Originally Posted by Mahratta

You rejected that argument on very poor grounds - namely, using the "I am Muslim, and therefore I know the teachings more than any website or source you have access to". That doesn't cut it.

What about him do you want to know?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Mullah+Dadullah

You said you were studying Math so you knew about proof... It's just like me saying I am Muslim and I know about one of the most basic things in Islam.

Um, assume I am not Muslim. Think logically. If all Muslims were previously burried in land than what what does Islamic burial teaches ?

First, Congrats on using Google.

Second, I have been following the major events on Afghanistan, so if you want links for what I am about to say just ask,

Third, Mullah Dadullah was a very important Taliban commander. He was behind lots of attacks in Kandahar and directed Talis to Korengal Valley. Anyway, he was killed by US forces and his body was shown to the world within 24 hours.

^ Uh, I didn't say anything about "knowing" about proof - most of my posts were about how I didn't know about proof (I don't know whether or not this has anything to do with math). Indeed, I was trying to learn from you!

Originally Posted by Icecream

Let me summarize this for you and everyone else very simply.

The government claimed they killed Osama during May 1st. When one makes a claim about something physical, they have to show it.

I won't believe in something physical unless it can be proven physically.

I used to have doubts (not certainty of him being born in Kenya) about Obama's birth, but that changed once CNN said and showed that his birth was reported in the newspaper in Hawai the day he was born. (They gave proof, my doubts were eliminated.)

Do you believe in god then?

Originally Posted by Eternal Fire

Do you believe in god then?

he did say physical

Originally Posted by Mahratta

^ Uh, I didn't say anything about "knowing" about proof - most of my posts were about how I didn't know about proof (I don't know whether or not this has anything to do with math). Indeed, I was trying to learn from you!

So if you don't know about "proof", than how can you think and reach conclusions.

Proof (of something physical) is basically another physical thing which can represent it with or without an absence of the object in question (example: picture, video, blood, DNA match making of a body in confirmation with a pre-existing sample., and the list goes on...)

In other words, it is also something that can be felt by at least one of the five senses (this is what we use to learn and understand).

Originally Posted by healthsci1

he did say physical

God isn't physical? I'm pretty sure 'God' refers to a theistic, rather than a deistic figure. That means the figure would have a direct role in human life - that seems quite physical.

Originally Posted by Icecream

So if you don't know about "proof", than how can you think and reach conclusions.

By using definitions of truth that are context-dependent, of course.

In other words, it is also something that can be felt by at least one of the five senses (this is what we use to learn and understand).

That's not the criterion for 'verifiability', it's the criterion for 'sensibility'. Two different ideas entirely.

Yeah, heard about it. I honestly forgot that they were still looking for him. Took them awhile though.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

God isn't physical? I'm pretty sure 'God' refers to a theistic, rather than a deistic figure. That means the figure would have a direct role in human life - that seems quite physical.

Is God Tangiable?

Originally Posted by Mahratta

God isn't physical? I'm pretty sure 'God' refers to a theistic, rather than a deistic figure. That means the figure would have a direct role in human life - that seems quite physical.

God is not physical at all.

And By physical I mean made out of atoms, or more precisely quarks and leptons.

Anything physical can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard.

Having a role in human life ? So according to your definition truth or fiction is physical ?

Originally Posted by RememberTwce

Damn you now this is stuck in my head:

LOOOOL, oddly i was thinking the same thing

Originally Posted by healthsci1

Is God Tangiable?

I don't know, I'm not religious. It does seem like the religious believe that God's 'doings' are tangible, though. As an analogue, electric fields are not 'tangible' in the sense that you're describing them. However, their effects most definitely are, and thus we analyse them 'physically', to use icecream's terms.

Man, RememberTwice, you can be so offensive sometimes...

Originally Posted by Mahratta

That's not the criterion for 'verifiability', it's the criterion for 'sensibility'. Two different ideas entirely.

Everything verifiable which is made of atoms is sensible.

The corpse of a man (made of atoms) is sensible.

5+5 (That doesn't necessarily mean that it can be verifiable but I am not talking about ideas or mathematics).

If you went to a Planet, which has habitants who can't calculate but they speak the same language, telling them 5+5=10 won't make them understand.

But If you show them by arranging sticks than they will get the concept. This concept can be used for many things and they could develop finances or engineering feats.