-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you certain that God exists?
- Thread starter Cynic
- Start date
- Status
Well, I was still waiting Dayv's reply to my question "Well, then Dayv, do you have someone you love ? Just a small question"
Because the next stage would have been the inevitable 'prove your feelins, scientifically' - after all, what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander..............
Terry, I think you hit the nail on the head, when you said:-
"I feel no compulsion to prove God exists.
I am quite sure God loves me, sinner that I am. Why should I doubt him.
Terry"
With which, obviously, I agree; the trouble is that we are being asked to evidence the existance of God, and describe him for others. Thinking about it, why should we ? - The atheists and agnostics have no Proof that he doesn't exist - I see it as a 'stale mate'.
Because the next stage would have been the inevitable 'prove your feelins, scientifically' - after all, what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander..............
Terry, I think you hit the nail on the head, when you said:-
"I feel no compulsion to prove God exists.
I am quite sure God loves me, sinner that I am. Why should I doubt him.
Terry"
With which, obviously, I agree; the trouble is that we are being asked to evidence the existance of God, and describe him for others. Thinking about it, why should we ? - The atheists and agnostics have no Proof that he doesn't exist - I see it as a 'stale mate'.
Michel,michel said:Well, I was still waiting Dayv's reply to my question "Well, then Dayv, do you have someone you love ? Just a small question"
Because the next stage would have been the inevitable 'prove your feelins, scientifically' - after all, what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander..............
Terry, I think you hit the nail on the head, when you said:-
"I feel no compulsion to prove God exists.
I am quite sure God loves me, sinner that I am. Why should I doubt him.
Terry"
With which, obviously, I agree; the trouble is that we are being asked to evidence the existance of God, and describe him for others. Thinking about it, why should we ? - The atheists and agnostics have no Proof that he doesn't exist - I see it as a 'stale mate'.
I believe you are right about the stalemate, I have been trying to get some answers and instead have had my questions answered with questions, and been given the run around for the most part. When the atheists and agnostics want to have a serious debate about the existence of God, and will fully answer questions, I'm in, but this thread is an endless loop.
Sabio
Pah
Uber all member
Well, it's certainly not a slam dunk but there is empirical and scholastice evidence that favors a God created by manmichel said:...The atheists and agnostics have no Proof that he doesn't exist - I see it as a 'stale mate'.
Sabio, my friend, I have answered every question you posed and you apparently are unable or unwilling to read the references for the last question. Perhaps it is not the answers you like? I am also not going to give you the "cliff notes" for Joseph Campbell, nor the vast library of books I own from which my learning comes.Sabio said:
Pah
Uber all member
Hehehe I probably spelled it wrong - a great failing I have. We are in agreement but I would also include other scholars who are authoritiesVictor said:Did I spell it wrong? ANECDOTAL...
How is what you said any different from what I said?
credentials of authority = scientist?
~Victor
Read? Yes I am reading them, but I think they are intentionally arcane, not easily understood or applied like the KJV. I would be happy to just get direct answers to my questions, not redirection to 2 hours worth of reading. It is quite obvious that you are well educated and very learned, you have my admiration for that. But a man that holds such wisdom and knowledge should be able to debate on a level that all can understand, and express his beliefs without referencing whole books or documents where one must search to find your answer. After all, in a debate one should give direct answer to questions, not answer with other questions, or provide answers where one must deduce your position rather than having it plainly stated. Bottom line, state your position and argue it, debate in good faith. This is all I ask.Pah said:
Sabio
meogi
Well-Known Member
I hate to come into these things late, but to those who were debating the supernatural aspect of unexplainable events: Can you please hop over to http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13820 and help me out with it?
And michel, scientific explanation of feelings? Chemical interactions in the brain. I think the fact that we can make people 'feel' things differently with certain drugs is proof enough for that... check http://www.moonlitwalks.com/advice/chemistry.php too.
There is no stalemate. Without compelling evidence, things are assumed false. Things are not true and false until one is shown to be more worthy than the other. Although I think that's where our opinion conflicts... so, innocent until proven(used loosely)
guilty or innocent and guilty until proven innocent or guilty.
Of course, because of this, I'm not certain god doesn't exist. But until compelling evidence suggests otherwise, god remains false.
And michel, scientific explanation of feelings? Chemical interactions in the brain. I think the fact that we can make people 'feel' things differently with certain drugs is proof enough for that... check http://www.moonlitwalks.com/advice/chemistry.php too.
There is no stalemate. Without compelling evidence, things are assumed false. Things are not true and false until one is shown to be more worthy than the other. Although I think that's where our opinion conflicts... so, innocent until proven(used loosely)
guilty or innocent and guilty until proven innocent or guilty.
Of course, because of this, I'm not certain god doesn't exist. But until compelling evidence suggests otherwise, god remains false.
Those comment aimed at me - I agree, to some extent - but not in entirity - because although, as you say we can make people feel things differently with certain drugs, there is no proof that the feelings produced in two different people will be identican, surely ?meogi said:
meogi
Well-Known Member
Of course not, their brains are not the same. How does that change the idea that our feelings are chemical in origin?michel said:as you say we can make people feel things differently with certain drugs, there is no proof that the feelings produced in two different people will be identican, surely ?
meogi
Well-Known Member
Did my sentance after it not make sense?Victor said:
Everything you 'experience' is something due to a chemical reaction or electrical impulse in the brain. We don't exactly know the what and where of every emotion/feeling, but we have a pretty good map. If we didn't, these drugs couldn't be made, and wouldn't have the effect they do.
You're not gonna pull a Tom Cruise on me, are you?
Pah
Uber all member
I have already given you the better part of an afternoon in two threads and you keep asking for more. It would take a lot more time than 2 hours more to give you "cliff notes". In the time I spent with you, you got direct answers but they were not sufficient to you.Sabio said:
When I read and read the notes the author left, it is my responsibility to gather his references if I want to learn more or if I question his findings. I expect the same from you. Campbell has several major texts and taped lectures - start there. When you are done, I'll give you bibliographies for the other points.
But if you think Cassirer is difficult, wait till you get to John Locke. He is also a foundation of my answers.
Point taken; I think I was aiming for more along the lines of 'The intensity of the feelings' - the way they are cognisized; but, no, I agree there is no doubt that they are chemical in origin. I do wonder though about hormonal influences, affecting the way we respond - but that is way over my head, and something I know nothing about.meogi said:
- Status