Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
Occam's Razor says nothing about the correctness of a theory, much less a probability of such. You've been watching too many movies...
|
you know
KnifeMissile, I've noticed you certainly have a way with words. Right you are, I slipped probability into it, and that's not correct. Me got crappy with my words. I congratulate you on your choice of movies, because Jodie Foster's ass is perfect in Contact. I don't recall any Ockham's Razor jib jab from the movies, but I'm sure it's there. No need to pull up transcripts and whatnot.
Quote:
|
I can't say that I understand your definitions or, indeed, what you're even trying to say, here....Perhaps athiests in the modern world should be called "realists," since that's really what they are...
|
All I'm saying is that if atheists are wrong, then no holds barred. If an agnostic is one who believes that proof of God is impossible, but lo and behold he's in front of you creating shit out of nothing and through whatever mechanisms he has at his disposal (nothing implied by adoption of masculine gender, just easier) it's all hyper rational or what have you...then you have your proof, and thus you can now prove the existence of God. I think that would make you gnostic. Perhaps I'm not right on this one either. Ergo, reason why I asked. Are the four definitions I put up correct, individually?