bob,

What distinguishes "metaphysics" from imaginary?

David Franklin,

Empirical observations made by one person are subjective, but when multiple observers and multiple methods are involved, the subjectivity is almost if not completely removed. To see why relativism makes no sense, as a thought experiment, take all conscious entities out of the universe. It still operates on a set of principles which do not change based on the removal of consciousness. It is those rules science tries to discover. We can only observe and discover, never dictate. Even the phenomena of "observation" changing quantum states are not really based on conscious observation, but rather *measurement* which involves hitting one particle with another (such as a photon).

You cannot test the unmeasurable. I posit the reason these things are unmeasurable is because these are all conscious constructs, not objective realities.

David Franklin, I don't think I said that.

You might not cheat on your girl because you value the relationship, not that you couldn't get away with it. You might be concerned about the effect cheating would have on your own feelings, and you might want to keep them purely for your girlfriend and not complicate the situation.

If something changed and you weren't so sure about the future with your GF, then you might cheat as a way of testing the waters before leaving her. After cheating, you also might decide to stay with her. Then you would have a strong interest in not disclosing your dalliance because it might risk losing what you have.

Not exactly rocket science, eh?

Vincent,

It clearly did not happen. I'll leave it to you to decide what you make of Annice Booth's state of mind.

And what about your state of mind that you're asking me such a question?

It's not censorship. I'm just not interested in the discussion. You are using "god of the gaps" and "argument from ignorance," two of the weakest and lamest forms of apologetics ever devised.

This is not evidence, but bluster. It's against the comment policy, so I'm disallowing you here as well. I'll leave your comments up so people can see where you're coming from. It's exactly as I said, Brandon, and you haven't brought any new information or tactics to the table. Only repeating the same old trope.

End of discussion.

http://apps.facebook.com/blognetworks/blog/black_...

or add Sean Prophet as friend.

This is epistemological patternicity. It's virtually the same miscues that cause people to see faces in rocks, trees, fences, or conspiracies in human events. We're far less equipped to comprehend or deal with the emergent properties of mechanistic systems or random choices. Consciousness is one of these. People just can't imagine how particles which move with predetermined probabilities can give rise to music, laughter, love, sadness, and free will. But they do.

I find this most beautiful and comforting of all. We are a precision symphony of tiny particles and yet we feel. We can choose our goals and purposes. We care because our very existence depends on it. We are the finest machines yet made on Earth, and still we will be superseded by the greater intelligences we will build. This is a thought that makes me profoundly happy. I hope I live to see it.

The blasphemy is clearly intentional, I know exactly what I'm saying, and I mean every word of it. I am not intimidated in the least by threats or spiritual blackmail.

I think she's saying "in the same way that if there were a God [meeting the description most people accept]..."

When a word is in common usage, it matters how most people view it. Although I'd say "God" is probably the most abused word in the language and means many things to many people. Still, no matter what kind of God you think might exist, the best reason for withholding belief is lack of evidence.

"Doubt God"

What would lead you to believe in such a being in the first place?