is it possible to find God by reason?

do you think it makes you clever to take things out of context,
lets reprint what was said shall we.

( we'll do your in red and mine in blue shall we and the green stated by godless)

you stated "Surely I would know significantly more in 10k years. That isn't the point the point is, there may be things I cannot know. ”

I said "if theres things we can never know, then in effect they dont exist to us."

you said "All things will be known if they exist"... "wow, that is quite a positive claim. How do you support it? ”

so I said "well you answered it your self above, if it's not known, it does'nt exist.
until it becomes known, it must alway remain in the realms of fantasy.
cloud cuckoo land, the twilight zone."


then you posted this "Therefore, x-rays didn't exist until 1895"

to which I say again "you answered it your self above, if it's not known, it does'nt exist.
until it becomes known, it must alway remain in the realms of fantasy.
cloud cuckoo land, the twilight zone."


xrays are now known, so at one time they could only possibly be imagined.
read properly, then you dont make yourself look foolish.
 
mustafhakofi said:
do you think it makes you clever to take things out of context,
lets reprint what was said shall we.

....then you dont make yourself look foolish.
Click to expand...

Nothing foolish about it, I'm afraid.

mustafhakofi said:
xrays are now known, so at one time they could only possibly be imagined.
Click to expand...

Yes, and even before there discovery they were just as real as they are today. Before 1895, there was a truth about the world we didn't know. The world didn't change in 1895, we did.

You again stressed:

to which I say again "you answered it your self above, if it's not known, it does'nt exist.
until it becomes known, it must alway remain in the realms of fantasy.
cloud cuckoo land, the twilight zone."

Not only can things exist without being known, one cannot say they are necessarily confined to "realms of fantasy" although some things might be. For example, there may be bona fide theoretical reasons to suspect the existence of something although there is no evidence for it. Does the Higgs boson exist? No one knows, yet. Either it currently exists or it does not, irrespective of our knowledge and ignorance. Is it all just a "fantasy"? No - although it might be that it never existed. We don't know. The truth of Higgs boson is something we don't know about yet. We may someday uncover the truth on this particular question. It does not follow that we can do this with all questions.
 
lerxst: you are quite clearly deluded, so be happy in your madness, your like talking to a brickwall, but thats an insult to a brickwall.
your not worthy of my time.
you quite obviously cant read english.
I'm not going to have a battle of wits with a one celled amoeba
you been told the same thing by several members the consensus of opinion is you wrong but your too thick to stubbon to concede.
 
mustafhakofi said:
lerxst: you are quite clearly deluded, so be happy in your madness, your like talking to a brickwall, but thats an insult to a brickwall.
your not worthy of my time.
you quite obviously cant read english.
I'm not going to have a battle of wits with a one celled amoeba
you been told the same thing by several members the consensus of opinion is you wrong but your too thick to stubbon to concede.
Click to expand...

LOL. "Stubbon"? No. Just more skeptical than you, and intellectually honest.
 
lerxst we dont pull people down for misspelling as we get an awful lot of different nationalitys, it make the instigator ( thats you at the moment) to be small minded and insular, so she missed an "r" you missed a "g"
lerxst said:
realms that require such high eneries to probe
Click to expand...
LOL "eneries"?, see how petty it is and how childish.
 
such conflict is happening cause of limited understanding of 'reason'...for example what we got:
a says 'existence' b says 'non-existence'

we also got a polar relationship. reason has abstracted to abstracts to define two extremes of reality..............
but tere is an organic reason that resolves this seeming contradiction. not mystical. i'd sooner call it say Chaos. hasn't for example Chaos theory shown that what to a certain mode of reason seem chaos is really a ddper order....maybe even 'order' is limited to say i dont know
 
geeser said:
lerxst we dont pull people down for misspelling as we get an awful lot of different nationalitys, it make the instigator ( thats you at the moment) to be small minded and insular, so she missed an "r" you missed a "g" LOL "eneries"?, see how petty it is and how childish.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I apologize for attacking the spelling.

But being a newbie, may I inquire if "pulling people down" would include labelling them an "amoeba"? Do we need that kind of name-calling in this thread? And who instigated that?
 
duendy said:
first dont DENY. dnt pretend. then we can move on. if you sit ther pretending 'God' has no gender then we cant explore tis question adequately. one only has to look at the terminology of the Christian faith for 'God' the 'father'...? since when has 'Father' been AGENDER'
Click to expand...
There's nothing to explore until you've established a definition of god and demonstrated some argument or evidence towards god's existence. But since you're hung up on pronoun usage perhaps we can use 'it' until we get to that point. Sound all right with you?

The word 'father' has always been a gender defined term but then I didn't use the word or mention Christianity so I've no idea what you're arguing about. This discussion is a bit more fundamental.

~Raithere
 
mustafhakofi said:
if it's not known, it does'nt exist
Click to expand...
There's a fine point here that you're missing or at least not expressing.

There is a difference between that which is not known and that which cannot be known. The former and the latter are significantly different. That which is not known may very likely exist. That which inherently cannot be known, however, may be said to not exist, at least as far as any empirical model of existence is concerned.

~Raithere
 
There is also the issue of the reality of the past.

At 3:51 PM CST time today, I took a coin out of my pocket, put it between cupped hands and shook it. It eventually came to rest either heads up or tails up on my bottom hand. I never opened my hands and looked to see what it was. I left it that way for a minute. Then I closed by fist and put the coin back in my pocket and jangled it about with the other coins. I don't even know which coin it was.

For that minute at 3:51, either the coin was heads up or it was not. It actually happened. Either "it was heads up" or "it was tails up" was a true statement, and one statement corresponded to reality.

But nobody knows, and nobody ever will, and the information is totally lost now.

Another truth unknowable *in principle* to any human mind. But still, it was real.

Or would you say that the state of the coin at 3:51 "never existed" because nobody looked at it?
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
But nobody knows, and nobody ever will, and the information is totally lost now.
Another truth unknowable *in principle* to any human mind. But still, it was real.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Our interpretation of reality does not change it.
It changes us. Then we change reality based on that impression of us.

Lerxst said:
Or would you say that the state of the coin at 3:51 "never existed" because nobody looked at it?
Click to expand...
The fact that there was a state of the coin, exists as a proof that not knowing an objective truth does not change that objective reality.

Also, there has been no consensus reached here, so whoever said that needs to back off and let people talk. Especially after making numerous fallacious statements, as they have done in the preceding posts.

Also, duendy has explained that there is something wrong with his keyboard, (although I have seen him type a legible sentence every blue moon, and therefore should probably be less forgiving), but duendy is not retarded, as far as I can tell.

The real problem represented here is confusion about the fact that both subjective and objective realities have an effect on us whether they are known or unknown, knowable or unknowable. Carbon dioxide has an affect on plants and they will, probably, never ever know that.
 
Raithere said:
That which is not known may very likely exist. That which inherently cannot be known, however, may be said to not exist, at least as far as any empirical model of existence is concerned.
Click to expand...
And there is a fine point you are missing here, basically semantic, but the fact is an unknowable thing may still exist, but can not be shown to exist.
 
the name of this thread is
is it possible to find god by reason
so let me piut my 2 cents in

okay, god is all knowing all powerfull and rightous
if god is rightous and all powerfull where did satan come from?
therefor god cannot exist
 
leopold99 said:
the name of this thread is
is it possible to find god by reason
so let me piut my 2 cents in
Click to expand...
my 2 cents -
You can find God by reason in the same way you can find God by moving to another state, or by getting a different job. There is no correlative connection between being reasonable and believing in God. That having been said, some ideas of God ARE unreasonable.


leo said:
okay, god is all knowing all powerfull and rightous
if god is rightous and all powerfull where did satan come from?
therefor god cannot exist
Click to expand...
wrong.
Perhaps satan is simply a tool for the creation of our freewill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top