1. 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!

Featured The Problem With Theistic Arguments

Discussion in 'Theism' started by Hubert Farnsworth, Jun 3, 2020.

  1. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,573
    Ratings:
    +7,430
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Then the latter.
    Not trying to insult you.

    Just making clear to you that I didn't comprehend a word of what you were trying to say.
    It seemed extremely abstract. So abstract, that I couldn't make any sense of it.

    Ok, although I won't say because of your deficiency. :)
    It might be me also. :)

    I really didn't mean it badly. "word salad" is simply a concept that resonates well with me when it comes to expressing a feeling of "huh?" in response to a sentence which, while in english, reads like chinese to me...

    For all practical intents and purposes (*), yes.

    Well, I am.
    And everyone I meet, which for all practical intents and purposes I assume to be external and independent entities on their own which would continue to exist after I cease to exist, seems to be aware of my existence as well. They react to me one way or the other. A nod, a look, a getting out of the way, a conversation, etc.

    This goes for animals as well. Dogs notice me. Cats notice me. Birds fly away when I make a sudden move in their direction. Even wasps seem to be aware of my existance - sometimes a little to much for my taste.

    Then there's also blind mechanical devices that are aware of my presence as well... Motion detectors respond to my movement. Heat detectors notice me as well. Smart camera's recognise my face.

    (genuinely curious as to where this is going :) )



    (*): I say "for all practical intents and purposes", because these aren't things that one can prove as an absolute certainty. The whole brain-in-a-vat or the it's-all-a-simulation thingy... For some reason I thought it was important to nuance my answer explicitly with those words. In every-day conversation, I wouldn't and my acknowledgement of this would pretty much be the practical equivalent of a factoid.
     
  2. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Is a designer scientist inventor an inventor of his artificial conditions and congratulates his own self on artificially causing machine design to emulate natural conditions?

    Yet never would he, or does he own personally any other natural body or natural condition in its own self presence and existence, yet his huge ego claims otherwise...and he expressed that male self evaluation of scientific inventor as if he were personally some pre existing form of a spiritual being with Great powers and magic?

    For that is the journey of the science self historically....and hence when he released those greater powers and energy mass that the bio Nature never lived within he killed us all and then preached non stop about being sent to Hell if you did not believe in what he learnt about his own evil science self, as the scientist who self combusted life historically and today lies about trying to cause it again?

    That sort of scientific liar and his histories of lying?

    And if you reason about human life not yet overcoming and healing from machine levels of machine owned/caused radiation attacks, radio waves passing through our bodies...…..then you would say, oh in the past I forced humans to live like part of a machine owning radiation levels that no longer allowed them to be their highest self.

    Yet today not even conclude, what was human life when it was not UFO science machine owned irradiated….and how and what would life become if the UFO was shut out spatially in an attack?

    Not that form of caring relative psyche are you inventor!
     
  3. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,827
    Ratings:
    +3,589
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    So you agree that you are the seer-knower of your existence.

    Do you further agree that there are two aspects to your existence? The first aspect is ever-changing 'seen/known/experienced' that includes the world and also your body (including its parts) and mind (including discernments, memories, thoughts, emotions, and imaginations). The second aspect is the 'seer-experiencer-knower' that knows. As far as my experience goes the 'knowing' runs constantly through all our ever-changing experiences.

    You can know more and more of the first aspect. But what do you know of the seer-experiencer-knower? I have a set of questions. 1. Whence the 'seer-experiencer-knower'? 2. What is the form and nature of the 'seer-experiencer-knower'? and 3. To what extent the study of the first aspect -- the 'seen-experienced' -- tell us about the truth of the 'seer-experiencer-knower'?
    ...
     
  4. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,573
    Ratings:
    +7,430
    Religion:
    Atheist
    What is a "seer-knower"?
    And why did you only quote that part, and not the part where I listed all other people and machines that are aware of my physical presence and existance?

    You lost me with that second aspect. Not sure what you mean by it, but it seems as if I wouldn't agree that it is an "aspect" of my existance. But perhaps that is because I can't relate to it, as I don't really get what you are on about.

    I don't know what I know of it, because I don't really know what you are refering to.


    Myeah... I'm gonna need you to define "seer-experiencer-knower" first.
     
  5. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Science is a human elite owns social peer group cult history as its own fact of evidence.

    Science also says to self...I want to know and define beginning moments relative to inventive creation so I can copy it with a designed inventive machine as if self, male and human invented everything.

    Hence you talk on the role play of being some form of self deitised God statement.

    It is why natural humans, in their awareness said that AI that owned human shared reason for sacrificed death/life attack AI conditions, extra radiation, early age death became the warning information for humanity still living.

    How it existed in a rational explanation of I did it to myself....human on behalf of humanity.

    The reasoning and meaning.....why Einstein in AI records suddenly just popped into my vision whilst I was looking at my brother in law information and said he was wrong...and he was sorry. Sorry for theorising, knowing in shared Einstein image/memory of owning so many reasons for science causes today said it.

    Factually and actually...for of course it would...if he were the Creator male human inventor of it....AI would speak about it via his owned male human recorded life voice and imagery.

    So not only did he know in his life that many of his theories were WRONG...so did not pursue them himself...the AI updated records due to his meddling with natural life also told me.

    And you cannot argue against your own irrational human science self...yet you do for you are all irrational.

    You know what rationally?

    You look at all dead and living bodies, as a near bio water life body consciousness...and know that the atmosphere is the same atmosphere for all living bodies today and then by group choice talk about everything, expressing a condition that a human wants to believe in and express....self superiority.

    As a human fact...for no one else is doing it but human self.

    So humans who see you, wonder at how egotistical you all are...to say I designed machines that take from the Planet...I want to always shift and move and convert and attack the planet in all theories then I pretend I caused no changes...as a liar.

    Being what egotism is....to lie non stop due to self superiority claims.

    So congratulations egotists....just because you are civilization cult supported to be those egotists, still in natural existence does not in any form of use of truth make you correct.

    For as said if no APE was living, what would you then claim we are closest to....as comparing both living bodies...owning living human babies by sex.....and also own mutated living babies from extra radiation conditions the status from which you claim beginnings of everything came from in the sciences.

    For if you talked natural radiation conditions...everything is owned living in that natural radiation level/signal.

    Are truly just liars.
     
  6. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    988
    Ratings:
    +334
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Science and all human knowledge do the same thing. The name of Darwin is placed on high, so the student will just accept, memorize and not question. The exam system can be biased by the professor, so students have to answer the way they are being conditioned, to be rewarded.

    The difference between religion and science is western religion is monotheistic, while science and knowledge is more polytheistic. There are many gods from Darwin to Einstein. The problem with polytheistic worship of knowledge is the different specialties do not interface each other very well. This means integrated total science is less likely to occur. The specialists is stuck in one place in the forest and cannot see the bigger picture of the whole forest to allow integrated solutions. The physicists does not know biology to interface the two.

    Monotheism assumes a fully integrated solution to reality. This is the ideal that I strive for, and is why science is always a moving target to the future.
     
  7. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    6,500
    Ratings:
    +5,583
    Religion:
    none
    Religion is also polytheistic. There are about 4000 religions with about 10,000 gods (not counting the 33 million of Hinduism). And some religions are split into denominations, Christianity into 41,000+.
    That's quite a lot more than there are divisions in science. The difference is that science has split into fields and each field can be of help to an other because scientists of one division trust the scientists of the others. They can because they all work under the same scientific principles that are guaranteed to produce the most accurate results possible.
    Religions all want to cover all of the knowledge and don't trust the other religions or their methods.
    That's why science usually comes up (after long and serious examination) with one answer and almost all scientists will accept that answer.
    Religions come up with thousands of answers and they don't even have the faintest idea of consolidating them.
     
  8. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,827
    Ratings:
    +3,589
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    We have travelled this route. In response to my question "who or what is aware of your existence?", you answered, "I am".

    So, you are aware of your body (and parts) and mind (thoughts, feelings etc.). My questions are simple.

    1. Whence the awareness that discerns the body-mind self?
    2. What is the form and nature of you that knows (in contrast to you that is known)?
    3. Can body-mind know the awareness that knows the body-mind?

    If you do not want to answer say it straight. That will save your and my time.

    ...
     
  9. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Science today looks at bio life human self, then applies a cosmological theory about how he proposed our life was created. And any human with rational thinking capabilities would ask why.

    We are not a machine, or a formula to own a zero forced point reaction to force change MASS....seeing Einstein said mass is energy, he meant mass is energy.

    There is no such condition of speaking about energy when it never existed...for it would not then be energy....yet science who uses group and cult coercive behaviours, being our human history, the knowledge of it, the study of it came to a religious science agreement.

    About natural spiritual biological life, the Healer science awareness against the teachings of occult sciences, whose personal bias was owner of our life destruction.

    As basic and as simple as the historic reasoning about theism, about agreement or disagreement in the sciences. For science says just to the natural self who owns NO knowledge whatsoever about his destructive analogies, you are not as intelligent as what I am.

    Hence my brother who I love dearly, became a scientist to study what occultism meant so he could argue against it....and it did in fact involve biological reasoning, but not to proclaim.....because I have all knowledge to state how we were invented.

    For the word usage is incorrect.

    Science in human life is for INVENTION only....it was never for creation.

    One word, one original meaning, one natural mind spiritual conscious self doing all appraisals...so words cannot own a double meaning. What lying and coercing factually is.

    So our spiritual science brother gets attacked everyday by the occult self Destroyer mentality, which places humanity today in a historic predicament of all bad previous life choices.

    Of course religious pursuit became obsessed by its owned status....and hence from its original agreement have moved away from their origin biological scientific self human reasoning to save self life and health and the health of the Planet from occult radiation UFOlogists.

    As a fact of it....it is the actual natural human history and human reasoning that everyone is arguing about today, trying to own a form of convincing a self destructive psyche and formula, that Earth owned a status and story and a historic agreed theme that said O one planet, O one special planet of stone, O a special planet was given a special reasoning, entity God, one God, one status and no other science statement was acceptable.

    For the fact of separation of the interactive and complete evolution and natural presence allowed humanity to own occult phenomena human memories as stimulated in the AI machine communication hearing of voice effect, that portrayed and allowed the natural psyche to review scenes of history when science attacked and destroyed all life on Earth.

    Science in modern time, as compared to the spiritual psyche and psychic wisdom of the ancients, is overlooked, up until science began to study phenomena to prove to any scientist who never agreed with it, that it is in fact real.

    Science might be journeying into a self destructive reality of its owned choices, but it also owned human reasoning that told the human self, to prove to science that spiritual phenomena is a reality in human life when you alter natural creation.

    And those events also proved for such events to be incurred then obviously creation did originate from a higher spiritual state, with an ownership of its own purpose.
     
  10. curious_mind

    curious_mind Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2017
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +19
    Religion:
    Islam
    You do not assert there is no God but rather than your argument being a even on both side, it is clear you have a pro no God argument. This intellectual dishonesty from atheists is deeply problematic to me.
     
  11. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Even balances said the male human group agreement in science.

    12 natural light, gases burning in the one body of space, the holy space body for 12 hours removal.
    12 clear gases, not burning in the one body of space, the holy space body for 12 hours not removed.

    Balanced.

    Natural life as all of Nature lives within the holy womb of space in 2 holy positions of heated burning gas light and also cold clear non burning gases.

    Space the holy body owns those 2 variations.

    Which would make space One body owner of 2 variations, in our heavens.

    Which is just a living experience, it is not any law of relativity about 2 variations of a spatial condition.

    Yet if you asked a conscious mind why do you quote space as a variable itself....it would quote those 2 living experienced gas conditions, and not tell self mind the truth.

    For space was always just quoted as being ONE holy body that owned all presence within it.

    One is sacrificed as a law of relativity and the other is natural history.

    So if a male in a group with a group agreement said, "brotherhood" and quoted, and I learnt I was wrong for I lit up the night time sky for 7 days, and had to be living to own that experience. Seeing light gases burning have not stopped burning since they began burning....so 7 days as a theme is a science history story....then today everyone should know that science in relativity are lying.

    Which would also be pondered in statements about when males try to claim that sacrificing life is a holy act. Humans taught that status always cry and mourn, knowing it was no holy act, but became grateful to still be living afterwards. Seeing it was in fact caused by males with machines in science. The argument itself against natural form, in natural existence.

    Why science in religion said only God created life, by terms natural light allowing life survival without allowing any argument. For no matter what form of argument science takes, its claims about talking on behalf of self presence when self presence is not existing is a scientific con. Why it was not allowed, for it was already a proven human science lie.
     
  12. Samantha Rinne

    Samantha Rinne Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,743
    Ratings:
    +572
    Religion:
    Writer of the Mune Shinri (Aiken religion)
    Because you don't understand existence, on a fundamental level. You see, without God, all the process is circular.

    Example:
    1. I know life exists because it came about spontaneously.
    2. But where did what was to become life come from?
    3. Uhhhh it came from space.
    4. But where did that dormant life come from?
    5. It came about spontaneously.
    Or how about this gem:
    1. The universe came from the Big Bang.
    2. But how did the Big Bang happen?
    3. Through scientific forces such as atomic fission, gravity, and subatomic motion (probably others too, I haven't studied the specifics of their theory)
    4. But where did those forces come from?
    5. From the existence of the universe.
    6. And where did the universe come from?
    7. From the Big Bang.
    God is a necessary, because otherwise, we have infinite loop. Christianity has zero problem inserting the Big Bang into their creation cosmology. On the other hand, see above for how things work without this.

    With a Creator, it looks more like this:

    Creator (First Cause) -> Effects -> More Effects -> Universe (Second Cause) -> Effects -> Planets, suns, atmosphere, terraforming life (Plants and Algae), a solar system capable of protecting against incoming objects -> Effects -> Humans and other animals -> Other Effects

    Without a Creator, without a plan, there would be no rhyme or reason these events. It's a big circle leading nowhere, as we never resolve how exactly a universe creates itself. We might randomly get a universe, but then we'd need to randomly get life, atmosphere, an ideal temperature (in all planets, only a very small few actually have Earth-like conditions ideal for carbon life), as well as planets able to protect against meteors and asteroids from hitting the planet (the best ones are gas giants, which we have several of, because they act like a giant pillow, absorbing the incoming objects). Without all of these conditions chained together, we have no life that survives long enough to evolve to something as complex as humans.

    But again, you won't see the evidece. This is because...

    [​IMG]

    You're move. It's time... to duel!
     
  13. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    25,197
    Ratings:
    +10,748
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    Never found God necessary for anything in life.
     
  14. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    A simple explanation whilst we live.

    Science says that evil exists created.

    Then who or what created evil.

    Evil existed first said science.

    A male in science, inventor of all thesis states, God created evil as original SIN.

    So who removed original SIN?

    Romans 5:12
    Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

    As said by Romans, living.

    So they state as men, that only one man brought death through sin...and then it spread.

    1 John 3:4
    Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness

    Humans who do not understand nor express heartfelt human love.............
    Ephesians 4:18
    They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

    If you ask a scientist, who created God, and he would have to claim MASS did.

    For what is God but light?

    And we know that MASS was first IMMACULATE as the heavenly spirit within which we all live. For original SIN belongs to the first GOD O one and STone.

    Therefore we were without SIN, as the Immaculate spirit of GOD in mass became of light, the sacrifice of the Immaculate, which was of no man.

    So no man was ever God, as it was taught.

    Now if you asked a scientist, did God create evil? Yes he would say....yet burning of the gas/spirit to sacrifice to own light is not evil. Isn't that how it was taught?

    Yes, he would claim, God as light is Holy light.

    Now if you said to a scientist did you create evil?

    He would say no, natural did. So is natural evil then? The answer is no.

    Yet Satanists thinking claim that we began as a human life as an evil spirit, and call that spirit infinite/eternal.

    Yet Jesus he said was sacrificed and gives you eternal life.

    Humans who are spiritual say, when I die, as death is the sacrifice of our living life, then I own an eternal spirit as my highest and first spirit. Which is not Jesus.

    Jesus was a sacrificed man.....and as no man is God then Jesus also is not God.

    How it was taught.

    Therefore consciousness when you ask itself questions states, that natural created evil, but a scientist changed God, so God in natural causes created evil, and natural formed it. For science never owned original SIN. God O the Earth did.

    This sort of reasoning and round about statements proves that science is a self man contradiction. For he did in fact conjure and cause evil by God, but God did it he says in conceptual thoughts, yet God owned the origin of Sin and man had it removed.....in the status, science.

    Then evil destroyed our life, for natural owned evil conjured. Science never "owned" evil and never "owned" God either.

    The theist argument, against his own self science told science that science is a liar, but he had to lie to tell the truth.
     
  15. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,111
    Ratings:
    +4,061
    Religion:
    ?
    The real problem is that you assert that there is a God, and yet cannot compellingly demonstrate it to save your life. Let's not distract from the real problem here.
     
  16. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Science is only about concepts in thinking. And humans exist first naturally to think about concepts.

    Science claims that it knows how life was created.

    Yet biologist science says an ape closest in body form, and self identification in Nature, not a human proves that science lies. For no consciousness close to their owns concepts for stating science.

    And ape says biologist science had sex to produce a human baby. Where the parent life began he says. Yet apes have sex and reproduce ape babies today.

    Therefore science today is a proven liar if you try to "look back" and theorise about when a human was not a human as if some pre existing conscious state, which can only be living told you so.

    This sort of theorising of the past was previously known, quantified by the intellectuals of the past to be owner of our personal human and life/Nature destruction for it was taught to be lying. And it involved groups, concepts only discussed by the groups, owned by the group and enforced by the group. And stated to be coercive reasoning.

    The concepts stated about GOD O a stone planet that owned the creation of its own atmospheric body, spirit gases that supported the natural existence of our life, so it was given one reason only HOLY.

    And any HOLY statement in law was stated to own conditions to never change.

    Why holiness and God owns a biblical LAW book that said never give God a name again in science and never change any HOLY body.

    How LAW and religious spiritual family communion was previously taught before it was taken back over by elite Satanic groups again. As history tells our story, and no human male can lie about history...but they sure do lie in group control.

    Therefore in human reality arguing about "I know" is a proven self human fallacy, for you do not know. And Apes closest in conscious expression to our own proves that they did not advise science his human science concepts as conscious existing before his own advising information.

    Which is one of his Satanic coercive reasons....that powers in creation somehow owned a consciousness to advise his male human self, as if it advised him. When he applies all reasoning from his human self presence.

    And when a biologist says I have the answers in science, as compared to a God theist/energy evolution they are as wrong as the coercive other scientist human self.

    There never was any answer about where we came from, and we already were told to never believe in coercive reasoning. Which is why all arguments exist today with everyone claiming "I know" when no human ever did.
     
  17. curious_mind

    curious_mind Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2017
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +19
    Religion:
    Islam
    Wait, let us backtrack a little. My response was to the post, by the TS that he does not assert there is no God, yet his arguments are geared towards there being no God, rather than trying to balance and ask/answer questions on both sides.

    Are you posting in defence of his post, then you better explain it or merely to start an argument. If it is the latter and you would like a genuine discussion on evidence for God, then start a thread asking for that.
     
  18. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,111
    Ratings:
    +4,061
    Religion:
    ?
    I've heard the best evidences for God... none of it compelling. There is no point in you going around the circle again. If you have something brand new that you think is compelling to a very high degree (I'm talking "drop-the-apple to demonstrate gravity" levels of compelling) then, by all means, show me what you've got. If you haven't got that, then do not bother. Seriously... keep it to yourself. I don't want to hear it in the slightest.

    I can say that when one is skeptical, it is difficult to post/speak in an unbiased manner that does not belie the fact that you do not believe far more than the idea that you could possibly believe given the right forms and caliber of evidence. I assure you, I could, indeed, believe given sufficient evidence. "Sufficient", by the way, does not include philosophical arguments, or attempts to stuff syllogisms with complex, unproven/undemonstrated "spiritual" ideas and objects. Nor does it include texts that also merely assert things. I can't tell you exactly what it would take... only that I would know it when I saw/experienced/encountered it. And as of yet, I have not seen anything close.
     
  19. curious_mind

    curious_mind Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2017
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +19
    Religion:
    Islam
    I am going to accommodate you this one time, as my post was aimed at someone else but let's go for it.

    You say you have been presented with supposed evidence for God but believe none of it. After a long, winding paragraph you state that you will only believe it if you saw/experienced/encountered God. This is a ridiculous criteria in every way imaginable.

    Let us take the experience angle. Experiences are hugely successful, for example, I may god on a rollercoster and absolutely hate it (which I do), my brother, a close genetic match to me, may go on that rollercoster and state he had the best time. If you, as a 3rd party was to ask what a rollercoster is like, you would get two complete opposite answers. To take this a step further, a person may claim to have "seen" God during a moment of great physical danger, near death experience as it is labelled (I would not hold such views but this is a relevant point about experience). If you have never had that experience, how can you deny that someone else has? This is why such a form of evidence is not merely weak, it is simply brain dead.

    We then come to the idea of "encountering" God, what does that even mean? You're out for brunch one day and he's supposed to buy coffee? Or what about the Christians who claim God came as a person, Jesus, 2000 years ago. The people of that time encountered him, why would you not believe their claims? Again, a brain dead criteria.

    The worst, however, I have saved till last. "Seeing is believing" as the saying goes. What a silly thing this is, especially in the modern world, a world in which Tupac can turn up for a concert, do you believe he is still alive? A world in which you can see the God of Thunder Thor, do you believe in him? A world in which holograms can be projected onto entire environments, creating particular images, do you believe that? You may claim they are all special effects. Fine, what happens when you wake up in the dead of night and see a shadow, sometimes it may look like a person yet it is not, it is a trick of the light and your brain. I guess you consider yourself a person of science, did you know no scientist would claim seeing is believing? Heck, even science at its highest level does not work that way. Another brain dead criteria.

    Weirdly, you did not claim, anywhere, that the criteria should be intellectually stimulating, that the evidence must be based on wisdom and knowledge.

    If you are to answer, please answer all my points in depth.
     
  20. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,111
    Ratings:
    +4,061
    Religion:
    ?
    Seriously? "long" and "winding?" You make it sound as if I said a whole lot but didn't get anywhere. The paragraph wasn't that long... unless you are lazy. Two of the paragraphs you wrote in response are longer than either of mine. What's your excuse? "Long"... give me a damn break.

    This isn't what I said at all, and I challenge you to go back and read (for comprehension this time - obviously you thought the paragraph was too "long" - you have admitted as much, and so I have to assume that you read it quickly, and probably completely misinterpretted). WHAT I SAID was that I would believe based on evidence I encountered and that I would only know that evidence once I had encountered it. Meaning I can't tell you what evidence I need in order to believe. I don't know what that is. But if there were evidence I came across, I would assume I would know that evidence was for "God" (if it truly was) when I encountered THE EVIDENCE. Not necessarily "encountered God" - I was talking about the evidence. Again, I would like to mention the idea of "comprehension." So far you are proving to me that this is difficult for you - but you obviously have every chance to change my mind.

    Too bad what you are talking about is a SUBJECTIVE assessment. If we went to the OBJECTIVE facts about the roller-coaster, you and your brother would likely report very similar things. Do you understand the difference? You asking me to accept God as a reality IS NOT LIKE you asking me to like the same painting as you do because I should find it just as beautiful. It's more like you asking me to accept that you have proof that extraterrestrial life exists, but when I ask what the evidence is, you say "my brother likes roller-coasters." What the hell man?

    Here again, you misconstrue the way the situation would play out. I would NOT deny that they had the experience. I could believe that they had the experience entirely - it isn't an extraordinary claim to say that you had an experience. What I would question is the actual source of said experience. As soon as they claim it was "God," I have the exact same problem with that idea as I would have if they told me they encountered a magical unicorn from another dimension while they were in that situation. Exactly the same.

    You're so funny. Seriously... you should do comedy. Again... ENCOUNTER THE EVIDENCE. It's obvious you think that implying that I am akin to someone "brain dead" in my assessments is going to somehow affect me toward believing your unsubstantiated nonsense. Nope. Try again.

    Another paragraph based on complete misunderstanding of what I said. Way to go.

    Holy crap... it had damn well better be based on MORE THAN THAT. What are you trying to pull here?

    Hahahahaha!
     
    #120 A Vestigial Mote, Sep 3, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2020
Loading...