Sarkus,
Those resoponses are a reflection of your mind at that particular time, your mind, although not you in its
entirety, is non distinct from you.
The painting of Mona Lisa is a "creation" of Da Vinci, no one, or nothing else. When we think of Mona Lisa, we think of Da Vinci. Da Vinci is thus non distinct from his creation.
Proof is not necessary, everyTHING that I percieve through my senses is material.
Analogy stands.
What would you consider evidence?
I suggest you re-read my responses.
I'll let you figure that one out.
As there is a glimmer of possibility, can you say what would constitute proof?
I will reserve judgement untill you respond to the above respone.
Prisons are essentially created by prisoners, ie, if everyone was law abiding there would be no need of prisons. The "lack" comes from the prisoners, not the government.
Read above.
If you can concieve of such a world, then you can explain what evidence you would need to believe in God.
You mean if something cannot be shown to be possible, then it is impossible?
"Impossible" is an absolute statement I would have thought.
Unless you can show that God is impossible, his existence is always possible.
Until you're
happy, you are sad, that sort of thing?
Then it stands to reason that there are
shades of grey.
The baby develops trust in its loving parent, because the parent is loving toward it. The baby has no idea who or what 'parents' are, in the first week. It does garner experience, whether you wish to call it "evidence" or not, but to say it has formulated a simple theory, is, on your part, wishfull thinking, as the
baby would undoubtebly
cry whether or not the parent was loving. It would not, upon not being satisfied, go to plan B, or formulate a new theory or strategy. It relies purely upon faith and hope, because as of yet it knows nothing else,
it cannot
think for itself, which is why they have parents.
If the baby was neglected for most of its upbringing, the chances of that baby becoming a well-rounded adult individual, would be very slim.
I doubt it. As they grow their awareness (consciousness) becomes more developed, and it is the responsibility of the parent to guide each developmental stage, otherwise the the person will become spoilt, hence the terminology.
The terms asociated with atheism explains my statement; deny, without, lack.
These are negative terms which have to be constantly maintained.
What is he an authority in, exactly?
Jan.
Those resoponses are a reflection of your mind at that particular time, your mind, although not you in its
entirety, is non distinct from you.
The painting of Mona Lisa is a "creation" of Da Vinci, no one, or nothing else. When we think of Mona Lisa, we think of Da Vinci. Da Vinci is thus non distinct from his creation.
Proof is not necessary, everyTHING that I percieve through my senses is material.
Analogy stands.
What would you consider evidence?
I suggest you re-read my responses.
I'll let you figure that one out.
As there is a glimmer of possibility, can you say what would constitute proof?
I will reserve judgement untill you respond to the above respone.
Prisons are essentially created by prisoners, ie, if everyone was law abiding there would be no need of prisons. The "lack" comes from the prisoners, not the government.
Read above.
If you can concieve of such a world, then you can explain what evidence you would need to believe in God.
You mean if something cannot be shown to be possible, then it is impossible?
"Impossible" is an absolute statement I would have thought.
Unless you can show that God is impossible, his existence is always possible.
Until you're
happy, you are sad, that sort of thing?
Then it stands to reason that there are
shades of grey.
The baby develops trust in its loving parent, because the parent is loving toward it. The baby has no idea who or what 'parents' are, in the first week. It does garner experience, whether you wish to call it "evidence" or not, but to say it has formulated a simple theory, is, on your part, wishfull thinking, as the
baby would undoubtebly
cry whether or not the parent was loving. It would not, upon not being satisfied, go to plan B, or formulate a new theory or strategy. It relies purely upon faith and hope, because as of yet it knows nothing else,
it cannot
think for itself, which is why they have parents.
If the baby was neglected for most of its upbringing, the chances of that baby becoming a well-rounded adult individual, would be very slim.
I doubt it. As they grow their awareness (consciousness) becomes more developed, and it is the responsibility of the parent to guide each developmental stage, otherwise the the person will become spoilt, hence the terminology.
The terms asociated with atheism explains my statement; deny, without, lack.
These are negative terms which have to be constantly maintained.
n't say - I am not him nor do I know too much about him.
But I am not going to start appealing to authorities.
What is he an authority in, exactly?
Jan.
