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 You don't have to miss me haha I can miss you ,guys , like i can miss a terrible headache
  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 the way . You just like to listen to your own music, that's all You, guys , are just conducting a monologue , not a dialogue . So, i quit I have better things to do than this What a waste of my time , unfortunately enough . Ciao
  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 deserves no refutation at all , because there is nothing to refute in his unscientific book of his i just mentioned You know what ? We seem to come from different planets , you and i , so : I am not gonna waste my valuable time ,talking to people who cannot consider other paradigms than theirs So, I quit Bye
  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's the role of religion, not science's, once again , hallloooooooo And there is a different place , role , function and nature of both religion and science Both religion and science can go hand in hand , the true religion at least , because they are the both sides of the same "coin " : they need each other , they complete each other ......if one wanna approach the whole pic as a synthesis from both at least I rely on both science and religion , you rely only on science or on what some extremist scientists tell you what science is at least So , i see with those both eyes , you see only with one Reminds me of this song haha : " Where did you get those blue or pretty eyes from ? " I am willing to lend you the most important eye you miss , so
  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 " which escapes any reason, logic , science of ours I do not pretend to know the supernatural, i just believe in it and for good reasons unlike all your kindda Dawkins out there who pretend to know "everything" their own science is absolutely incapable of confirming , per definition , not even remotely close Bye and take care
  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 and only knowing can define the known So, don't expect the supernatural to be clearly defined , not in this life at least There is a lots of inconsistency and contradiction in those few words of yours This is a psychological thing , i guess When people are confronted with their irrationality regarding the denial of something , they say afterwards, i do not rule its existence out , but then they switch to another denial they cannot prove either I expect another degree of denial from you as a result
  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 : the one does not exclude the other , in my world at least. That's 1 of the reasons why earlier muslims did invent the scientific method itself thanks to the epistemolohy of the Qur'an , to mention just that fact Take care How do you know then that the supernatural does exist ? And why do you put it in the same basket with fantasies and illusions ....? There is a difference between them , even though it's difficult to differentiate between them indeed , but the latter is no reason to dismiss the real supernatural as such as a waste of time , as you put it . Your logic is still full of holes, buddy , despite your indignation and denial P.S.: Once again : science, per definition, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural So, there can be no talk about scientific evidence or lack of scientific evidence concerning neither the existence nor the alleged non-existence of the supernatural To keep talking about scientific evidence or no scientific evidence in regard to the supernatural is not only illogical , irrational and unscientific , but i's also paradoxical
  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 has nothing to say about it So, there can be no mention of scientific evidence or scientific lack of evidence concerning neither the existence or the alleged non-existence of the supernatural= a non- issue To keep on talking about evidence or no evidence in this regard at least is a paradox, a contradiction , an unscientific , illogic and an irrational assumption: contradictio in terminis I am not gonna repeat myself over and over again, sorry Thanks by the way anyway
  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 about the existence of the supernatural now, not about its purpose or worth My point was : the existence of the supernatural can not be excluded just because science cannot , per definition, approach it Understand ? You simply choose to dismiss the existence of the supernatural , because otherwise that would not suit you , that's all : that has nothing to do with science , it has more to do with your pre- set choice not to believe in the supernatural, that;s all . You just gotta admit that then Why not ? Because you simply can't There 's a whole realm out there beyond that of science : that does not mean it does not exist . And science can never be able neither to prove nor disprove its existence To say that science can is simply unscientific , simply because science , per definition, cannot In short : You just hide behind science instead of admitting your refusal to believe in the supernatural .for no reason . To try to back up this choice of yours by science (Science cannot once again, per definition , deliver that back up you're so desperately looking for ) is a real paradox you are not even aware of : simply pathetic " We have all been raised to think a certain way , to behave a certain way ...to perceive reality in a certain way ...missing the whole spectrum of other potential levels of reality " There are many levels of reality as there are many levels of human consciousness way beyond the limited and tiny realm of science .
  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 supernatural in this case then . Worse : you expect science to prove the existence of the supernatural, if it exists at least , forgetting that science can never do such a thing either Use your minds ,guys, please
×
×
  • 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.