Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
I don't get it
Topic Started: 28 Jun 2010, 02:48 PM (5,638 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

on my statement "it is not scientifically possible to create something from nothing"

......the what came first the chicken or the egg debate ?

and their is no nothing ?

on whether things require a reason or not-

......we were discussing life and why things strive to live - you left out the "being" from the statement

i took it as you said you dont think things have to have a reason for "being" or exsisting.

my view is that God is the author of Life -and he not only creates you but he gives you a reason for "being" this is called your "purpose"
dont you think life is a valueable,precious thing? i do and maybe you do to.....do you ever really wonder why? o.k so you may have decided that you are going to not beleive in God but how can you be sure sure that God does NOT exsist ?
what empirical evidence do you have the God does not exsist Concolor?
if the answer is NO you do not have empirical evidence to prove their is no God then your beleifs are dogmatic arent they?
There-for when it comes to your educated guess that there is no God (To quote your own words) " I reject the hypothesis as unnecessary and not supported by the evidence" eg-you have no empirical evidence proving God doesnt exsist
:)

Quote:
 
thought your claim was that God DID have a purpose for creating us?
No it was that he gave us a purpose for our lives-God does not need you me or any of us to fufill his purposes-he is God he created us to have RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM - if God wanted worker bees he would of created us like robots with no free will
But we get to choose !!!! :hug:



ARAZEC Quote:
as an atheist you have said that its not just that you do not know if a God exsists- its also that you have an "unbelief" in the exsistence of God

Concolor Quote:
The second notion follows directly from the first, if I don't know something it would make no sense to simply guess at the alternatives. Since I don't know if any of the Gods presented in the many mythologies of the world exist, it would be haphazard and arbitrary to simply pluck one out of the crowd and say "Sure, this one I'll base my life upon!".

O.k Concolor I can understand thesim-but you are an Athiest -you dont beleive in the exsistence of God -its not just that you dont know if their is a God or not

Quote:
 
So in plain English you're telling me to "stop thinking and start believing already!".


No i am not -in plain English Im telling you that the questions about life you say you have not given up finding answers to could possibly be found in areas that you exclude from the very beginning.......You start your quest for knowledge with an unbeleif in the exsistence of God.

So i checked out the principles of logic and they are supposed to be derived using reasoning only - their validity does not depend on any contingent features of the world- so please explain how the exsistence of God is not logically possible ?

Quote:
 
Avoidance is the physical reaction to fear, fear is the emotion that invokes avoidance
yeah i get that bit-but how does that explain the evolution of emotions ? so what comes first? fear? well where did fear come from ?









Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
on my statement "it is not scientifically possible to create something from nothing"

......the what came first the chicken or the egg debate ?
The chicken and egg debate is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. If it was a scientific one, the answer would be "egg" as egg-laying animals came about long before the chicken (such as dinosaurs).
Quote:
 
and their is no nothing ?
In what sense can you say that there is no nothing? Nothing is simply the absence of something, such as:
"What do you have in your bag?" - "Nothing"
"What did you learn in school today?" - "Nothing"

Do I think we can positively assert that there are areas in the universe, however small, that are completely void of any mass or energy? No. Just because we have not seen signs of any mass or energy in a certain place does not mean that we can say for certain that there is none, but until we find any we must follow the results of the measurements we have so far - and the preliminary conclusion will be that we can find nothing there.
Quote:
 
on whether things require a reason or not-

......we were discussing life and why things strive to live - you left out the "being" from the statement

i took it as you said you dont think things have to have a reason for "being" or exsisting.
What is the difference between "being" and existing?
Quote:
 
my view is that God is the author of Life -and he not only creates you but he gives you a reason for "being" this is called your "purpose"
Me and the muslims and the jainists and the bhuddists and the taoists and the åsatru (...etc...) disagree :)
Quote:
 
dont you think life is a valueable,precious thing?
I most certainly do think it is a valuable, precious thing.
Quote:
 
do you ever really wonder why?
For me it is precious because, as far as I can see, this life is my only one. I get no second chances, and I cannot ignore the hardships of this world only waiting for another life after death. Our time in existence is limited and we must make the most of it. I believe that we cannot look to the sky for help, we must look around us. In our fellow human beings is where we find help, love and support. Rather than simply being an empty vessel for God's hand, a filthy ditch that the clean water form the stream of God's love runs through, I see my fellow man as a source of love in himself - and I will give him credit for his good deeds as well as hold him responsible for his bad ones. Life is short and the numbers of possible religions are endless, I'd rather base my few moments of life on what is knowable than gamble on something that is not.
Quote:
 
o.k so you may have decided that you are going to not beleive in God but how can you be sure sure that God does NOT exsist ?
As I spent my previous post ranting about I do not think we can know for certain that there are no Gods what so ever, but I do think that most of the Gods described by man so far fall short of fitting with the world we see around us.
Quote:
 
what empirical evidence do you have the God does not exsist Concolor?
If you are talking of the supernatural in general then I cannot, by definition, have any empirical evidence either in favor or against it. If you are talking about the God of the Bible, I do believe I listed a couple in my previous post.
Quote:
 
if the answer is NO you do not have empirical evidence to prove their is no God then your beleifs are dogmatic arent they?
No, they would be if I claimed for certain that there was no supernatural entities, but as I made clear in my previous post I do not think we can assert that in any way.
Quote:
 
No it was that he gave us a purpose for our lives-God does not need you me or any of us to fufill his purposes-he is God he created us to have RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM
This is why I'm having problems following your argument. You start by saying God didn't have a reason to create us, then you go on to say that "he created us to have RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM". Is that not a reason? The reason being: "for us to have relationship with him". Are you saying he had a reason for creating us or not?
Quote:
 
if God wanted worker bees he would of created us like robots with no free will
That would have saved us a lot of trouble, are you saying that your God is not very smart, as he did not choose the most functional solution?
Quote:
 
But we get to choose
That's one way of putting it. Another would be "we have to choose". I have yet to be convinced that free will is a good thing.
Quote:
 
O.k Concolor I can understand thesim-but you are an Athiest -you dont beleive in the exsistence of God -its not just that you dont know if their is a God or not
Yes, but since I don't know if there are any supernatural entities, then that is not a reason for believing in them. Quite the contrary. Let me illustrate:
I don't know (honestly) if there is an elephant outside my door. It makes no sense if I should go from that to assume that since I don't know, there MUST be an elephant outside my door!
Quote:
 
in plain English Im telling you that the questions about life you say you have not given up finding answers to could possibly be found in areas that you exclude from the very beginning
Were you with me at the very beginning? I have not excluded any answer without investigating them. And I have spent a good number of years investigating these things (relative to my young age). There are still many religions out there which I have not learned enough about to say anything definitive about, but I have had the opportunity to investigate a couple of religions to such an extent that I find their God-concepts to be unbelievable.
Quote:
 
You start your quest for knowledge with an unbeleif in the exsistence of God
Don't we all? Who was ever born a Christian, or a Hindu? If we were, we would not need to teach kids about religion at all, they would already know and believe it all from birth. Yet we don't. We are all born atheists, and our later religion depends entirely on what we are taught later in life. Why do you think so many people share the same faith as their parents?
Quote:
 
So i checked out the principles of logic and they are supposed to be derived using reasoning only - their validity does not depend on any contingent features of the world
I disagree. The fact that reason works IS a contingent feature of the world.
Quote:
 
o please explain how the exsistence of God is not logically possible ?
He is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, just, and good. Yet there is suffering in the world. This is not logically coherent.
Is it that he wants us not to suffer, but he can't hinder it? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is it that he can help us, and wants to, but does not know how we suffer? Then he is not omniscient.
Is it that he knows that we suffer, and can help us, but chooses not to? Then he is not good.
Is it that he can neither help us, nor will he? Then why call him God? (Epicures FTW)
Quote:
 
ut how does that explain the evolution of emotions ?
The evolution of pretty much anything is explained like this: There is natural variation in the genepool, and the useful bits tend to stick around. If fear arises and is useful, it sticks around. Fear arose, it was useful, it stuck around.
Quote:
 
so what comes first?
First comes heredity, variation and selection, then you get evolution. (I have posted several links to explanations of the evolutionary process. If you did not understand them, why did you not ask me before? Did you not read them? They were not that many or that long, and it seems like you are sort of interested in the subject, so I thought you would want to learn more about it?)
Quote:
 
well where did fear come from ?
Fear comes from the same place as different eye-colors, fingernail growth-rates and hairiness: from natural variation.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
The chicken and egg debate is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. If it was a scientific one, the answer would be "egg" as egg-laying animals came about long before the chicken (such as dinosaurs).
how is it not scientific? answer me where the egg came from ?


Quote:
 
In what sense can you say that there is no nothing? Nothing is simply the absence of something, such as:
"What do you have in your bag?" - "Nothing"
"What did you learn in school today?" - "Nothing"
there is air in the bag- so there is something in the bag
"nothing" is an answer to a question so its something
but i see where you are getting at

Quote:
 
Do I think we can positively assert that there are areas in the universe, however small, that are completely void of any mass or energy? No.
when it comes to the scale of us and the universe's we can positively say it is almost beyond our comprehension - So knowing this why do you so adamately assert THAT THERE IS NO GOD ? why dont you consider the possibility of God ? rather dogmatic of you - plenty of room for spagehetti monsters lost in space too ! its rather foolish and arrogant of you from your little speck on a speck in the corner of the Milkyway with your liitle measurement ruler to say - well cause i cant see it -God must not exsist ! be realistic
say you are not sure :) and leave it at that

Quote:
 
This is why I'm having problems following your argument. You start by saying God didn't have a reason to create us, then you go on to say that "he created us to have RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM". Is that not a reason? The reason being: "for us to have relationship with him". Are you saying he had a reason for creating us or not?
well now you are getting confused with "need" & "reason" God being God "needs" nothing from us
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

oh and i wasnt saying that God isnt very smart for not creating us like Robots or working bees

i was saying that he didnt want robots or worker bees - he wanted to create us-with free will intact :thumbs: that is why we say "he created us with free will" NOT "we have free will to choose to be created"
Hence-like i have repeated several times- God is the author of LIFE !

Quote:
 
If fear arises and is useful, it sticks around. Fear arose, it was useful, it stuck around.


What arose fear? i mean how did it come into being ? originate ?
Quote:
 
First comes heredity, variation and selection, then you get evolution
so when did the monkeyman or blob bacteria get scared ? Were the scaredy cats sitting in a cave having a yarn when the rest of the unfearfull fell off some cliff somewhere so only the scaredy cats were left to breed? :blink: and when you say "it was usefull,it stuck around" usefull for sustaining Life? is that what you mean? propelling life? why do all things share a common goal = survival
why is there all this life? why does everything adapt,evolve etc... to live? to survive?
why does all creation go forth to multiply?
Why does each kind go forth and multiply? seeking to propell its own exsistence,at best to live mutualy benefiting each other ?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
how is it not scientific? answer me where the egg came from ?
The egg came from a dinosaur. That's the scientific answer. If you want to debate what came first of the chicken and the chicken-egg, then this is a matter of definitions and therefore within the realms of philosophy, and not empirical science.
Quote:
 
when it comes to the scale of us and the universe's we can positively say it is almost beyond our comprehension
Hey even the size of Norway is well beyond my intuitive comprehension, and Norway's a pretty small country
Quote:
 
So knowing this why do you so adamately assert THAT THERE IS NO GOD ?
For the fourth (and somewhere in the back of my mind I slightly hope for the last) time: At no time have I adamantly claimed that it is even possible to know whether or not supernatural entities exist. How often must I repeat this?
Quote:
 
why dont you consider the possibility of God ?
See my previous post.
Quote:
 
rather dogmatic of you - plenty of room for spagehetti monsters lost in space too !
Gah! Yes, that is exactly my point! Why do you refuse to read my posts? :o
Quote:
 
well now you are getting confused with "need" & "reason" God being God "needs" nothing from us
Ah, I probably am. It would have been easier if you had actually said "need" rather than "reason" though.
Quote:
 
i was saying that he didnt want robots or worker bees - he wanted to create us-with free will intact
And I'm saying that this wasn't very smart, if he wanted us not to sin.
Quote:
 
What arose fear? i mean how did it come into being ? originate ?
Don't worry ARAZEC, I'll repeat it just for you: "Fear comes from the same place as different eye-colors, fingernail growth-rates and hairiness: from natural variation."
Quote:
 
so when did the monkeyman or blob bacteria get scared ?
If you by "monkeyman" and "blob bacteria" mean "previous life forms" then they probably got scared when threatened.
Quote:
 
when you say "it was usefull,it stuck around" usefull for sustaining Life? is that what you mean? propelling life?
I would say "perpetuating life" but I guess yours work too :)
Quote:
 
why do all things share a common goal = survival
But they don't. Do you really think bacteria have minds the way we do? That they have little dreams and aspirations - quarrels, conundrums and fantasies? I don't. Survival is not the goal, it is just one of the prerequisites for the propagation of life to occur. As some insects show; sometimes surviving a single day is all it takes to reproduce.
Quote:
 
why is there all this life?
Because that's what happens when replicating units are given enough energy from the sun to continue their propagation. You can ask why to that as well, and if an answer is found, that too can be questioned with a why. I have a why question too: Why do you think that there necessarily is an answer to all these why-questions?
Quote:
 
why does all creation go forth to multiply?
Actually, most of it doesn't. Most of it dies before it gets to reproduce. And so their genealogy disappears. The reason why we see the multiplying ones is because the other ones keep dying out.
Quote:
 
seeking to propell its own exsistence,at best to live mutualy benefiting each other ?
Again you're really projecting a lot of thoughts onto these little microbes and fungi. It's not a conspiracy. Do viruses secretly plan to make us feel bad? Do they laugh at our pain as they invade our bodies? No, they have no mouths to laugh with, no brain to plan with or think evil thoughts with. They don't even have enough material to reproduce by themselves, which is why the only way they can is to invade our bodies and take over our cells. Viruses that don't do this, don't reproduce, which is why there are no viruses around that don't do this. You seem to be adding intent to every object in the universe. Perhaps you should stop and think about the alternative; that not every thing needs to have intentions for this world to work the way it does.
Edited by Concolor, 31 Jul 2010, 05:42 PM.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
The egg came from a dinosaur. That's the scientific answer. If you want to debate what came first of the chicken and the chicken-egg, then this is a matter of definitions and therefore within the realms of philosophy, and not empirical science.


Not really-isnt it a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypothesises & theories must be tested against observations of the natural world ?
I cant see anywhere in the natural world to indicate that dinosaurs just exsisted.

Scientifically that theroy makes no sense.
The Creation Theroy -just as its described in the the book of Genesis :thumbs: an explanation that
fits in to what we already can observe -Things dont usually pop up from nothing-they usually come from something else or are made up of parts of other things.....most people would agree its quite impossible to do an experiment where you make something from nothing at all.....
So scientifically the probability of a Dinosaur just "exsisting" is quite slim and that all the evolution we see is by chance alone...is even slimmer-despite how many millions of years you want to beleive it took.

Quote:
 

So knowing this why do you so adamately assert THAT THERE IS NO GOD ?

Quote:
 
for the fourth (and somewhere in the back of my mind I slightly hope for the last) time: At no time have I adamantly claimed that it is even possible to know whether or not supernatural entities exist. How often must I repeat this?


I looked up the definition of athiest again-
Dictionary.com -atheist = someone who denies the existence of god or gods
Answers.com - athesim = 1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God
wiki - atheism = the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

O.k sorry if ive got you wrong , but you dont deny the possibility of the exsistence of God -
so are you really an athiest ? because it seems by popular definition and YOUR OWN REPITION you claim that its not possible to know if God exsists - so therefor you dont rule out the exsistence of GOD...
and thats not a position of "there are no deities"
its quite evident looking at the whole world that the presence or idea of God is universally perceived by all humans- that have never had a chance to exchange or form ideas together.



Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
isnt it a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypothesises & theories must be tested against observations of the natural world ?
Yes, it sure is
Quote:
 
I cant see anywhere in the natural world to indicate that dinosaurs just exsisted.
Ah, then I have the honor of introducing you to fossils :) Fossilization is an amazing process that occurs under special conditions where an organism that dies is not immediately broken down by micro-organisms but to some extent conserved and later mineralized so it becomes like a rock. This allows for the shape of the organism, and sometimes even parts of the tissue, to be conserved for hundreds of millions of years. This is the field of paleontology, which has taught us about an amazing array of earlier life-forms, some of them dinosaurs. The amount of fossils found (= empirical evidence for the existence of these dinosaurs) are in the number of thousands, and so their existence is well established in empirical science.
Quote:
 
Scientifically that theroy makes no sense
Yes it does. It makes testable predictions that are confirmed by the evidence on a daily basis. Examples of this is the geological strata in which fossils of different dinosaurs are found, and also the geographical distribution of said fossils.
Quote:
 
The Creation Theroy -just as its described in the the book of Genesis - an explanation that
fits in to what we already can observe
Not really. Especially the distribution of fossils in the geological strata are in direct violation of both the two orders of creation suggested in Genesis. Also the existence of the different strata in the first place is incompatible with the strictly literal biblical view. Furthermore, the age of the planet itself, and our species in particular is hard to make fit with Genesis.
Quote:
 
Things dont usually pop up from nothing-they usually come from something else or are made up of parts of other things
Usually not. So why do you suggest that this notion is in support of Creationism? It is Genesis that suggests that everything just popped into being by the command of God, evolution is a gradual process where each life-form evolves gradually from the previous. Please choose a side and stick to it.
Quote:
 
So scientifically the probability of a Dinosaur just "exsisting" is quite slim and that all the evolution we see is by chance alone
What do you mean by putting "existing" in quotes? Is this a different type of existing than the regular one?

Also, evolution is not by chance alone. You would think that I would tire from explaining this to you over and over again, but apparently I am not. Evolutionary pressure is directed by natural selection, not chance.
Quote:
 
I looked up the definition of athiest again-
Dictionary.com -atheist = someone who denies the existence of god or gods
Answers.com - athesim = 1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God
wiki - atheism = the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
That's a lot of different definitions. The one I use is closest to the bottom one: "Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any personal deities exist". This to separate theism, from deism.
Now if you want to complicate things, there are of course different reasons for not believing in any particular personal deities. You could be a gnostic atheist, meaning someone who thinks it is possible to absolutely know if a personal God exists or not, and who thinks she knows that these Gods do not. I have never met such a person, so if you find one please let me know (it would be fun to discuss with them). Then you have agnostic atheists (like me) who claim that it is unclear whether it is even possible to know if personal deities exist or not, and therefore do not find any good reason to assert a positive belief in any such Gods in particular. I think you will find that this is the view of most atheists if you allow them to calm down and talk about what their beliefs actually are, rather than just taking polarized sides in a debate.
Quote:
 
O.k sorry if ive got you wrong , but you dont deny the possibility of the exsistence of God -
so are you really an athiest ?
As you can see from my explanation above, I'm quite clearly an atheist. And I do deny the possibility of the existence of the God of the Bible, Allah, Zarathustra, and a couple of other ones.
Quote:
 
its quite evident looking at the whole world that the presence or idea of God is universally perceived by all humans
Not by me. And there are loads of indigenous people who have worshiped ancestors and spirits rather than Gods, and many who have Gods have a whole set, which is quite distinct from the Abrahamic ones.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

thanks for sharing about fossils again :P
Re- Dinosaurs- is the empirical evidence proving that they "just" exsisted....or is the empirical evidence proving that they "evolved" ?

And the theroy i was talking about that doesnt make sense-is the one that claims by processes and reactions and for no logical explainable reasons gases or certain chemicals "just exsisted" and somehow by chance started to evolve into eventual humanbeings over lots and lots of years first randomly and then by natural selection.....? :blink: ? :blink: ? :blink: ?

Ive proberly missed a couple of steps but overall thats the picture and to look at it from my perspective and gaze back it seems a bit far fetched-

Quote:
 
I'm quite clearly an atheist. And I do deny the possibility of the existence of the God of the Bible, Allah, Zarathustra, and a couple of other ones.
but which ones DONT YOU DENY THE EXSISTENCE OF ?
*ARAZEC claps hands smiles with happiness-then has thoughts of some Voodoo Doll joke*
oh please do tell Concolor !
which "ones" does your logical calculating pragmatic mind consider "undeniable" (<---Joke) or which are the ones you dont deny the possibility of even a slight chance of exsistence....
btw i take but my comment about you beleiving in dogmas now- :)



Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
thanks for sharing about fossils again
You're welcome. I think fossils are cool. I even have a piece of fossilized dinosaur-egg on my shelf :)
Quote:
 
Re- Dinosaurs- is the empirical evidence proving that they "just" exsisted....or is the empirical evidence proving that they "evolved" ?
First of all, the word proving has no use outside formal logic and mathematics. Empirical science is not about proof, but evidence. Finding fossils is evidence in favor of the existence of the animals that produced them. The features of the fossils (bone structures, strata, geographical distribution and sometimes even organic molecules) are evidence as to how they are linked to other life forms through the process of evolution.
Quote:
 
And the theroy i was talking about that doesnt make sense-is the one that claims by processes and reactions and for no logical explainable reasons gases or certain chemicals "just exsisted" and somehow by chance started to evolve into eventual humanbeings over lots and lots of years first randomly and then by natural selection.....?
I've never heard of such a theory, and I would agree with you that such a theory sounds rather incoherent. It sounds like someone tried to slap together some sort of "theory of everything" with complete disregard as to how science progresses. Could you give me the email of the people who are promoting such theories? I'd like to give those idiots a lecture about how science works!
Quote:
 
but which ones DONT YOU DENY THE EXSISTENCE OF ?
I don't deny the existence of any Gods that I have yet to examine. That's a lot of Gods that I don't actively deny the existence of. It's practically an infinite number. The probability of me choosing the right one of these (if even one of them should happen to be true) is basically zero, and so I cannot choose one without investigating them first. Sadly, all the Gods I have been presented with so far have been either incomprehensible or incompatible with reality. That may not be their fault. Perhaps it is just the followers of Thor that, in their human fallibility, have failed to convince me that he is a real God, when in fact he might be, only with different attributes than the ones his followers presented me with.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

SO the only reason you dont deny the exsistence of ALL Gods is that you havnt had a chance to find out about them all......clever.
Except that contadicts your beleif that its impossible to determine if God/deities exsist in the first place !? :blink: Yet-you do not beleive in the exsistence of the God of the Bible?
What EMPIRICAL evidence do you have againest the God of the Bible?

i think that you thinking fossils are cool is cool :D
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
SO the only reason you dont deny the exsistence of ALL Gods is that you havnt had a chance to find out about them all......clever.
Quite the contrary: The only reason I do not accept the existence of every single one of the Gods I have been presented with, is because every single one of them have been either incomprehensible or incompatible with reality. The ones I have not been presented with are of course impossible to both deny or accept.
Quote:
 
Except that contadicts your beleif that its impossible to determine if God/deities exsist in the first place !?
I don't know if it is impossible to determine the existence of the supernatural, but so far I have not come across any reliable method of doing so.

Remember that there is a difference between assessing the existence of supernatural entities in general (which to me seems impossible) and specifically described entities in particular. Let me give an example:

In general, I don't know if leprechauns exist or not. For all I know they are just really good at hiding, and so we don't see them.
But some people describe leprechauns that guard a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I know enough about rainbows to know that this cannot be the case (a rainbow is an optical phenomenon and therefore a single rainbow does not have a geographical endpoint). Even though I cannot know if leprechauns exist or not, I can know that these leprechauns do NOT exist (the rainbow-end-dwelling ones).

In the same way I cannot say anything about the existence of other supernatural entities, I can reject the leprechauns, ghosts, spirits, Gods and fairies that are incoherent or incompatible with reality. - And a literal reading of the Bible presents a God which is neither compatible with the world around us, basic ethics or even its own description. An example is the order of creation: Neither of the creation myths in the Bible are compatible with the fossil record.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

a person suffering phycosis is incoherent or incompatible with reality- but i can assure you they exsist

Quote:
 
Quite the contrary: The only reason I do not accept the existence of every single one of the Gods I have been presented with, is because every single one of them have been either incomprehensible or incompatible with reality
so what you are sayimg is you fail to experiance God - so there for God does not exsist?
Cognitive science & neuroscience explain the performance of cognitive functions but are unable to explain why they are linked to "experiance" or give rise to conscious experience.
There is such a thing as experiance wouldnt you agree?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

oh yeah and those leprechauns the ones that live at the end of the rainbow....the description said nothing about a geographical end it just described end -pherhaps its the optical illusion of an end ?
so like the rainbow itself exsists so may the optical illusion of the end=no evidence of non-exsistence
unless you dont beleive in rainbows?
the question id be asking supposing you were wanting to
FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF -is tell me how to get to the place you describe ? instead of
The place you describe does not exsist !

:whistle:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
a person suffering phycosis is incoherent or incompatible with reality- but i can assure you they exsist
They exist indeed, but what they are speaking of does not. That's why we say they are psychotic. I don't deny the existence of the Bible as a book, but I say I don't think it gives a correct image of reality.
Quote:
 
so what you are sayimg is you fail to experiance God - so there for God does not exsist?
My experience has nothing to do with it. I haven't experienced any of the Gods I don't deny the existence of either. What I'm saying is that a literal interpretation of the God of the Bible is neither self-consistent nor compatible with reality and therefore impossible for me to believe in.
Quote:
 
Cognitive science & neuroscience explain the performance of cognitive functions but are unable to explain why they are linked to "experiance" or give rise to conscious experience.
And what does that have to do with anything?
Quote:
 
There is such a thing as experiance wouldnt you agree?
That depends on what you mean by experience, but I would agree that I perceive the world in a stream of conscious moments and that I would have no problems calling this "experiencing".
Quote:
 
oh yeah and those leprechauns the ones that live at the end of the rainbow....the description said nothing about a geographical end it just described end -pherhaps its the optical illusion of an end ?
That is an interesting mindset you have there. I'm quite sure that as I explain exactly why that would make no difference, your mind would immediately look for loopholes in my formulations once again. Why this staunch attempts of protecting the existence of rainbow-dwelling leprechauns? Are you not satisfied with the possibility of forest dwelling ones?

The optical illusion of an end means that the end of the rainbow is at thousands of different points at the same time and also moving dependent of where the observers are moving. Are the leprechauns running around as the observers see the rainbow's end move? Do new leprechauns pop up whenever someone new looks at the rainbow? Or must they be in every place where anyone might be expected to see a rainbow's end?

My point is that though I cannot positively assert that there are no types of leprechauns anywhere in existence, there are descriptions of leprechauns that can be dismissed as either incoherent or incompatible with reality. And if you are unhappy with my formulation of an incredible leprechaun, I'm quite sure you are able to describe a leprechaun that cannot exist.
Quote:
 
so like the rainbow itself exsists so may the optical illusion of the end=no evidence of non-exsistence
unless you dont beleive in rainbows?
That's the thing. Rainbows do not exist as actual physical entities. You can't walk around a rainbow. They exist only as an optical illusion of light that hits our eyes when it passes through water-drops in the sky.
Quote:
 
the question id be asking supposing you were wanting to
FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF -is tell me how to get to the place you describe ? instead of
The place you describe does not exsist !
What are you talking about? My whole point is that there is not one point that can be said to be "the end of the rainbow". Why do you want me to describe the way to a point I'm trying to tell you is not there? Are you talking about what looks like the end to one observer when he's standing still and doesn't move? Why would this point be any more "valid" than the new end-point that he would see if he moved a couple of steps to the left? Why is it more valid than the end-point another guy would see who's standing 100 m to the right?

I can tell you what he'd find if he directed one of his mates to go to what he incidentally saw as the end of the rainbow at that point in time and space: NOT a leprechaun with a pot of gold!

You cannot seriously be doubting this can you? I'm quite certain that there are loads of kids who have gone out searching for the end of the rainbow in various ways trying to find a pot of gold. Have you read many newspaper headlines going "kids find gold at end of rainbow"? Me neither.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
The optical illusion of an end means that the end of the rainbow is at thousands of different points at the same time and also moving dependent of where the observers are moving. Are the leprechauns running around as the observers see the rainbow's end move? Do new leprechauns pop up whenever someone new looks at the rainbow? Or must they be in every place where anyone might be expected to see a rainbow's end?


Now your talking !!! Why, i dont know.....but its quite possible and if you really opened your mind we might be able to comprehend a few more...

Quote:
 
My experience has nothing to do with it. I haven't experienced any of the Gods I don't deny the existence of either. What I'm saying is that a literal interpretation of the God of the Bible is neither self-consistent nor compatible with reality and therefore impossible for me to believe in.

Have you considered you may be psychotic? and what you are speaking of doesnt exsist ?
You see cognitive science & neuroscience explain the performance of cognitive functions but are unable to explain why they are linked to "experiance" or give rise to conscious experience-so if you think that you-

Quote:
 
perceive the world in a stream of conscious moments and that I would have no problems calling this "experiencing".


i would ask why you refuse to allow God into your conscious moments?
Furthermore-experiance is something greater than a stream of conscious moments-for starters we need to define both terms "conscious" & "experiance" why do you think we evolved to have either?

Quote:
 
That is an interesting mindset you have there. I'm quite sure that as I explain exactly why that would make no difference, your mind would immediately look for loopholes in my formulations once again
is that a compliment ? if so Thankyou ! Im just testing your hypothesis by experimenting-is good thing no ?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic »
Add Reply