hef,
So I hope you are still here and haven’t left because of being too sensitive. I was really hoping to see some real attempts at proving the existence of gods.
This is not a beginner’s forum; if you make a mistake here then mercy is unlikely. Humility and precision attract respect, anything else, and you are……
Just in case you are still willing to debate then -
Unless you can overcome that first hurdle then we would have little choice but to consider you delusional. Especially when you try to claim that “we're tit for tat, for we're using the same state of the art knowledge”, and clearly you don’t believe that, since you are claiming you have something better.
So I hope you are still here and haven’t left because of being too sensitive. I was really hoping to see some real attempts at proving the existence of gods.
This is not a beginner’s forum; if you make a mistake here then mercy is unlikely. Humility and precision attract respect, anything else, and you are……
Just in case you are still willing to debate then -
OK.we must agree on the method for defining the source of creation
OK.Based on mathematical foundations. A function that complicated as the source of creation is definitely indeterminante dendant function. It depends on many many variables.
I have seen it said that absolute proofs can only be achieved when we know everything, except perhaps in mathematics.*Exact solution (That doesn't exist, it could be easily proofed that 1+1 is not always equal to 2)
These will doubtless be problematic and the cause for lengthy debate.*Empirical or semi empirical solution. (These are solutions that I may use, but I know full well that they're not exact and derived from historical data).
Inductive logic is essentially a probabilistic approach and most of science is based on inductive logic. But such assessments are often very subjective so again there would be enormous debate.*Probablisitic solution (This could be used if the problem is too too difficult, currently hydrology is a probabilistic science. This solution is too damn inaccurate and only based on compilation of few paramaters over very few times.)
But the conclusion must have a very high probability, and be very clear since the claims are of such incredible magnitude.I will be bold and I'll say that you're knowledge of the source of creation can only be based on probabilistic solutions, for you can not claim to me that you know more about such a complicated subject than you know about rainfall, and that's a much much much much easier subject.
It would seem you have not had many discussions with atheists. Very few claim that there is no god as you think. The primary atheist position is a disbelief in the claims made by theists.So my question to all aethiests, why are you claiming to know that there is no god when you have no proof of such a thing???. You would ask me of course, then what makes me believe that there is a god without a proof??.
OK.I say, as far as proofing things to each other, we're tit for tat, for we're using the same state of the art knowledge.
So I guess at this point we can safely ignore everything else you have said because this claim you have just made about yourself is what we will want you to prove. This is the key issue and the most common claim of theists once all the claimed empirical, historical, and probabilistic, evidence has been analyzed, as has been done for thousands of years, we end up with, “but I know it inside of me” or variations on the theme you have just espoused. As in your final statement -The only thing that I have on top of you is that I hide within me something that I can't share with you, and actually I don't want to share it with you, you see it's mine, call me selfish, but I think it's so cool and oh so fullfilling. When you get that thing or that answer, you'll hide it too. It's special, it's fulfilling, it's awesome, it's infinite, it's heaven. This thing or feeling is what people mistake it as religion.
Then the argument is lost before it has began. Your first task is to show that your claim of this special secret knowledge is somehow different from a psychotic delusion.It's not, it's a personal connection with your creator, that can't be described under the current state of the art science.
Unless you can overcome that first hurdle then we would have little choice but to consider you delusional. Especially when you try to claim that “we're tit for tat, for we're using the same state of the art knowledge”, and clearly you don’t believe that, since you are claiming you have something better.