I reject that entirely.
You don't know. If we reduce everything down I could claim we don't 'know' anything, cogito ergo sum reduction and all that, but I'm not doing that. I'm saying that empirically, you can conclude that there is a god/God all you like, but there's as much evidence to actually support that theory, over others, as there is for imaginary unicorns fucking a leprechaun and creating the universe by chance.
( Aardvark and so at last, I understood, Thu 6 Oct 2011, 2:14, archived)

And I'm saying that "empirically" is a severly limited method,
and that pure logic can establish truth - not absolute truth, mind you, because of Tarski's undefinability theorem, but if we allow ourselves to take the mathematical definition of "exists" Godel's Diagonal Lemma helps us a great deal.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 6 Oct 2011, 2:23, archived)

I don't have a fucking clue what half of that is.
But your logic is flawed.
( Aardvark and so at last, I understood, Thu 6 Oct 2011, 2:28, archived)

can pure logic establish truth or not?
or do we have to see something with the senses to know it? Because that puts a great deal of mathematics and theoretical physics in the dock.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 6 Oct 2011, 2:32, archived)