Is God real?
- Thread starter Deleted member 546149
- Start date
- Views 4,989
- Replies 105
@smf
"You're asking people to believe in something just because you believe in it."
I am not asking anyone to believe anything.
"If you can't prove what you say then there is nothing to dismantle."
That's right. To say that "there is no evidence" is an unverifiable assessment.
"You're asking people to believe in something just because you believe in it."
I am not asking anyone to believe anything.
"If you can't prove what you say then there is nothing to dismantle."
That's right. To say that "there is no evidence" is an unverifiable assessment.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2016
- Messages
- 1,760
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- The People's Republic of Revachol
- Website
- twitter.com
- XP
- 4,149
- Country
Let's be real here, if I was God who sent many Saints to help humanity only to have almost if not everyone killed by said humans, then send my son to help only to have him killed by people as well, and then see what humanity have become over the thousands of years, especially the last 2000, well, I'd be doing this:
https://tenor.com/view/fuck-this-im-out-llama-gif-4695687
https://tenor.com/view/fuck-this-im-out-llama-gif-4695687
I'm not religious, but I do believe in a god and after life. And that we are judge in what we do in this life. But uncertain on what after life would look like, meaning if it's a heaven or hell.
I believe the afterlife is something humans are unable to imagine or comprehend
I believe the afterlife is something humans are unable to imagine or comprehend
@tabzer Skepticism is about requiring evidence for your beliefs. If you care if your beliefs are true, then you require evidence for those beliefs. If you don’t have evidence for those beliefs, then you cannot hold them. If you believe something despite not having evidence, then you care more about holding the belief than whether or not it is true, and that means you don’t actually care if your beliefs are true. It’s pretty silly to say that I have embraced irrationality, because I have not expressed any beliefs that are irrational. I’ve only acknowledged what it takes to be rational. It’s pretty lazy to respond to my points about irrationality by saying “I know you are but what am I?”
I have not suggested I was omnipotent or an authority, so I guess I wasn’t being disrespectful after all. I assume you will be apologizing for calling me disrespectful in your next post. I have not seen anyone in this thread attempt to provide evidence for the existence of a god, and as far as I am aware, no evidence for the existence of a god has ever been provided by anyone on this planet. It’s not disrespectful, pretentious, etc. to acknowledge the fact that there’s no evidence for a god’s existence. If you disagree with me, it would probably be a better use of your time to just provide the evidence rather than pussyfoot around it.
If a person cares if their beliefs are true, but there is no evidence that a god exists, then they are logically incapable of believing a god exists. If they believe in a god despite there being no evidence they’re aware of, then that person has inconsistent and arbitrary standards for their beliefs, and it means that person doesn’t actually care if their beliefs are true; it means they care more about the god claim being true than whether or not it’s actually true.
I agree with you that my position should be “I don’t know that a god doesn’t exist.” However, knowledge and belief are not the same thing, and knowledge is a subsection of belief. It is possible to believe a god exists and to claim to know a god exists. It is possible to believe a god exists but not know that a god exists. It is possible to not believe a god exists, and to claim to know that a god does not exist. It is possible to not believe a god exists, but to not know that a god doesn’t exist. I do not believe a god exists, but broadly speaking, I don’t know that a god doesn’t exist. I can say the same thing about leprechauns, unicorns, etc., and it’s how everyone should feel about things that have not yet met their burdens of proof. I do not have a burden of proof that I have to meet, since (as far as I’m aware) I have not made any positive claims about anything in this thread.
I am not going to accept anecdotal evidence of a god’s existence if it isn’t actually demonstrative of a god’s existence. I am not going to accept any evidence of a god’s existence if it’s not actually demonstrative of a god’s existence. Why should I? Why should anybody?
I have written god off as “irrational,” yes. That is purely because no god claim has met its burden of proof. If one were to provide evidence for a god, then I wouldn’t be able to call it irrational, and I’d have to believe a god exists.
@smf I am not making any assumptions about God, since I don’t believe gods exist. I was addressing an example of a god claim that a lot of people believe in. I already acknowledged earlier in this thread that a god could exist but is just a jerk.
@Tri-Z The claim that a god came down already to prove his existence is another claim that requires evidence to be believed, so that doesn’t help us.
I can’t tell you how the first lifeform began on this planet, since most/all of the evidence from that time has been destroyed, but there are several really good hypotheses that attempt to solve the abiogenesis question, and they’ve been demonstrated to be physically plausible with parts that have been replicated in laboratory settings. However, I could say I have no idea where the first lifeform came from, and that wouldn’t discredit evolution one bit.
The idea that a god doesn’t appear and make himself known because it would make us all automatically believe, do good, and worship him is pretty silly. If a god were to somehow prove his own existence to us, then yes, I would have to believe because my beliefs are based solely on the evidence. However, just because someone believed in a god doesn’t mean they will automatically do good. There are plenty of people with sincere religious beliefs who believe in God but commit bad deeds or even atrocities. Finally, just because someone had proof of a god’s existence does not mean they would worship that god. Even if I had proof of God’s existence and believed that god existed doesn’t mean I would worship him. I wouldn’t worship that god. According to the Bible, Satan was a being who had 100% proof that a god existed, but he did not worship him, and he did not do good.
Faith is belief without good reason or evidence, and it’s not a virtuous thing. Faith is nearly synonymous with gullibility if we are defining it as belief without evidence. If faith is required for a belief, then it’s probably not a belief one should hold if they care if their beliefs are true.
As a side note, the idea that one should ever “pay for the sins of the father” is an atrocious concept, and it’s morally reprehensible. A person is not responsible for the actions of their father or ancestors, and that’s why there are not “sins of the father laws” in the United States nor most other countries.
@BlaceMasterBM It doesn’t make free will pointless if one intervenes to stop a physical action, like an atrocity, from taking place. By your logic, all physical limitations are a violation of free will. The fact that I can’t travel faster than light or change the gravitational constant is a violation of my will to do these things, per your logic. Having the opportunity to commit an atrocity and succeeding in an atrocity are also two very different things. According to your own Bible, Abraham was instructed to kill his son, Abraham (through is free will) decided to do it, but God stopped him from doing it at the last second. Your own Bible is filled with examples of God stopping atrocities (and committing them).
If you never said someone had to be killed to grow, great. Let’s actually address what I said then. What is the purpose of natural disasters where people die if they’re not to create obstacles for people to overcome? What is the purpose, for example, of a tornado that kills a family of six? In reality, atrocities and natural disasters are not needed for life to be worth living, they are not needed for free will to exist, and they are not needed in order for a person to be able to grow.
With regard to your comments on yin/yang, not only are they not a compelling case for atrocities being required in order for good to exist (a child doesn’t have to be raped for his life to have good in it or have meaning, for example), but you just created a good argument for why Heaven cannot exist.
You say you made the conscious decision to be religious, but that shouldn’t be the case. Beliefs should not be something you can choose; they are the result of being convinced of something. For example, if I wanted to believe my computer monitor was actually a ham sandwich, I couldn’t physically do that, even if I wanted to. I would have to be convinced of it with evidence. Second, you seem to have missed the point of my analogy involving the government making decisions for you. Whether or not you believe in God, you probably believe God has a plan for you and knows your future. That would mean, arguably, that your life doesn’t really have a lot of meaning at all; it has already been written for you, and you are just a pawn in God’s plan, just as a government choosing your major and your life after college would reduce the meaning in your life.
You say that following your religion has been a good thing, but you’ve had to give up skepticism and reason in order to have it, and that’s not a good thing. I’m not saying there aren’t other things that are good that you couldn’t have gotten from religion (hope, etc.), but they come at a steep price. Feeling like you’ve benefited from the religious belief also isn’t evidence that the religious belief is true, which means it’s entirely possible that the good things you got from religion (hope, etc.) are all things that came from yourself, not the religion. I say keep the good parts of your religion while throwing away the bad or irrational parts. I would benefit emotionally from believing I had 1 billion dollars, for example, but just because I would get some good things from that belief doesn’t mean the belief is a good thing to have. If I don’t actually have any reason to think I’m a billionaire, it could be detrimental to my life to believe it.
I have not suggested I was omnipotent or an authority, so I guess I wasn’t being disrespectful after all. I assume you will be apologizing for calling me disrespectful in your next post. I have not seen anyone in this thread attempt to provide evidence for the existence of a god, and as far as I am aware, no evidence for the existence of a god has ever been provided by anyone on this planet. It’s not disrespectful, pretentious, etc. to acknowledge the fact that there’s no evidence for a god’s existence. If you disagree with me, it would probably be a better use of your time to just provide the evidence rather than pussyfoot around it.
If a person cares if their beliefs are true, but there is no evidence that a god exists, then they are logically incapable of believing a god exists. If they believe in a god despite there being no evidence they’re aware of, then that person has inconsistent and arbitrary standards for their beliefs, and it means that person doesn’t actually care if their beliefs are true; it means they care more about the god claim being true than whether or not it’s actually true.
I agree with you that my position should be “I don’t know that a god doesn’t exist.” However, knowledge and belief are not the same thing, and knowledge is a subsection of belief. It is possible to believe a god exists and to claim to know a god exists. It is possible to believe a god exists but not know that a god exists. It is possible to not believe a god exists, and to claim to know that a god does not exist. It is possible to not believe a god exists, but to not know that a god doesn’t exist. I do not believe a god exists, but broadly speaking, I don’t know that a god doesn’t exist. I can say the same thing about leprechauns, unicorns, etc., and it’s how everyone should feel about things that have not yet met their burdens of proof. I do not have a burden of proof that I have to meet, since (as far as I’m aware) I have not made any positive claims about anything in this thread.
I am not going to accept anecdotal evidence of a god’s existence if it isn’t actually demonstrative of a god’s existence. I am not going to accept any evidence of a god’s existence if it’s not actually demonstrative of a god’s existence. Why should I? Why should anybody?
I have written god off as “irrational,” yes. That is purely because no god claim has met its burden of proof. If one were to provide evidence for a god, then I wouldn’t be able to call it irrational, and I’d have to believe a god exists.
@smf I am not making any assumptions about God, since I don’t believe gods exist. I was addressing an example of a god claim that a lot of people believe in. I already acknowledged earlier in this thread that a god could exist but is just a jerk.
@Tri-Z The claim that a god came down already to prove his existence is another claim that requires evidence to be believed, so that doesn’t help us.
I can’t tell you how the first lifeform began on this planet, since most/all of the evidence from that time has been destroyed, but there are several really good hypotheses that attempt to solve the abiogenesis question, and they’ve been demonstrated to be physically plausible with parts that have been replicated in laboratory settings. However, I could say I have no idea where the first lifeform came from, and that wouldn’t discredit evolution one bit.
The idea that a god doesn’t appear and make himself known because it would make us all automatically believe, do good, and worship him is pretty silly. If a god were to somehow prove his own existence to us, then yes, I would have to believe because my beliefs are based solely on the evidence. However, just because someone believed in a god doesn’t mean they will automatically do good. There are plenty of people with sincere religious beliefs who believe in God but commit bad deeds or even atrocities. Finally, just because someone had proof of a god’s existence does not mean they would worship that god. Even if I had proof of God’s existence and believed that god existed doesn’t mean I would worship him. I wouldn’t worship that god. According to the Bible, Satan was a being who had 100% proof that a god existed, but he did not worship him, and he did not do good.
Faith is belief without good reason or evidence, and it’s not a virtuous thing. Faith is nearly synonymous with gullibility if we are defining it as belief without evidence. If faith is required for a belief, then it’s probably not a belief one should hold if they care if their beliefs are true.
As a side note, the idea that one should ever “pay for the sins of the father” is an atrocious concept, and it’s morally reprehensible. A person is not responsible for the actions of their father or ancestors, and that’s why there are not “sins of the father laws” in the United States nor most other countries.
@BlaceMasterBM It doesn’t make free will pointless if one intervenes to stop a physical action, like an atrocity, from taking place. By your logic, all physical limitations are a violation of free will. The fact that I can’t travel faster than light or change the gravitational constant is a violation of my will to do these things, per your logic. Having the opportunity to commit an atrocity and succeeding in an atrocity are also two very different things. According to your own Bible, Abraham was instructed to kill his son, Abraham (through is free will) decided to do it, but God stopped him from doing it at the last second. Your own Bible is filled with examples of God stopping atrocities (and committing them).
If you never said someone had to be killed to grow, great. Let’s actually address what I said then. What is the purpose of natural disasters where people die if they’re not to create obstacles for people to overcome? What is the purpose, for example, of a tornado that kills a family of six? In reality, atrocities and natural disasters are not needed for life to be worth living, they are not needed for free will to exist, and they are not needed in order for a person to be able to grow.
With regard to your comments on yin/yang, not only are they not a compelling case for atrocities being required in order for good to exist (a child doesn’t have to be raped for his life to have good in it or have meaning, for example), but you just created a good argument for why Heaven cannot exist.
You say you made the conscious decision to be religious, but that shouldn’t be the case. Beliefs should not be something you can choose; they are the result of being convinced of something. For example, if I wanted to believe my computer monitor was actually a ham sandwich, I couldn’t physically do that, even if I wanted to. I would have to be convinced of it with evidence. Second, you seem to have missed the point of my analogy involving the government making decisions for you. Whether or not you believe in God, you probably believe God has a plan for you and knows your future. That would mean, arguably, that your life doesn’t really have a lot of meaning at all; it has already been written for you, and you are just a pawn in God’s plan, just as a government choosing your major and your life after college would reduce the meaning in your life.
You say that following your religion has been a good thing, but you’ve had to give up skepticism and reason in order to have it, and that’s not a good thing. I’m not saying there aren’t other things that are good that you couldn’t have gotten from religion (hope, etc.), but they come at a steep price. Feeling like you’ve benefited from the religious belief also isn’t evidence that the religious belief is true, which means it’s entirely possible that the good things you got from religion (hope, etc.) are all things that came from yourself, not the religion. I say keep the good parts of your religion while throwing away the bad or irrational parts. I would benefit emotionally from believing I had 1 billion dollars, for example, but just because I would get some good things from that belief doesn’t mean the belief is a good thing to have. If I don’t actually have any reason to think I’m a billionaire, it could be detrimental to my life to believe it.
Lacius seems to think hyperbole = strong, compelling arguments. That isn't the case and I question how hard up you are for shoving atheism down the throats of those who have faith. The whole point of faith and belief is that their is no concrete evidence. it's nothing more than opinion. If you think that's detrimental to their worth or happiness then that's on them to interpret as such not you.
Today many people are more skeptical because science, technology and knowledge are increasingly responding to how life has evolved and how many of the biological and chemical systems of the universe work, but there are still many things that are inexplicable, such as for example what was there before the big bang, or how our dna was built, because if you leave all the work to the same evolution, at some point in all of existence all the chemical and physical and biological bases there must have been something or someone what created all that, while scientists cannot prove it, for me if there is something like a deity or a god, or simply a superior race that created this universe, the big question is who created the previous one ... so from there while there is no an evidence or logical explanation for that you must have faith in something or someone, you choose how to live your life and what you believe 
@MichelRT24 That would be the God of the Gaps argument.
You can use God to explain what we can't explain right now. But the more we learn the more God recedes, as not being the final satisfying answer.
A super intelligent race could have started life and created us. But we would need some evidence to know what is truly going on.
But us Humans were not designed perfectly. We have so many mistakes in the design of our bodies. Features seem to be tacked on from our previous evolutionary ancestors.
What was before the big bang. What was before God. Who created God. God always was? It's a concept hard for us to understand. Maybe we will learn in the future. Or maybe it's something beyond our comprehension.
You can use God to explain what we can't explain right now. But the more we learn the more God recedes, as not being the final satisfying answer.
A super intelligent race could have started life and created us. But we would need some evidence to know what is truly going on.
But us Humans were not designed perfectly. We have so many mistakes in the design of our bodies. Features seem to be tacked on from our previous evolutionary ancestors.
What was before the big bang. What was before God. Who created God. God always was? It's a concept hard for us to understand. Maybe we will learn in the future. Or maybe it's something beyond our comprehension.
@SG84 It is possible, but I believe that some people have first-hand experience that proves difficult to convey effectively. Does paradox exist? Quantum superposition?
@Lacius
"If you care if your beliefs are true, then you require evidence for those beliefs"
Usually when someone refers to a true belief, they mean it to be sincere as opposed to grandstanding.
"Skepticism is about requiring evidence for your beliefs. If you care if your beliefs are true, then you require evidence for those beliefs. If you don’t have evidence for those beliefs, then you cannot hold them.
People hold onto beliefs for a variety of reasons. Those variety of reasons are being dismissed as not "evidence" by yourself. Your word salad is a contradictory mess.
"It’s pretty silly to say that I have embraced irrationality, because I have not expressed any beliefs that are irrational."
You claim that irrationality is something that exists. You make contradictory claims. You also ascribe god with traits and character, criticize it, and then go on to say there is no evidence that it exists. Sounds like schizophrenia. Influenced by unresolved trauma with a real life patriarch? Maybe this particular god image is more real to you than whatever other image is perceived by the casual "nah" people.
"I am not going to accept anecdotal evidence"
Let's stop there. Don't pretend it is anything more than that.
"as far as I am aware"
This is the most honest I have ever seen you, but still wanting.
@Lacius
"If you care if your beliefs are true, then you require evidence for those beliefs"
Usually when someone refers to a true belief, they mean it to be sincere as opposed to grandstanding.
"Skepticism is about requiring evidence for your beliefs. If you care if your beliefs are true, then you require evidence for those beliefs. If you don’t have evidence for those beliefs, then you cannot hold them.
People hold onto beliefs for a variety of reasons. Those variety of reasons are being dismissed as not "evidence" by yourself. Your word salad is a contradictory mess.
"It’s pretty silly to say that I have embraced irrationality, because I have not expressed any beliefs that are irrational."
You claim that irrationality is something that exists. You make contradictory claims. You also ascribe god with traits and character, criticize it, and then go on to say there is no evidence that it exists. Sounds like schizophrenia. Influenced by unresolved trauma with a real life patriarch? Maybe this particular god image is more real to you than whatever other image is perceived by the casual "nah" people.
"I am not going to accept anecdotal evidence"
Let's stop there. Don't pretend it is anything more than that.
"as far as I am aware"
This is the most honest I have ever seen you, but still wanting.
Considering the likelihood we are in a simulation, that means there is a decent chance we were created by higher beings elsewhere, which I suppose you could call gods. In all likelihood not the biblical god or gods we know today from various religions, but it is possible that is what people were originally referring to but something got lost in translation during the long game of telephone throughout history or someone padded out the origin story with a lot of extra details to make it sound better and we ended up with the literature we have today. All I know is that most of the religious literature is probably 90% made up but there might be a grain of truth at the core of them. Not that it really matters because all in all and for the most part they contain good rules and life lessons to live by, whether they are mostly made up or not.
One thing is for sure though. Every religion can't be right, there's too much conflicting information. Which means that most likely one of two things is true: either they are all completely wrong, or they were all based on the same true story originally but during the game of telephone they diverged and now they are separate, distinct beliefs.
FWIW, I am agnostic. I won't believe in anything without solid evidence but since there is also no solid evidence to the contrary, I can't deny the possibility either. But I live by logic and reason, not faith.
If you can use faith to empower yourself and improve some aspect of your life or how you feel then that's a great thing, all the more power to you. Faith can be a powerful tool.
Losing faith is not necessarily a bad thing though - not everyone needs it, and sometimes it can get in the way.
For example, some people don't want to get treatment for illnesses because they claim God will either save them or if he doesn't, then it was their time to die. While others claim that God works indirectly through people, and the doctors and surgeons are actually doing God's work. Both of the same religion but yet have different beliefs. So which one is right? The answer to that question decides who lives and who dies.
Refusing treatment for serious illnesses in any case just seems absurd to me when you still have many years left of your life otherwise. And when there are so many differing opinions and beliefs even within the same religion how can you be sure your own personal, subjective beliefs are correct and everyone else is wrong? It's not even a question of faith at that point. The person laying in the sick bed next to you can have just as much faith as you, only his faith is in God doing his work indirectly through the doctors and your faith is in God somehow stepping in and saving your life if your fate is not to die yet.
One thing is for sure though. Every religion can't be right, there's too much conflicting information. Which means that most likely one of two things is true: either they are all completely wrong, or they were all based on the same true story originally but during the game of telephone they diverged and now they are separate, distinct beliefs.
FWIW, I am agnostic. I won't believe in anything without solid evidence but since there is also no solid evidence to the contrary, I can't deny the possibility either. But I live by logic and reason, not faith.
If you can use faith to empower yourself and improve some aspect of your life or how you feel then that's a great thing, all the more power to you. Faith can be a powerful tool.
Losing faith is not necessarily a bad thing though - not everyone needs it, and sometimes it can get in the way.
For example, some people don't want to get treatment for illnesses because they claim God will either save them or if he doesn't, then it was their time to die. While others claim that God works indirectly through people, and the doctors and surgeons are actually doing God's work. Both of the same religion but yet have different beliefs. So which one is right? The answer to that question decides who lives and who dies.
Refusing treatment for serious illnesses in any case just seems absurd to me when you still have many years left of your life otherwise. And when there are so many differing opinions and beliefs even within the same religion how can you be sure your own personal, subjective beliefs are correct and everyone else is wrong? It's not even a question of faith at that point. The person laying in the sick bed next to you can have just as much faith as you, only his faith is in God doing his work indirectly through the doctors and your faith is in God somehow stepping in and saving your life if your fate is not to die yet.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
- Messages
- 4,802
- Trophies
- 3
- Age
- 23
- Location
- Budakeszi, Hungary
- Website
- sites.google.com
- XP
- 10,572
- Country
I personally believe God exists.
As far as I know, there is no better explanation as to why the world exists and, even if he doesn't, I'd rather spend the final moments of my life thinking there is a Heaven, rather than ‘this is it; it's all over.’
As far as I know, there is no better explanation as to why the world exists and, even if he doesn't, I'd rather spend the final moments of my life thinking there is a Heaven, rather than ‘this is it; it's all over.’
I am not asking anyone to believe anything.
@tabzer Yes you are, you're asking to believe there is "anecdotal evidence".
that's right. To say that "there is no evidence" is an unverifiable assessment.
@tabzer You've got it entirely backwards, to say there is no evidence is 100% verifiable. As there is no objective evidence.
A lot of wars have been fought over which religion is true and which is false, if you are someone who believes in a specific religion then you are also excluding the "anecdotal evidence" of all the other religions.
All I'm doing is agreeing with everyone (for the most part) that the other religions are false, while believing in a specific religion means, you still think it's ok to disregard other people's religion, but YOUR religion is true. Which as I said earlier is built on arrogance.
And the specifics is the subjective evidence that is hundreds or thousands of year old chinese whispers that have been told and translated, which for the new testament was written a very long time after the events that took place and were carefully selected to reduce the amount of contradiction between them.
The benefit of worshiping science is you can easily cut through all of what came before every time some new discovery comes along. Religions don't have a monopoly on morality, that is something (like making stuff up) that comes naturally to some people and not to others.
Those who believe in god, have a personalized understanding of what it means.
@tabzer Right, those who believe in god have a fantasy of how they want their god to be. Like how I used to dream of lambourghini's and super models.
@tabzer Yes you are, you're asking to believe there is "anecdotal evidence".
that's right. To say that "there is no evidence" is an unverifiable assessment.
@tabzer You've got it entirely backwards, to say there is no evidence is 100% verifiable. As there is no objective evidence.
A lot of wars have been fought over which religion is true and which is false, if you are someone who believes in a specific religion then you are also excluding the "anecdotal evidence" of all the other religions.
All I'm doing is agreeing with everyone (for the most part) that the other religions are false, while believing in a specific religion means, you still think it's ok to disregard other people's religion, but YOUR religion is true. Which as I said earlier is built on arrogance.
And the specifics is the subjective evidence that is hundreds or thousands of year old chinese whispers that have been told and translated, which for the new testament was written a very long time after the events that took place and were carefully selected to reduce the amount of contradiction between them.
The benefit of worshiping science is you can easily cut through all of what came before every time some new discovery comes along. Religions don't have a monopoly on morality, that is something (like making stuff up) that comes naturally to some people and not to others.
Those who believe in god, have a personalized understanding of what it means.
@tabzer Right, those who believe in god have a fantasy of how they want their god to be. Like how I used to dream of lambourghini's and super models.
I love these kind of questions.
Since what created the universe? How did nothing become something?
If God exist, what created god?
What is God?
Why is it important to believe in a god?
If God doesn't exist, what created us? Why are we conscious and why are we the intelligent species and not like the dolphins?
Since what created the universe? How did nothing become something?
If God exist, what created god?
What is God?
Why is it important to believe in a god?
If God doesn't exist, what created us? Why are we conscious and why are we the intelligent species and not like the dolphins?
If God doesn't exist, what created us? Why are we conscious and why are we the intelligent species and not like the dolphins?
@linuxares There is no why, there is just random coincidence.
Dolphins evolved based on what was beneficial to them at the time, like we did. But it happened at different times and in different places.
They are conscious, sentient and have emotions.
It's like asking why you can't run as quickly as someone else. With all the genetics research that has been done recently we can answer a lot of those questions. It's not something that everyone is aware of to any great degree, so it's easy to still put it down to a magic man in the sky.
@linuxares There is no why, there is just random coincidence.
Dolphins evolved based on what was beneficial to them at the time, like we did. But it happened at different times and in different places.
They are conscious, sentient and have emotions.
It's like asking why you can't run as quickly as someone else. With all the genetics research that has been done recently we can answer a lot of those questions. It's not something that everyone is aware of to any great degree, so it's easy to still put it down to a magic man in the sky.
@smf
"Yes you are, you're asking to believe there is "anecdotal evidence"."
No I am not. I am stating that anecdotal evidence wouldn't register as the demonstrative evidence that would satisfy him, while implying that it would for me. I am acknowledging that I cannot share my experiences in any meaningful way on the subject. Experiences that convince me, and would probably convince him if he had the same experience. It is at an impasse due to restrictions in communication.
"You've got it entirely backwards, to say there is no evidence is 100% verifiable."
To say there is no evidence is an absolute assertion (an appeal to an invisible god-like authority). "I have no evidence" or "I don't see evidence" is personally subjective and self-representing. The primary is different from the latter. The primary infers omnipotence. The latter asserts one's limitations. Even if there is an evidence.com website where I could draw blanks, I would remain skeptical of this claim.
"A lot of wars have been fought over which religion is true and which is false"
I am not disputing that people do horrible things in the name of god. But to attribute these horrible acts to "god" is contradictory when disputing the existence of said "god".
I think all religions have elements of truth and honesty, as well as your mentioned arrogance and unmentioned deception. These are attributes of people and their habits to form cults.
"Right, those who believe in god have a fantasy of how they want their god to be."
Likewise, those who disbelieve in "god" also have a fantasy of what "god" is in order to deny its existence. "magic man in the sky"
My point is that anybody who wants to make a claim for or against, both, have "the burden of proof". But who is that burden of proof for? You? Me? The "scientific community"? Realistically, they owe it to themselves alone. I've merely stated that the idea exists, came from somewhere, and none have satiated my curiosity on the matter.
To my knowledge, there is no consensus on what the tetragrammaton even means (the name of the blblical "god"). My ponderings lead me to believe that it is an expression of consciousness in its purest form, which makes me think that there is a mind over matter--or at least through matter. Imagine "evolving" because you wanted to (or needed to). Perhaps evolution isn't a "brand new" expression, but a recall to the possibilities that have always existed.
"Like how I used to dream of lambourghini's and super models."
I am surprised that the ability to jerk off isn't proof enough, to you, that god exists.
"Yes you are, you're asking to believe there is "anecdotal evidence"."
No I am not. I am stating that anecdotal evidence wouldn't register as the demonstrative evidence that would satisfy him, while implying that it would for me. I am acknowledging that I cannot share my experiences in any meaningful way on the subject. Experiences that convince me, and would probably convince him if he had the same experience. It is at an impasse due to restrictions in communication.
"You've got it entirely backwards, to say there is no evidence is 100% verifiable."
To say there is no evidence is an absolute assertion (an appeal to an invisible god-like authority). "I have no evidence" or "I don't see evidence" is personally subjective and self-representing. The primary is different from the latter. The primary infers omnipotence. The latter asserts one's limitations. Even if there is an evidence.com website where I could draw blanks, I would remain skeptical of this claim.
"A lot of wars have been fought over which religion is true and which is false"
I am not disputing that people do horrible things in the name of god. But to attribute these horrible acts to "god" is contradictory when disputing the existence of said "god".
I think all religions have elements of truth and honesty, as well as your mentioned arrogance and unmentioned deception. These are attributes of people and their habits to form cults.
"Right, those who believe in god have a fantasy of how they want their god to be."
Likewise, those who disbelieve in "god" also have a fantasy of what "god" is in order to deny its existence. "magic man in the sky"
My point is that anybody who wants to make a claim for or against, both, have "the burden of proof". But who is that burden of proof for? You? Me? The "scientific community"? Realistically, they owe it to themselves alone. I've merely stated that the idea exists, came from somewhere, and none have satiated my curiosity on the matter.
To my knowledge, there is no consensus on what the tetragrammaton even means (the name of the blblical "god"). My ponderings lead me to believe that it is an expression of consciousness in its purest form, which makes me think that there is a mind over matter--or at least through matter. Imagine "evolving" because you wanted to (or needed to). Perhaps evolution isn't a "brand new" expression, but a recall to the possibilities that have always existed.
"Like how I used to dream of lambourghini's and super models."
I am surprised that the ability to jerk off isn't proof enough, to you, that god exists.
- Status
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
something about ea reverse engineering the genesis so they could make their games there+1 -
-
@
BakerMan:
if they get permission from 4j (the studio who helped put minecraft on consoles), they could put the console edition tutorial worlds in the game, as seeds+1
and i mean all of them (if not, maybe a few highlights, like TU1, TU31, and TU69) -
-
-
-
-
