filtherton

I know they are different, it's just that any philospohical debate can be ended simply by claiming that nothing is objective and provable. That isn't a standard by which anything should be measured if one wants to make philosphy about what goes on in the actual world as opposed to the philosophical world. I know that i couldn't prove to you that i exist, for all you know i could be advanced a.i., or a "ghost in the machine". If we wanted to we could negate the act of experience alltogether because no one has ever been able to define conscousness in consistent terms. None of this really matters when it comes down to it, because the fact is that we all have to eat, sleep, shit, and go to work tomorrow. The fact is that you can render any fact meaningless if you raise your standards high enough.

Here are facts that can only be disputed if you deny reality completely: Evolution has been tested and retested by the scientific process, creationism has been tested by no one. There is faith in science, but this faith is in the idea that the universe behaves in a consistent manner than can be figured out based on observation. Creationism relies on a different kind of faith, a faith that the world was created by a supernatural entity in seven days. If you want to believe that these two faiths are equal in value and plausibility, by all means. That's where we'll have to agree to disagree.


So what are you doing in a philosphical discussion? You can't find any truth in it, so what's the point?