i concur.
Some logic for both sides...
- Thread starter Lori_7
- Start date
i concur.
Again, you completely misunderstand logic.
The words "deduction" and "observation" cannot logically occur conjoined in a sentence.
You're confusing deduction with induction.
Nay Dragonmancer, nyet. We are like dust in the wind...
if you wish to be dust, might as well be it.
Intelligence would be to reject religions as well as Gods as many other societies have done through the past. The Incas, Myans and Egyptians are all no longer following the original religions that once governed them all. Just remember that in the past those religions were made up by those wanting to control the society that once was. The people from those religions did away with them many years ago because they knew that those religions didn't really exist except to control their societies as governments now do. Why go backwards believing in the supernatural when we all know now that the religions just make up stories as they go along to keep the people in control once again.
i think you're making a fatal logic flaw that many people make, and that is to equate spirituality with religion. you're right about religion. like anyting else in this world, it's used and misused. but don't throw the baby jesus out with the bathwater. all kinds of people have observed things, and given accounts of things, based on experience. experience interacting with a spiritual realm.
Heh, heh. My wish is to cut the cynicism from my bosom... perchance to dream ...
is that so?
do you really mean it?
dream is so much better than reality, so lets make the dream our reality and what is real to us the dream.
*chuckle* well, you don't have to believe me. it's obvious that he hasn't proven his existence to everyone. it's up to the individual to want to know, and if they "knock", then he proves himself to the individual. it's personal...
and that's also logical.
Now you're making sense. And you're correct; it is up to the individual to choose to believe. This however, is neither a deduction, nor a logical argument.
Again, incorrect.
I'm not quibbling with the content of your position, you're free to choose to believe what you will. However, as the Thread starter, you chose to include the notion of logic. You have yet to describe any logical support for your position.
Is it possible that god may act via evolution? Yes.
Is it probable that god may act through evolution? No.
Have you supported this position in a logically valid manner? No.
you can certainly make a deduction based upon an observation. people do it all the time. i have not been a witness to but a small window of the creation process, and i do not know all there is to know about it. but based on what i do know, and on what i have seen, i can formulate some conclusions about it.
Incorrect.
A deduction, by definition, is an argument where a particular conclusion is derived from one or more premisses wherein one is granted a priori status.
There can be no such thing as an a priori observation.
QED
no, no. you don't choose to believe. you can't help but believe once he has proven himself to you. what you choose, is to initiate him to do this for you.
yes i did...
well, god is behind everything. this is my logic...
god definitely exists. he and observation have proven that to me.
evolution definitely occurs. science and observation have proven that to me.
he's OBVIOUSLY not finished yet. if he is, then i'm not staying or worshipping.
and this is what i understand...
that he operates (creates) within his own law. nothing happens by "magic". things happen according to law...natural, biological, physical, spiritual...law.
there are no assumptions here...
i KNOW god. like personally. i KNOW that he exists and is who he says he is.
and perhaps i'm using the terms evolution and adaptation interchangably, but species have come and gone and evolved over time including the human race.
god's definite existence can be proven to everyone. but not everyone wants to know. if anyone wants to know, it's easy enough, as god takes care of it.
and i'm in no way talking about theology. i'm talking about actual experience.
i'm assuming that those on both sides do not know him. that's inherent in my arguement. because if they did know him, they wouldn't be arguing about it.
Therein lies the paradox. To find what you seek, you must abandon the search, ultimately. You must give up the desire to find that which you seek.ashura said:
Wherever you look, outside of yourself, you will find not "that which you seek", but at most an idea "of it"; when you can look within, at nothing, the search begins.
You have to abandon all ideas, conceptions and expectations. You have to leave something behind, in order to find the "nothingness".
In nothingness is everything you seek, because the "inner nothingness", is the expression of all there is.
Just ask a Zen master.