This is you appropriating the word truth to mean whatever belief appeals to you. Just pointing out again that what you call truth is not what an empiricist calls truth. What you call truth is what I call unfalsifiable belief - "not even wrong."
Empiricism is able to evaluate all of reality that can be experienced. That experience is evidence. I have a very good idea of what it is believers call spirituality, and I learned it from experience. Some mean anything to do with spirits like god, angels, and ghosts. Some are referring to a euphoric experience of connectedness and mistaking it for apprehending spirits.
Agreed. I said so. I even asked you to frame it that way.
I don't need comforting walking past a graveyard. You might, but I don't believe in spirits or demons. Faith comforts YOU. I've abandoned it, because it is not needed and I have good reason to distrust it.
How would you know? You don't read what's written to you, claim you never saw it, and then refuse to search for the posts you say don't exist. You get no more than that. You don't do your part. You just complain that people don't meet your expectations and expect them to do the heavy lifting for you. No, Leroy. No.
No. The OP is a fallacious argument for resurrection. Even though it's been done multiple times, it is not necessary to provide an alternate hypothesis to reject a fallacious argument. One only need to demonstrate the fallacy or fallacies.
If you weren't willing to read and assimilate what was written to you, why are you questioning the motives of others?
You also can't show it is even possible, or that if it is, that it occurred on earth.
Your courtesy? It's your "courtesy" that has me telling you that I have no duty to answer any question from you. You expect more than you give. You are full of demands and expectations but give nothing to others. Go find my hypothesis or stand down. It couldn't be easier. I gave you a roadmap to finding it. I found it more than once using that method. Your refusal to even try to accommodate others is what defines this interaction for me. My only interest is not in what you believe or why you believe it, but in why you don't seem to be able to adapt to your linguistic environment - why you never seem to understand what is told you or won't do the things asked of you even when they facilitate your apparent purpose. What else is interesting here?
Did you ever see the movie The Miracle Worker about a woman trying to teach a deaf and blind girl about words? The girls didn't know about them. I vaguely remember the teacher signing water over and over as she poured water on the girls hands, and then the epiphany as the little girl finally catches on, smiles in wonder, and in her deaf speech, says "Watah?" "Yes, Helen, yes!" Here are the frustration, the lesson, and the epiphany. Annie got through! :
This is how I feel on these threads at times. How do I get through? What words can I write that will lead to the equivalent of "Watah?" coming from you? What if anything would get you to do that search and produce that hypothesis you insist doesn't exist so I can say, "Yes, Leroy, yes!" Maybe nothing can do that, but I simply can't believe that - not yet.
They are when you defend them.
Last edited:
