A Quantum Hologram of Christ's Resurrection?

[Michael]

No it doesn't.

At least not good evidence.

 

[NMSquirrel]

@NM --

That's quite arrogant of you, but we all know that theists are by necessity more arrogant than atheists are, it's built into the very mindset that tells you that the supreme being which created everything is intimately interested and involved in your personal life, including who you diddle with and why and when. Yeah, quite arrogant.

my arrogance has nothing to do with my belief in God..i have been arrogant long before i ever believed. (my sis is worse than me....)
don't condemn a belief in God because his followers are just as screwed up as the rest of humanity..

Not only was this unbelievably arrogant of you but it's also demonstrably wrong. When have I told anyone to just shut up? When have I done anything but demand evidence and rebut fallacious arguments(like this one)? Oh that's right...never.

so that means you do not really understand what you are asking and are just parroting the beliefs of others..
Is it really 'Proof' that YOU need or is that just an excuse? (if there is no proof,then there is no Hell?..)

So, I suggest you take your arrogant and inaccurate assertions and shove them up your ass. That's just what I think you should do with them anyways.

this is what makes me think you are Anti-Theist, not atheist(default to insults)..and as such my responses are valid..prove to me that you are not an Anti-theist, prove to me you are just an atheist.

2. So when the theist responds to the demand for evidence with "evidence isn't what matters, faith is what's important" then going to the "well if it's faith then why do you always reach for evidence" question isn't appropriate? Damn, because it's such a good way to highlight the cognitive disconnect, now I'll have to find another. Oh wait no I won't because it is an appropriate respons

e.
the disconnect is when anyone (theist and atheist) associates proof or lack thereof with a exist/doesn't exist condition, no proof does not equal no God.

so when you argue 'prove it' you are saying you do not believe in God nor will you ever, nor will anyone ever convince you that there is any 'proof'
so the only reason you are asking is to create problems..of course if this doesn't apply, it just reinforces my opinion that you are just parroting others opinions.

Because I want to know, and if it exists there should be evidence of it. Sorry, that's just the scientist in me poking it's head out.

test all things, hold on to what is good.
why 'should' there be any evidence?
what would be the consequences of such an empirical finding?

Nope, I could engage in delusion just like anyone else.

this statement is evidence of my opinion you are Anti-Theist, not atheist. you are not even willing to contemplate any logical fallacies in your own thinking..
(to entertain an idea does not mean you believe it)

Besides, even if he is real and if I ever do find proof, I still wouldn't be forced to follow.

and again..so why is proof so important for you? you still would not change your ways..so the question becomes irrelevant again.

Besides, this is all irrelevant, nothing more than a red herring which is a logical fallacy(if you don't know what that is, GFE).

watch for the projections young man(woman?)..
i just tried to show you the logical fallacy of the question 'prove that God exists' , are you gonna ignore my arguments and default to insults?..then your attitude is not your own..(see parroting)

How do you solve the problem of conflicting testimonies then?

what God wants for you is not the same as what
God wants for me..
what convinces you, will not necessarily convince me..(dare you to argue with this one..)

Surely the fact that for every testimony which acts as "evidence" for your god, there's at least one acting as "evidence" for every other god that's still worshiped. How do you solve this without resorting to, wait for it, evidence?

what makes you so sure that only ONE is true?
why can't they all be? sure there are enough differences to create conflict, but doesn't most all of them posit that we should all get along?


For the record Arioch.
I am not trying to convince you that God does exist.that is between you and God, all i can do is share what i think,know,feel,believe..you make your own decisions..

I am questioning where your attitude comes from.(conditioned? bad experiences? because everyone else says so..?)(i would do that for theist, but there are plenty of atheist here who are more than willing to do that..)

 

[Mind Over Matter]

...but we all know that theists are by necessity more arrogant than atheists are...

There are nice atheists. I have met and befriended many of them myself. But with all due respect, my question to you is, are you equivalent of Mother Theresa?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

It's fine that you believe this.

Nope, it's not belief on my part.


Yep, that's the typical theist approach: If reality is inconvenient, dismiss it.


Nothing to do with MY question though.
I asked about your claim:

That's all.

Dywyddyr,

It is not my intention to debate with you. I presented my position and you presented yours. Neither of us will convince the other, so that's that.

 

[wynn]

There is no consensus on what "a true seeker" is.

As I use the term, I am speaking of those who are open minded in their seeking. We meet many who question our beliefs, but not so much to seek greater understanding but rather to reenforce their own, already hardened, conclusions.

I am sure that if both you and the other person would work on improving your communication style, things would be much clearer.

If both of you are using the non-assertive style (which is the default for most people), then the typical clashes (and "hardening") occur, as neither side is owning what they say, but instead refer to some third-party authority which is not present to adjudicate or to which only one of you has access.



P.S.
"No True Scotsman" is the name of a logical fallacy.

 

[wynn]

I knew it was God because of the specific situation, what was said, and what I felt in my heart upon hearing it - Something that stemmed from such an overwhelming Love and peace that it actually startled me.

Now this may not be an explanation that fits with what some consider "evidence", and indeed it is not something that can be "explained" in any sort of scientific way, but believe me, when it happens, the person of faith, or the seeker of faith, knows it...

I say I know - You say I assume...

What is my "evidence" is to you nothing at all...That's free will...

It's not about free will.

You are presenting here some reference to an evidence, and you are presenting it to people for whom you know do not share your beliefs.


You are like talking Chinese to people who don't speak a word of Chinese.

When they make it clear to you they don't understand you, you blame it on their free will, saying they are refusing to understand you.
You do not care about the fact that they do not speak Chinese. You treat them as if they do, but are merely playing dumb.


That is not fair of you.

It is not my intention to debate with you. I presented my position and you presented yours. Neither of us will convince the other, so that's that.

I think this is not a helpful attitude.
Since you are a theist, the one who claims to have superior knowledge, I would expect better from you.
If you really had superior knowledge, then I assume you would be able to communicate with each and every person is such a manner that they would see the truthfulness of your claims - and not have to rely on leaps of faith.

 

[wynn]

testimony is communication of what convinced one to believe..

to dismiss the testimony is to dismiss the person as a valid source..

(so why the hell are you asking us if you don't think we are a valid source???)

This is a discussion forum.

Some people do not seem to grasp what that means.

It is about the arguments, not the persons who make them.


The questions here are meant to stimulate discussion.
They are not requests for help, guidance or proof.

 

[wynn]

you don't want evidence..you want the theist to shut up, so you find the best argument you can to that end..

Riight. When I want to know what I want or think, I will just ask you!

but the question is more for Atheists, why is it so important for you to have evidence of God?

Because all sane people have the desire to know the truth and to not make mistakes, to not be in delusion.

When it comes to important beliefs, one must be sure one isn't simply imagining things because they might be convenient at some point.
Hence the desire for evidence.

and consider this, if you(you personally) had empirical evidence for the existence of God, wouldn't you feel that you now have NO choice but to follow and believe?

I think that would be a good thing.
Unless God would actually be a moster, in which case having no choice but to believe in Him would be traumatic.

don't condemn a belief in God because his followers are just as screwed up as the rest of humanity..

Then there is no use to their belief in God.

 

[wynn]

Oh it's easily explained by science. You had an auditory hallucination, simple.

Not so fast.

I've had a "vision" once. I would not dismiss it as a hallucination.
But I wouldn't take it as proof of God or basis for belief in God either.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Because all sane people have the desire to know the truth and to not make mistakes, to not be in delusion.

When it comes to important beliefs, one must be sure one isn't simply imagining things because they might be convenient at some point.
Hence the desire for evidence.

so it becomes an issue of validation, which has little to do with belief.

I think that would be a good thing.

this sounds not very thought through..you are saying you do not want to make your own choices..you WANT to be told what to do..you do not want to think for yourself..

your posts on sciforums speaks otherwise.

God created us with the ability to choose.why would he want to take that away?

 

[wynn]

this sounds not very thought through..you are saying you do not want to make your own choices..you WANT to be told what to do..you do not want to think for yourself..

your posts on sciforums speaks otherwise.

God created us with the ability to choose.why would he want to take that away?

I think what you are saying is really twisted.

Obviously, people want to have the ability to choose in some instances.

Some other instances may be such that choosing in them would be absurd or trivial.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I think what you are saying is really twisted.

Obviously, people want to have the ability to choose in some instances.

Some other instances may be such that choosing in them would be absurd or trivial.

keep in mind that this discussion revolves around 'if there were empirical proof' and my point about how human behaviour would be affected by such empirical proof.
my opinion is that it would be detrimental to our freedoms,we would stop thinking for ourselves and stop making our own decisions,

IOW atheist/theist sometimes think; if there were proof,then one would have no choice but to believe.
i do not believe this.

 

[wynn]

keep in mind that this discussion revolves around 'if there were empirical proof' and my point about how human behaviour would be affected by such empirical proof.
my opinion is that it would be detrimental to our freedoms,we would stop thinking for ourselves and stop making our own decisions,

I think your concern here is artificial.

IOW atheist/theist sometimes think; if there were proof,then one would have no choice but to believe.

If God is good, then having proof of Him is not a problem.

i do not believe this.

Why not?

 

[NMSquirrel]

I think your concern here is artificial.

it is not artificial,it is very valid and relevant,as long as the question of proof still exists.

what is the consequence on humanity if the question of proof were ever to be satisfied?
how would humanity behave if there were absolute proof?

 

[wynn]

it is not artificial,it is very valid and relevant,as long as the question of proof still exists.

what is the consequence on humanity if the question of proof were ever to be satisfied?
how would humanity behave if there were absolute proof?

Everyone would be happy, with God, serving God.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Everyone would be happy, with God, serving God.

that sounds like a scripted answer..

 

[wynn]

that sounds like a scripted answer..

So? It's not necessarily wrong therefore.

 

[NMSquirrel]

So? It's not necessarily wrong therefore.

but what does that mean to you?

 

[wynn]

I do not see myself or my free will in any way diminished if I actually would have proof of God.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I do not see myself or my free will in any way diminished if I actually would have proof of God.

so the the question of proof for you is irrelevant.(?)