Me and you dear . The human mind lives in a delusional state . The nature of Humans. Fantasy is fun . It makes movies better too
The gig is up.
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
Me and you dear . The human mind lives in a delusional state . The nature of Humans. Fantasy is fun . It makes movies better too
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
What proof can you provide for the principles of logic? Presumably you employed those principles to prove all of your proven beliefs, right?
I'm curious how you would even approach answering the question that I'm putting to you right now without bogging yourself down in circularity.
That is your problem . You don't want anything . Get some wants . Hells bells , don't you like having fun . The bigger the fantasy the more fun . Try rock climbing , or scuba diving . Imagine you are on a beach with a _____? It is your Fantasy. You fill in the blanks
audible said:
I'm curious; how do the people who use knowledge and facts do this without operating under a belief system? Do they use knowledge and facts without "believing" that's what they're doing, perhaps? How would that work?
I think it's easier to accept that critical minded people who use facts, are operating under the belief that facts exist, at least, and that they have knowledge of the facts, and furthermore they believe the facts are "relevant". I can't see how anyone could claim that critical thinking exists without invoking a belief system. . .
Why don't you read Hardwig's paper? He's not theist, and the paper was published in a prominent journal.
Right. Lets get one thing straight. I have seen through the eyes of god. I have had moments of cognitive enlightenment and am very close to finding some kind of will to believe, through my theories and thoughts. But I myself can't get over the lack of proof. So cannot take the leap.
My god experience was whilst heavily hallucinating on mexican mushrooms. I would treat any delusion/hallucination I might have as non-proof of gods existence (internal proof). The only proof that could alter the superior stance (which frustrates the hell out of theists cause they can't dent it) of atheists (who are willing to accept the possibility of god) like me is for there to be external proof/action documented within reality. Verified by a respected group of unbiased learned humans.
Until that happens god-believers are consigned to the loony bin.
I agree with Lori, although I wouldn't exactly use her words.
It seems that militant atheists/antitheists are at the stage where they simultaneously want a first-hand personal experience, but at the same time want someone else to verify or they won't believe it.
In a sense, this is perfectly reasonable demand, a solid attempt to avoid solipsism and its insanity.
It is also a demand that occurs in people who have a desire for something that can only be fulfilled within a particular society, while they themselves are not part of that society.
This phenomenon is rampant in modern times when many people are not born into religious communities or otherwise have only restricted access to them.
I don't think this modern hindrance is impossible to overcome, although I think it can be very difficult, but it does require a conscious change of attitude, as otherwise, one will keep pushing away those people and those opportunities that could give one what one desires.
I don't think personal testimonies are useless, but they are accompanied by the simple fact that they are likely incomplete - incomplete in the sense of what the testimony-giver said, as well as incomplete in what the hearer heard.
This is why it is necessary to associate with someone for a long time, through various life situations, to get a bit of a better picture of what they are like.
Many people nowadays do not have the opportunity to do so, so they instead go by stereotypes, preconceived notions, prejudices - which are bound to give a skewed picture.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I do believe that there is enough evidence which one can logically draw a conclusion that God does exist. Or not-depending on how you see the evidence.
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."
I for one, believe God exists. When you look at how remarkable our universe and world is, and the complexities of the human body right down to DNA I think it is more logical to conclude that the results are that of a creator as opposed to a roll of the dice-simply sheer dumb luck.
I have proof that supports my personal belief. But then, I don't give my belief much status or significance, because I don't need to, because the proof is enough. Besides, having a belief and giving it significance is really just an ego trip.universaldistress said:
What's the proof? Well, why should I tell you? Why are you even interested? Don't you already know the answer?
The disproofs are piling up huh? Where?SciWriter said:
As I state above, I have proof. But I also have no real desire to explain it. Why should I? It's my individual experience. All mine, nothing to do with you or your beliefs.
Beliefs are a tricky thing, I try to follow the path of "not-thinking" sometimes, which is like believing that you don't have to believe anything, just act. How logical is a belief that denies belief in anything? How come it works (for me)?
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
There is saying among scientists, "You can't put God under a microscope." In other words, he can't be summed up in a scientific formula or expressed in a mathematical equation. All the created universe can be encompassed by our minds, but God is greater than all that (it makes sense that he's greater than the universe he created) and consequently he can't be encompassed by our minds. This is the difficulty in providing incontrovertible proof of God's existence and why his existence can be held only by faith. This doesn't mean that belief in God is unreasonable or that there's no evidence for his existence. It just means that there is no "incontrovertible" proof of his existence; otherwise there'd be no atheists or agnostics.
Billy Graham once said, "I know God exists because I was talking to him just this morning." In other words, for most of us perhaps, our faith is based on our personal experience of God. Faith is like love, you can't prove it you can only experience it.
This reminds me of something:
It really depends on whom one thinks one needs to justify oneself to.
Usually, it seems we are not aware of this, and simply think that we ourselves are the ones who require that justification.
But it is usually the "voices" in our minds who require it. Often enough, those are voices of people who didn't care about us, whose harsh standards we had to live up to, who even abused us.
Personally, I am not so sure I want "proof of God" - I am not even sure what that would be.
But there is the angry voice of a teacher in my head, demanding it of me. I still think that in order to appease her anger, I need to "prove God". Then there are the voices of my Christian "friends" who always found such a combination of scriptures that made me look condemned, like an idiot, worthless. And I don't want to feel that way, I don't want to believe that this is "who I really am", so I fight them, seeking "proof of God", among other things.
Then there are people with whom I could spend a lifetime, and the issue of "proof of God" would never come up.
It really depends whom one associates with, immediately, or in the mind.
I think that especially for modern people, one of the hardest thing to learn is privacy, personal boundaries.
Even though many people spend a lot of their time alone, they don't know how to be alone. Others are present - in the form of memories, television, books, internet, and such.
What fascinates me the most about believers is that even though they are in great numbers in a relatively small place
each of these persons probably has an incredibly better sense of privacy than I do, even while I am alone in a room in a big house on a big property.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
There is saying among scientists, "You can't put God under a microscope." In other words, he can't be summed up in a scientific formula or expressed in a mathematical equation. All the created universe can be encompassed by our minds, but God is greater than all that (it makes sense that he's greater than the universe he created) and consequently he can't be encompassed by our minds. This is the difficulty in providing incontrovertible proof of God's existence and why his existence can be held only by faith. This doesn't mean that belief in God is unreasonable or that there's no evidence for his existence. It just means that there is no "incontrovertible" proof of his existence; otherwise there'd be no atheists or agnostics.
Billy Graham once said, "I know God exists because I was talking to him just this morning." In other words, for most of us perhaps, our faith is based on our personal experience of God. Faith is like love, you can't prove it you can only experience it.
Attack the poster, not the content. Typical ineffective point making.
The OP question is clear, and scientific.
Logic is an evolved system that has been proven time and time again with the results it produces. If that isn't definite proof that logic works I do not know what is.
Still no proof to support BLIND BELIEF? NO? Didn't think so.
The weakness of humans/propensity to enjoy the comfort/peace of belief is avoided through use of a PROVEN system: Logic.
There are other avenues to achieve this peace without god-belief.
Still no proof to support BLIND BELIEF? NO? Didn't think so.
The weakness of humans/propensity to enjoy the comfort/peace of belief is avoided through use of a PROVEN system: Logic.
There are other avenues to achieve this peace without god-belief.
Don't want to BELIEVE in a maybe.
You should read some of my prose. It would knock your stance into touch.
Done it. Done it.
AAAHHH, thanks for that amazing imagery
Single personal proof doesn't cut it in a scientific context.
If you think you can talk about reality or a solid basis of proof divorced from philosophy its quite clear you don't a clue what you are talking about.