Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪

Kan du berätta för mig din idé tydligt, konsekvent och enhetligt? Om nej, hur har du övertygat dig själv? | Fysiker. Optik

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

Clearly define the object (god/spirit/magic), what it can do (the mechanisms of interaction with reality), predict data produced by these mechanisms alone, & not by other means. Show the data and the method of collection.

Then you can say you have evidence.

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@IM_N0T_SRRY @TimeOfSatan All the things listed in the image above occur in BOTH.

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@FBoy831 @evolution_1859 @iamAtheistGirl @prolife_dude The barometer isn't omnipotent and omniscient with a perfect plan set in motion (caused) using the above mentioned qualities.

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@BishopJaxi @EuthyphroYaBoi @DarkMatter2525 Such as the subject desires of your god-thing?

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@fejimanz @AtheistBigfoot Not allowing a felon to run a country and give him all sorts of other critical responsibilities isn't ruining his life.
The context was given. It's not a sweeping statement.

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@Jerry__Grey @Prophet_of_Zod In other words, we need more than just unreliable testimony.

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@DScottBrothers @iamAtheistGirl Proving negatives >within< logical frameworks is possible. Doing so >outside< of logical frameworks (e.g. through scientofic inference) is impossible, because logical frameworks only describe, not prescribe, reality.

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@DScottBrothers @iamAtheistGirl Logical impossibility implies proving a negative. Proving negatives is not impossible, e.g. it's impossible to find a whole number which multiplied by itself will give 2. Lagrange Lectures on Elementary Mathematics (1898).

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@eraz0r @Resist_05 @TurboWealthLex need*
How long did it need*

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@sdcinvancouver @olga100104 @Stroudarian @SunstonedAlone https://t.co/E7LZLyIpKY

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@SunstonedAlone @BCFunksta @olga100104 @Stroudarian Absence of >expected< evidence is evidence of absence.

This is especially the the case when contradictory evidence is found. The non-contradictory evidence is then of course absent!

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@SunstonedAlone @BCFunksta @olga100104 @Stroudarian Absence of >expected< evidence is evidence of absence.

This is especially the the case when contradictory evidence is found. The non-contradictory evidence is then of course absent!

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@Happy_Agnostic @wendelltalks then, not than

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@SaazyPants @theONEaltboom @Mila_Zonderling @wendelltalks Pascal's fallacy*

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@PumaBare @PumaBare I really did want to know why you think what said does not apply. Anyway I hope you have stopped using that flawed reasoning.

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@PumaBare Would you like to try to convince me? @PumaBare
Please don't just give up because you don't like my argumentation. If there is something logically inconsistent between your reasoning and mine, please show it.

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@SkepticalPet Yeah, I've noticed this too....

[Karl Göransson 🇸🇪🇩🇪 @BenevolentPixie]

@SkepticalPet Hej hej Skep! How's it's going?