God's authorship self evident???
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
-=-
I cannot believe something which has no evidence. I have no choice.
I cannot believe something which has no evidence. I have no choice.
You must by necessity therefore believe in nothing, as you cannot even prove you're not in the Matrix. Or a brain in a vat. Hell, you can't prove there even IS a brain, you could simply exist as whatever thought you are thinking at the moment.
We must all lower our standards of proof far enough so that our lives may be lived. Personally, I believe the standard for disbelief in God is higher than the standard for disbelief in the Universe as we percieve it.
-=-
Personally you believe bullshit.
I cannot prove I'm not in the Matrix thus I should believe in gods? It does not compute.
Whatever the universe is, it obviously is something however incorrect our perception of it may be. If my perception of the universe is flawed, your perception of gods is flawed. God is nothing but absurd cruel fantasy.
Personally you believe bullshit.
I cannot prove I'm not in the Matrix thus I should believe in gods? It does not compute.
Whatever the universe is, it obviously is something however incorrect our perception of it may be. If my perception of the universe is flawed, your perception of gods is flawed. God is nothing but absurd cruel fantasy.
That's not what I said. I said you have to take some things on faith. For example, the fact that the world we see is real must be taken on faith.
Therefore your statement "I refuse to believe anything which cannot be proven" is BS.
I wasn't (in that post, anyways), trying to prove God's existence. I was merely pointing out a fallacy. Though I'd be more than happy to prove his existence that if you'd like me to.
That doesn't follow. Just because our perception of one thing (may be) flawed, doesn't mean our perception of another thing is.
of course that is not true though.
Oh really? Prove that you're not in the Matrix... Or that you're not a brain in a vat? Or that you're not merely hallucinating?
Right, that's what I thought
Yeah right.
Well, nothing is "provable" except for Math. But if you want me to give you the evidence I have, I will. Make a thread. Go for it.
Wrong again.
It doesn't matter whether I'm in the matrix or not as far as my everyday life goes.
No faith required.
Obviously not enough thinking.
I have to make the thread?
Ah so it's come down from you being able to
to you just "having evidence".
As suspected...
Ah, my point EXACTLY. No proof required. You're willing to assume that it's true because it's practical.
Well, I'm trying to not appear provocative by openly challenging all atheists on the thread to my evidence for God... But I will if you want.
I have as much proof for the existence of a God as you have for everyday life being real. That's all that's required IMO.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
if everything is God, rather than god being "other than" any of it (some dude on a thrown; a zeus)
then he be the creator (where we all evolved from/within)
then the words from all of mankind are opinions (within god)
the truth within all that work is what defines (describes) existence (God)
so they all have sumptin to learn from (learn the lesson from a car wreck)
the only real reason a single entity is so important is that a bunch of the old writings suggest some idiot will be telling you all this, when by now it should be common sense to you
Did you actually read what he wrote (and which I quoted so it would be obvious what I was referring to)? Or were you just looking to argue with me?
He very clearly stated that he did not NEED to prove he was not in the matrix because it was practical for him to believe otherwise.
If you're going to pick a fight (which isn't worth my time or breath), at least have the good manners to do so intelligently, as opposed to just glancing at what I write before trying to come up with a witty response.
http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/18296364/49f11f08/sharing.html?rnd=96
Usename: fiicere@yahoo.com
Pword: free
The arguments I mentioned. Only a very rough outline, I wrote it up in the past half hour or so. More than enough food for thought for now.
Aw, you have severe comprehension problems as well.
I VERY CLEARLY stated (and you included in the quote) No faith required.
I.e. yes I make assumptions and operate on them: because it's 100% irrelevant to my everyday life as to whether I'm in the "real world" or the matrix.
I don't need faith.
On the other hand you could learn to read what you think you're replying to.
Before trying to come up with any response.
It's only good manners and intelligence after all.
If god wrote a book he wouldn't use as much feminine anicdotes as Lao tzu (tzi) did.
peace.
Could someone please post this document (or a conversion) for me?
Apparently it's in some format that won't do anything other than claim I can't open it because it's "in a later version of Word" than I'm using, despite the fact that I've just downloaded the latest viewer app...
Thanks.
I VERY CLEARLY stated (and you included in the quote) No faith required.
I.e. yes I make assumptions and operate on them: because it's 100% irrelevant to my everyday life as to whether I'm in the "real world" or the matrix.
I don't need faith.
On the other hand you could learn to read what you think you're replying to.
Before trying to come up with any response.
It's only good manners and intelligence after all.
What do you call a belief in something which cannot be proven, and for which no evidence is given?
We're arguing semantics. If it makes you feel better, substitute "unsupported assumption" wherever I put the word belief (you will note that I didn't use the word faith after my first post, right? That was just to avoid confusions such as this).
My point was, not all the assumptions we make are "proven" or even "provable." If you're having trouble with reading comprehension, I'd advise you to go back and read the post which started this whole thing. It's quoted below for your convenience:
Why do I need "belief"?
Meh, okay, but there's a world of difference between assumption (supported or not) and faith (or even belief).
Correct, but you haven't responded to what I wrote:
fiicere: For example, the fact that the world we see is real must be taken on faith.
Dwyyddyr: Nope.
fiicere: Oh really? Prove that you're not in the Matrix... Or that you're not a brain in a vat? Or that you're not merely hallucinating?
Dywyddyr: Wrong again.
It doesn't matter whether I'm in the matrix or not as far as my everyday life goes.
No faith required.
In other words it DOES NOT MATTER for everyday life whether we're in the real world or the matrix (and in point of fact I doubt many people even consider the question).
Even to science it doesn't really matter since we have to work with what we can see/ prove/ live in...
Still no faith required.
You're erecting strawmen.
Last edited: