Jump to content

Dbaiba

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-24

About Dbaiba

  • Rank
    Meson

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Biology
  1. Baseless ? Are you blind ? Did you at least take a look at the quotes and sources of my allegations here above ? Did you even try to discuss them, let alone try to refute them , if you could at least ? NO , absolutely not Don't bother responding , because your non-sense is so predictable i don't even have to take a look at it to know it as such . This is my last post here , so Bye This clearly proves my point You confirm it once again , the more reason that i should quit I did not keep my promise by saying i quit This time i will, more than ever Yo
  2. You have absolutely not even considered to take a close look at the sources of my allegations i mentioned here above , so , why should i bother providing you with any additional informations on the matter whatsoever anyway ? You will just dismiss them as usual and as expected from you : very predictable , without even investigating them properly as you should do . One of my sources was a western historian of science and an Orientalist , ironically enough , you did not even discuss what he had to say on the matter through the quotes of his book i placed here above . No one here did by
  3. Does it ever occur to you that you may be overestimating your capacity of judgement ? Guess not
  4. I see that my posts were removed ,ok. No big deal I just wasted that valuable time for nothing , i see , i could spend doing better things than this . .......... When i say the supernatural , that includes God mainly .. Dawkins God delusion was all about that , about "proving scientifically " that God is a delusion , while science , per definition , cannot neither prove nor disprove the existence of God altogether, in the first place to begin with Dawkins was not only unscientific in just that , but he was also paradoxical ,self-refuting and self-defeating . So , he des
  5. How can you keep on making such illogic irrational , unscientific statements even when even science itself cannot , per definition, and will never be able to provide you with 'empirical evidence " regarding the supernatural at least : that's precisely where religion comes in . Don't expect science to give you what it has absolutely not , in the first place to begin with Science not onlt does absolutely not and will absolutely not deliver that " evidence " you are so desperately looking for , but science cannot , per definition, do that ,once again , otherwise it's no science That
  6. I tell the guy the supernatural escapes even science itself and he tells me that it has no impact Worse : he , once again, says , its alleged impact cannot be investigated Of course , it escapes all man investigation, for the time being at least , but it's out there nevertheless impacting our lives in ways we do not know exactty , considering the nature of the impact only religion can give us some hints about ... I really gotta go, folks Thank you very much for your interesting insights i will take a closer look at wenever i can See ya another day
  7. Demanding proof of the supernatural again Silly paradox that dies hard , i see Even science itself cannot , per definition, deliver such a thing : proof or lack of proof of the supernatural The supernatural cannot be subjected to our logic , reason, science , folks, once again That's why we just believe in it and we have reasons for doing just that , once again Look, folks, i am tired , i gotta wake up early Thanks , appreciate indeed I realise i am not water proof in what i say , not even remotely close ,no wonder considering the subject of our "inquiry " whic
  8. I can say that your delusion in that regard is no better than mine , assuming i am delusional at least Try to prove your delusion about people like me as a true one , assuming that your delusion is a real true thing then
  9. You wanna subject something (The real supernatural in this case ) to logic and reason, while even science itself should be , per definition, silent about it ? : very logical of yours indeed That's why we just believe in the supernatural and we have reasons enough for that , ironically enough : the revelation, the existence of some prophets at least I expect you know to attack the latter save your breath , buddy , because all similar attempts had already failed pathetically
  10. How do you know its has no impact on you, on your life and therefore no impact on humanity ,on the world, on the universe ? How do you know that? , since even science cannot even prove or disprove its existence : the existence of the supernatural, i mean How did you get to know that , i wanna know And how can you acknowledge the existence of something you cannot define as such ? Is not being able to define it a reason enough to dismiss it as worthless or with no impact ? When i say i believe in the supernatural , i mean what i say , i believe , that;s different from knowing a
  11. I do invite you all , including your Dawkins , and i challenge you to come to the south of Morocco to see some real encounters with the supernatural haha You are all more than welcome to visit the country I have had a scientific education as well, don't worry I am not some superstitious charlaten haha There are indeed plenty of superstitions out there science had debunked as such , but that's another thing totally different from what i was talking about The supernatural does exist , folks And it's pretty both logical and rational to be both a believer and a scientist :
  12. The supernatural makes part of reality or of the ultimate reality Science cannot , per definition, approach that part of reality : the supernatural So, i have been ontopic all along You just do not wanna see that , because you are conditioned to see just the natural part of reality
  13. So , just run away and admit your ignorance and your impotence : The real threat to the truth is not ignorance , but the pretention of knowledge I wonder whether you have been reading me well or not : If there is no evidence of the existence of A , then is A probably non-existant indeed But there are some exceptions to that rule as i mentioned here above Besides : I said : even science itself cannot , per definition , neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural . That's not the nature of science to do so, nor is it its function or role So, science
  14. You do not read well what i say : I said ; A: The abscence of evidence is not always the evidence of abscence ; And i gave some examples : see above then B: science cannot prove the existence of the human consciousness as such was 1 of my examples , but you talk about the function of the human consciousness science can indeed explain , to some extent at least : those are 2 different things . C: How do you know what you say about the supernatural anyway : you deny its existence and then, you say , even it exists it's worthless : that's another discussion I am talking
  15. Correct , but that's not what i meant : I said : you presume that the supernatural does not exist as such , simply because science cannot prove its existence , but you forget that science cannot , per definition , prove its existence anyway , even if the supernatural does exist . Science , per definition, in fact can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural So, science has nothing to say about it Your paradox is as follows : you expect from science to be able to prove or diprove the existence of something it cannot , per definition, do anyway : the supernat
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.