What proof would you want

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh darn!....guess I'll just hang out with you guys!

Reliable and reasonable......
Like regression....Someone had to be First.
Like regression....a starting 'point'.....somewhere.(singularity)
Like first man to walk with God....pick a name you like.

When we re-phrase the way you're implying we should take it, its illogic becomes clearer:

"First" had to be someone

Substance first?......is most unreasonable.
Man is then a complete mystery.
And you 'know it all's don't have a solution.

But I say Spirit first.
Genesis held.
No problem.

Except for the logical fallacy: argument from ignorance.

 

[Thief]

When we re-phrase the way you're implying we should take it, its illogic becomes clearer:

"First" had to be someone




Except for the logical fallacy: argument from ignorance.

You can say I don't know God.
I know about Him.
You can say that.

But it remains....Someone had to be First.

 

[Ouroboros]

Excellent.....and no suspicion of any intellect greater than yours?
Spiritual that is.

Intellect ≠ Spiritual. You conflate the two.

Intellect has to do with psyche. Spiritual has to do with pneuma.

Spirit is a life force. Intellect is thought.

God doesn't have an IQ. It could be zero for all I care.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can say I don't know God.
I know about Him.
You can say that.

But it remains....Someone had to be First.

But "first" did not have to be a "someone".

 

[Thief]

But "first" did not have to be a "someone".

Then substance first.....and life is altogether in substance.
No God ....no afterlife.

No heaven , no hell.

Only the eternal darkness of the grave awaits.
and Man and all of the life in this world is a mystery.
No purpose....no resolve.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then substance first.....and life is altogether in substance.
No God ....no afterlife.

No heaven , no hell.

Only the eternal darkness of the grave awaits.
and Man and all of the life in this world is a mystery.
No purpose....no resolve.

Could be. Why not?

Edit: I recognize that you've set up a false dichotomy here, but my point is that it's not even a very good false dichotomy, since there's no reason to assume that the second prong of the dichotomy is false.

 

[Ouroboros]

Then substance first.....and life is altogether in substance.
No God ....no afterlife.

No heaven , no hell.

Only the eternal darkness of the grave awaits.
and Man and all of the life in this world is a mystery.
No purpose....no resolve.

That's not an explanation to why.

How do you know that it was a rabbit that chewed of the cord and not a rat?

Because rats are ugly and rabbits are cute, that's why!

Life in this world is a mystery. And that's the beauty of it.

Afterlife or not, if you can't live this life in awe of having just one life, then an afterlife won't have any purpose. Since I lost my faith, I've come to appreciate this only life so much more. To argue that the "first" must be "someone" only because the finality of life scares you, is a very bad reason. Fear shouldn't be your guideline to faith. There's no fear in God, so fear of death is a fear and shouldn't be your reason to believe.

 

[Thief]

That's not an explanation to why.

How do you know that it was a rabbit that chewed of the cord and not a rat?

Because rats are ugly and rabbits are cute, that's why!

Life in this world is a mystery. And that's the beauty of it.

Afterlife or not, if you can't live this life in awe of having just one life, then an afterlife won't have any purpose. Since I lost my faith, I've come to appreciate this only life so much more. To argue that the "first" must be "someone" only because the finality of life scares you, is a very bad reason. Fear shouldn't be your guideline to faith. There's no fear in God, so fear of death is a fear and shouldn't be your reason to believe.

Not a matter of fear.
Afraid or not....the regression remains.

Someone had to be First.

 

[Thief]

Could be. Why not?

Edit: I recognize that you've set up a false dichotomy here, but my point is that it's not even a very good false dichotomy, since there's no reason to assume that the second prong of the dichotomy is false.

So you insist?.....no life after death.

And the learning device we call Man is a complete fail?
No one will survive the last breath?
7billion possibilities and not one chance?......not one?

I think that to be unlikely.....and unreasoning.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not a matter of fear.
Afraid or not....the regression remains.

Someone had to be First.

So then your support for your claim isn't "there's no hope after death" but rather "regression remains". Correct?

I'm not sure why you then suggested that "someone" was argued by the depressing and negative outlook:

No God ....no afterlife.

No heaven , no hell.

Only the eternal darkness of the grave awaits.
and Man and all of the life in this world is a mystery.
No purpose....no resolve.

I guess you agree with both me and penguin then that your post there didn't answer his question since you say it has to do with regression and not with fear of death?

 

[Ouroboros]

So you insist?.....no life after death.

Had nothing to do with it, according to your later post.

It has to do with regression.

And the learning device we call Man is a complete fail?
No one will survive the last breath?
7billion possibilities and not one chance?......not one?

I think that to be unlikely.....and unreasoning.

So you believe in God because you fear things? Yes or no? You keep on jumping back and forth.

You believe there must be a "someone" because otherwise Man would be complete fail, no one will survive the last breath, no chance, ... Not because of regression.

The problem of regression only leads to something, not someone. So I'm with penguin here, wondering why "someone" instead of "something"?

 

[Thief]

So then your support for your claim isn't "there's no hope after death" but rather "regression remains". Correct?

I'm not sure why you then suggested that "someone" was argued by the depressing and negative outlook:



I guess you agree with both me and penguin then that your post there didn't answer his question since you say it has to do with regression and not with fear of death?

I was retorting the previous post.

It is Spirit first .....or substance.
Choose.
The choice then proceeds from that position.

Spirit first?.....then a chance for continuance.
Substance first....life is contained and terminal.

 

[McBell]

I'm not the one lacking.

Yes you are.
You lack substance.
And your spirit is stuck in an infinite loop.

(parroting is not much of a discussion)

Interesting how you look at your own "technique" as parroting when it is actually repetitive.

Show me something greater.

You seem unable to accept that there can be anything greater than your ego.
I see that your denial is greater, but you even deny your denial.

What proof do you want?

Matters not what proof others want.
You have none.
And you seem proud of that fact.

 

[Thief]

Yes you are.
You lack substance.
And your spirit is stuck in an infinite loop.


Interesting how you look at your own "technique" as parroting when it is actually repetitive.


You seem unable to accept that there can be anything greater than your ego.
I see that your denial is greater, but you even deny your denial.


Matters not what proof others want.
You have none.
And you seem proud of that fact.

No loop...I believe in linear existence.
However.....haven't ruled out spirit does not obey physical law.
Could be possible to know spirit of previous generation.
Likely so I think.

A Greater Ego?.....of course there is.

No proof for faith required....see Webster's

 

[McBell]

No loop...I believe in linear existence.
However.....haven't ruled out spirit does not obey physical law.
Could be possible to know spirit of previous generation.
Likely so I think.

A Greater Ego?.....of course there is.

No proof for faith required....see Webster's

Thank you for demonstrating "I see that your denial is greater, but you even deny your denial."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you insist?.....no life after death.

No, I don't insist. I just don't exclude.

And the learning device we call Man is a complete fail?
No one will survive the last breath?
7billion possibilities and not one chance?......not one?

I think that to be unlikely.....and unreasoning.

As Haldane famously pointed out, if we're going to infer anything about the mind of God from what we see in the world, then we're forced to conclude that God's plan has much more to do with beetles than it does with us, just based on the sheer number and variety of them.

 

[Ouroboros]

I was retorting the previous post.

It is Spirit first .....or substance.
Choose.

False dichotomy. The difference isn't there.

Before everything, there was nothing, and the nothing was both spirit and substance. No division. The division is only in your mind.

The choice then proceeds from that position.

The choice comes from a false dilemma, a constructed difference where none exists.

Spirit first?.....then a chance for continuance.
Substance first....life is contained and terminal.

Both first, with modified continuance.

A bastardized continuation which is both terminal and eternal.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, I don't insist. I just don't exclude.


As Haldane famously pointed out, if we're going to infer anything about the mind of God from what we see in the world, then we're forced to conclude that God's plan has much more to do with beetles than it does with us, just based on the sheer number and variety of them.

And the updated version is that the universe is more fine tuned for black holes and dark matter than human or biological life. There are more galaxies in the universe than there has been human beings.

Also, the subterraneal microbes... there are billions if not trillions times more than humans.

 

[Amechania]

So here is my question, what would the proof be like so that you would be convinced?

At least 80 proof or higher.

 

[Ouroboros]

At least 80 proof or higher.

That's the spirit!