Considering I was the one to first use the term in this thread I should hope so LOL.
The gig is up.
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
If you can comfortably live with the "delusion" of accepting persons as your parents in the absence of dna testing it begs why you have this 10 page hangup about god on sci forums ... (or it could be more accurate to say that you are simply inflating your values with hyperbole to give free reign to your atheism - we see that quite a lot here from various posters - militant poorly thought out atheism : a seemingly popular alternative to militant poorly thought out theism)
Hah!
You said you're open to the possibility of God's existence. But you qualify this with the necessity of the existence of an explanation. Not just any explanation, but one which corresponds to what you think logic is.
So, as long as someone explains how, and why God exists, in a logical way so you can write it down, take it home and study it, poke holes in it etc, you're "open" to the possibility . . .
yeah, right.
This is despite being informed (perhaps by solipsist theistic wannabes) that God can't be proven or disproven, not with logic. If the subject was a logical premiss, wouldn't someone have come up with a logical theory by now, seeing how the question has been around since, well, since we first started to ponder the existence of the big guy?
You said you're open to the possibility of God's existence. But you qualify this with the necessity of the existence of an explanation. Not just any explanation, but one which corresponds to what you think logic is.
So, as long as someone explains how, and why God exists, in a logical way so you can write it down, take it home and study it, poke holes in it etc, you're "open" to the possibility . . .
yeah, right.
This is despite being informed (perhaps by solipsist theistic wannabes) that God can't be proven or disproven, not with logic. If the subject was a logical premiss, wouldn't someone have come up with a logical theory by now, seeing how the question has been around since, well, since we first started to ponder the existence of the big guy?
I answered this already. You obviously missed it.
You are the ones who can't break down my stance. Who is thinking poorly?
Offer proof of god, or shut up.
Point is believing in god is nuts because of the fact there is no proof. All the rest is BS.
The only way you can question my stance is by being illogical. LOL.
Would a photo do it?universaldistress said:
I have one of me and the big guy at the local bar, last Friday.
He looks like he's enjoying himself for once, the cranky old bugger.
Mind you, it was a candid shot, so he's got that "caught in the headlights" look.
Why do you assume that god can't be proven to exist?
I do not assume that god can be proven to exist.
I just assume that for god to be proven to exist proof must be found.
Until then god-belief is conjecture.
I do not assume that god can be proven to exist.
I just assume that for god to be proven to exist proof must be found.
Until then god-belief is conjecture.
Last edited:
I don't. I assume that logic can't prove the existence/nonexistence of such as God (and a lot of other things, but that's not important right now . . .).universaldistress said:
But you assume that a logical explanation exists.
See? And you can't describe what the nature of this proof is, or "must be".
Until when? Isn't this your own personal conjecture? Aren't you just trying to tie up all the apparently loose ends in an otherwise poorly structured logic?
You should talk to this guy I was at the pub with last Friday.
The Why and How of existence, and more:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2749616&postcount=261
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2749616&postcount=261
None of this takes away from the fact that one must have proof for ones beliefs to be more than conjecture. You just do not understand the principles of reality.
Same thing. Proof is applied using logic. You are saying that god can't be proved or disproved to exist with logical systems so therefore he must exist; without proof I might add. BS.
I do not assume an explanation exists.
I do not assume an explanation doesn't exist.
I do not assume a logical explanation exists.
I do not assume a logical explanation doesn't exist.
You assume an explanation exists because you believe.
I just assume that IF an explanation exists it needs to be proved.
You assume god exists. That is the POV you are applying. Do not transpose your POV onto my thoughts.
How could I lol. I am not prescient or omniscient.
I have had enough BS with just you lot.
you don't have to understand this:
to know that it exists...
to know that it exists...
What if one has proof but no belief?universaldistress said:
What if you open your eyes and see proof? Do you have to believe you opened your eyes, or that you can see? What if you don't understand how human vision works?
What if you see that the sky is "blue", do you now need to believe that the sky is blue and that you are "seeing" the sky?
Isn't "just looking" enough of a proof, despite what you may or may not think/believe about your sense of vision?
If I experience something, anything at all, do I need to believe something? What if I reject/suspend/renounce any belief I might have, including that "I" am experiencing "something". What then?
we refuted it already - several times in fact
the confidence afforded by loaded questions is only a praiseworthy diversion and evasion tactic
Children learn the world around them through scientific review. Trial and error. Cause and effect. And documenting within the mind to better move through the world.
You are just trying to fall back on solipsistic philosphical musings.
You what. I admit that I do not know for sure whether my parents are my biological parents. So your line of thought has zero relevance.
no you didn't, you equated them. science does not answer why. it never has, and it never will.
yet for some funny reason you aren't running around like a mad cheese ball demanding proof of your parents ... funny that, eh?
you don't have to understand this:
to know that it exists...
I can see it. Anyone I show this can see it (if they aren't blind). Once we all see it we can ascertain/prove it exists.
Can you see god? Can I see god? Can anyone see god?
Can a vision of god be recorded and verified by a group of unbiased reviewers? (Possibly. I am waiting to see it) Then we can prove he exists?
Understanding god is one thing. Proving gods existence is another.
I did not equate them. You did in your reading. I just gave examples of WHY questions that science deals with.
You are assuming the 'purpose' meaning of the word can be applied because you believe. I do not believe so your BS has no relevance to me.
Tell me the WHY questions that science can't answer then.