I just find it ironic.

Being a person who has no issues with believing things purely because my parents/teachers told me it is true, and thier parents/teachers told them it was true I have no problem trusting that such systems work.

However I find it ironic that people who insist on having scienitific proof for everything find no issues with the concept of carbon or radioactive dating.

What is even better is the fact that none of you can actually prove to me that you exist, so lets start there before anyone trys to prove anything else, because hey I am not going to listen to voices in my head that I imagined

Here's a game.

Prove to me that I exist.

Can you?

nope since you can't exist, without proving to me you exist first, I can't prove you exist. Incidently even if you could prove you existed (which you can't) I couldn't then prove you existed, because it would mean I didn't exist.

Hmph. I can prove to myself I exist, although not necessarily in the form or, well, MEANS of existence I perceive, and I can prove the universe exists. I can't prove you or Alyssandra exist though. And why not listen to voices in your head you imagined, Alyssandra? If me and Rexali don't exist, it's unlikely much else does if you're being THAT skeptical, so what else is there to go by? *G*

Well technically nothing exists. So I am not too bothered about the little details

I don't exist.

From your perspective, you do. From Alyssandra's perspective, she does. From my perspective, I do. And maybe universe was the wrong word, I was using it to mean "everything." So everything also exists. (Ignoring the 1 not being a prime number thing.) I'm pretty sure they're fundamental axioms. *hm* Can you prove you don't exist? As in, to yourself?

Yes I can...but its kind of dangerous, don't want to dissapear in a puff of logic.

The logic of science and philosophy is hardly comparable. Making it so invokes all sorts of nonsense (Anthropic principle anyone?) that's just an excuse for lack of knowledge.

Nothing to do with science and philosophy as a comparison, was actually an unusual specimen known as a joke.

But I can take it to science if you really want. And prove that you can't prove anything. Since you require observation to develop evidence, and your observation has uncalculably effected the state of the system you observed, I can't believe a word you say.

No I don't.

And I can't prove a negative. I simply don't exist.

Huh. I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Could you explain it?

Making a mockery of the idea that you do or do not exist which is really quite stupid does not change the fact that most people are willing to accept carbon dating purely on the faith of a theory nobody can ever really show evidence for.

This is abridged:

I think, therefore I am. Thus, everything to be process by my mind, must by its nature exsist, for if it did not, I would not be able to think, therefore I would not be.

Furthermore, to think is to exsist, therefore if it is thought, it holds an exsistance. First Nessecary Truth...

I wont go further then that, because well I don't need to. Most don't care about Decartes proof to God's exsistance, although his is the only one that has not been completely torn apart... Kant tried, and came close, but Decartes thought his out far to well.

It is the best theory I can see at the moment. Better than a creator god (this coming from someone who actually does believe in dieties). I wasn't told to believe it, I was shown a multitude of options and the scientific ones made more sense to me.

I'd like to read that. I can't understand how you can proove the existance of something you cannot sense.

That comment makes me think you arn't seperating issues.

The option is not, believe in a creator god or beleieve that carbon dating is accurate. There is no connection between them.

And yes, you were told to believe it. Your teachers said "this is true." Untill you do all the research that was done that shows that carbond dating is accurate, you are being told what to believe. You are "told to believe" carbon dating no more or less than anyone else is "told to believe" in god, or that you are told to believe that god does not exist.

Nothing is more shoved down my throat than scientific theory. I have less choice in forming my own opionions about science than I do about any other topic in society.

If I try to beleive in Dilbert's theory of gravity (which has not been disproven) than I will get answers wrong on tests, unable to get a basic physics job, and be told by everyone that I am stupid for beleiving in it.

For almost every argument I hear against religion, I find science does it more and does it worse. The very fact that you think Science and Relgion are two seperate concepts just proves the point. You don't have debates between Biology and AstroPhysics, yet they are just as opposite as Science and Religion.

Can you sense History? Or for that matter can you sense Gravity?

The entire point decartes tries to make, is that if thinking defines exsistance, yet a chair can not think, but does exsist, exsistance must be defined by the mind. Therefore, if the mind is able to conceive a 'perfect' being. (Perfect being key word here.)

If God is a 'perfect' being as we conceive him, then he has to have exsistance, otherwise he would not be perfect. Thus, when we conceive him, and given that think conceives exsistance, and the fact that God is a perfect being, he does exsist.

Same as the chair you are sitting on.