence of God!

What on Earth would you accept as an empirical evidence??


Drop it here

So you also have comprehension issues?
You didn’t notice the sarcasm in the “big concept”?

You no get talk abeg. Just rest.

Nothingserious:


So you also have comprehension issues?
You didn’t notice the sarcasm in the “big concept”?

You no get talk abeg. Just rest.

You are not meant to be sarcastic in issues like this


What is talk to you??


Just go back to your vomit...

LordReed:


I used to be of the same opinion, that someday the tools to find god would be developed but then consider that we have been on the god question though out all of recorded history spanning more than 6000 years yet we still haven't come close meanwhile we went from flightless to space travel in less than a century. Consider also that a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, atheist all drive a car the exact same way and the car is a human invention that's less than 2 centuries old. You have to wonder why the god question amongst all the world religions cannot be resolved with anything approaching the ingenuity of human technology while a supposedly omniscient god sits by and watches humans kill themselves over many centuries over the god question. Seems more likely such a god doesn't exist than it is that its a failure to use technology to find a god.

Hmmm

If you agree. You will know that for example, the desire of man to fly was likely as old as man himself. I mean, man instinct to be able to fly and compete in the air, is likely as old as the first man. But this never came to pass until centuries ahead. And even the flight technology (man flying by himself) is yet to be achieved. But we know in years ahead, man will be able to lift from the front of his house to his workplace in self personal flight. I believe so.

But such achievement was never the idea of the modern man, it was inherent even in the very firstmen in exploring the skies.

Why do I say this. Time isn't a limit to what science will discover, time is just a journey for science. Hence science will arrive someday, to have a feel of the supernatural first, then that will change the whole focus of scientific research and guide us into a new realm of Theo research. But let's leave this for now as science is even yet to find the supernatural talkless of finding God.


Secondly, thank God you said human kills themselves. That's half way solved. But what you called sit back is what we can explain in concept of freewill and omniscience which was in the other thread. Evil is a principle, it's host is man's decision. And I mean everyman. Hence to address the issue of evil will simply means to either take the host out totally or his ability to choose, or better still to find another option of helping man chose what is right. It's a balance between justice, love and power.

hupernikao:


Hmmm

If you agree. You will know that for example, the desire of man to fly was likely as old as man himself. I mean, man instinct to be able to fly and compete in the air, is likely as old as the first man. But this never came to pass until centuries ahead. And even the flight technology (man flying by himself) is yet to be achieved. But we know in years ahead, man will be able to lift from the front of his house to his workplace in self personal flight. I believe so.

But such achievement was never the idea of the modern man, it was inherent even in the very firstmen in exploring the skies.

Why do I say this. Time isn't a limit to what science will discover, time is just a journey for science. Hence science will arrive someday, to have a feel of the supernatural first, then that will change the whole focus of scientific research and guide us into a new realm of Theo research. But let's leave this for now as science is even yet to find the supernatural talkless of finding God.


Secondly, thank God you said human kills themselves. That's half way solved. But what you called sit back is what we can explain in concept of freewill and omniscience which was in the other thread. Evil is a principle, it's host is man's decision. And I mean everyman. Hence to address the issue of evil will simply means to either take the host out totally or his ability to choose, or better still to find another option of helping man chose what is right. It's a balance between justice, love and power.

My point wasn't that man flies but that the technology to go to space was developed in less than 70years after learning how to do powered flight. Why is objectively discovering a god taking thousands of years? And why is that if such a god exists it does nothing to aid such a search? The god doesn't want to be found by objective means?

LordReed:


My point wasn't that man flies but that the technology to go to space was developed in less than 70years after learning how to do powered flight. Why is objectively discovering a god taking thousands of years? And why is that if such a god exists it does nothing to aid such a search? The god doesn't want to be found by objective means?

I also just gave the instant that span centuries, just as you gave the research of space.

But the truth is scientific research is still limited for now. I know you know this. Even with discoveries outer space, most of what we call technology today may become so irrelevant in ten centuries to come.

hupernikao:


I also just gave the instant that span centuries, just as you gave the research of space.

But the truth is scientific research is still limited for now. I know you know this. Even with discoveries outer space, most of what we call technology today may become so irrelevant in ten centuries to come.

Of course because it is simply man doing all of this, no omniscient god is directing anything. If there was an omniscient god interested in man to have a relationship with us then such a god would have given us the knowledge to create an objective means of discovering him. A rumour went around that my mum was dead and those that asked me I gave them her number to call her by themselves. Yet a god takes thousands of years with no response.

LordReed:


Of course because it is simply man doing all of this, no omniscient god is directing anything. If there was an omniscient god interested in man to have a relationship with us then such a god would have given us the knowledge to create an objective means of discovering him. A rumour went around that my mum was dead and those that asked me I gave them her number to call her by themselves. Yet a god takes thousands of years with no response.

The truth is, if given the opportunity, we all (all humans) want to set the/our standard for God on how he should reveal himself to us. Nothing bad with that, but the answers to our standard will vary with time, while some my find him now, some will take eternity. It all depends on what we seek and know.

hupernikao:


The truth is, if given the opportunity, we all (all humans) want to set the/our standard for God on how he should reveal himself to us. Nothing bad with that, but the answers to our standard will vary with time, while some my find him now, some will take eternity. It all depends on what we seek and know.

I will never accept that a god who wants a relationship with humankind doesn't have an objective way of letting humans access him that will be consistent for any time period. All this it takes time is just short hand for god is a subjective experience.