A thought, for atheists, believers, etc...

[quatona]

Well thats quite alot, anyway I wont reply to it all.

That´s fine with me. Anyway, I would have expected you to adress my arguments rather than offering me plenty of confirmations that you believe what you believe, and how you can´t understand that I don´t see your point.

your right I dont choose my words carefully. I'm no english student but dont lets be perdantic about a word,

In a written conversation words are all we have to understand what the other one says. That´s why they are important, and that´s why I expect people to at least try to express what they mean to say (although it lies in the nature of verbal communication that there is a lot lost on the way from the sender to the recipient).
You are offering your argumentation, and I see major flaws in it. I cannot decide whether that´s because the argument itself is faulty or because you merely worded it carelessly. I cannot read your mind, I cannot see your ideas and concepts, I have to try to assemble them from your words. That´s why I think it´s a good idea to choose your words carefully if you want to be understood.

I have already told you I know that I do not know (at least I hope I said that,) so lets not dwell on the matter, on the subject that I dont know how you create time, of course I dont know as you and I have already agreed we dont know. Im presenting a theory I'm not saying thats the way things happen if I knew how the universe began I would not need to argue with you.

And I tell you that it´s a weak explanation, not more convincing than a couple of others I could think up while walking along, and based on unclear concepts.

Why wont you read my second argument that talks about the likelyhood that the laws of physics are so finely tuned is so small, just beacause someone else came up with the theory does not mean I'm not alowed to agree with it?

1. because, just like the one we have discussed, I have seen it hundreds of times before, and even when worded carefully, its flaws were blatant.
2. Never would I say that you are not allowed to agree with whatever you like. In fact I just made a statement about what I personally am here for. I guess, I am allowed to decide what I want to read.
3. Present it here, and I will adress it. You said you don´t have the time - why do you think I have the time to search through this entire thread until I have found this argument?

Personally I dont see why you cannot accept that there are scientific explanations why God exists (they are only theories but as you say there is no absolute proof of anything).

Well, I have given you my arguments and told you where I see the flaws. Either you adress them or you leave it.
I personally don´t see how anyone can accept those "scientific explanations", and because we don´t see how the other one can or cannot accept a certain explanation, we are discussing.

All I want to achieve through these posts is that you can belive in God through reason, not just blind faith, and I belive I have done that.

For me to accept it it´s not enough that you believe that you have done it, for this I would have to see the plausibility of these arguments, and I would have to see how the "explanations" are indeed explanations, and not just a complicated and longwinded way of saying "I don´t know".

 

[DeepThinker]

"explanations" are indeed explanations, and not just a complicated and longwinded way of saying "I don´t know".

This about sums my whole arument up, I dont know, neither do you, you can refute my explanations, all theories have flaws, we have already essablished and you say it yourself that we dont know anything, no truth is absolute and you could find flaws to any theory, so why bother argueing anything untill we know what is absolutely ture? which we never will.

If you dont have time to read my posts why do you think I have time to re-post them?

Again I will say, all I wanted to acheive is that you can use reason to argue for religion, I admit I'm no genius and wont be argogant enough to say that Im right your wrong, (though this does seem to be the line your towing), but I do know that many other people far more cleaver than you or me have argued to point of religion scientifically, not just theologins but atheist scientists who converted to religion through reason.

 

[quatona]

This about sums my whole arument up, I dont know, neither do you, you can refute my explanations, all theories have flaws, we have already essablished and you say it yourself that we dont know anything, no truth is absolute and you could find flaws to any theory, so why bother argueing anything untill we know what is absolutely ture? which we never will.

Because some pretend something to be reasonable although it isn´t (or, to be precise, they can´t demonstrate how it is).
You give me your hypothesis, and I consider its validity. The normal process of exchanging thoughts.
Either your hypothesis turns out to be the only logically possible explanation - then I have to accept it as true.
Or it turns out to be a logical explanation besides other equally possible logical explanations - then I have to consider it as an option.
Or it is neither and suffers from severe logical flaws - then I reject it.

If you dont have time to read my posts why do you think I have time to re-post them?

Because you want me to read them. If you don´t want me to read them, don´t repost them.
I have taken the time to read your posts here, btw., and I have taken the time to adress the arguments in detail. Whilst you haven´t taken the time to adress mine in the same way.
What I actually said was that I don´t feel like searching for the post you are referring to.

Again I will say, all I wanted to acheive is that you can use reason to argue for religion,

Be that as it may, all I wanted to communicate is that as far as I can see this particular argument is not reasonable. If it is, you haven´t succeeded in presenting it in a way that convinces me of its value.

I admit I'm no genius and wont be argogant enough to say that Im right your wrong, (though this does seem to be the line your towing),

Hang on there, brother. Don´t start mind reading. I merely give you my opinion and my feedback on your hypothesis. Do with it what you want. Either adress the points in order to show me how my arguments are wrong, or leave it. But don´t accuse me of an "I am right and you are wrong" attitude just because I give you my arguments, just like everyone else does.

but I do know that many other people far more cleaver than you or me have argued to point of religion scientifically, not just theologins but atheist scientists who converted to religion through reason.

So what´s finally left seems to be an appeal to authority, which I personally do not regard a valid argument.

 

[DeepThinker]

Because some pretend something to be reasonable although it isn´t (or, to be precise, they can´t demonstrate how it is).
You give me your hypothesis, and I consider its validity. The normal process of exchanging thoughts.
Either your hypothesis turns out to be the only logically possible explanation - then I have to accept it as true.
Or it turns out to be a logical explanation besides other equally possible logical explanations - then I have to consider it as an option.
Or it is neither and suffers from severe logical flaws - then I reject it.


Because you want me to read them. If you don´t want me to read them, don´t repost them.
I have taken the time to read your posts here, btw., and I have taken the time to adress the arguments in detail. Whilst you haven´t taken the time to adress mine in the same way.
What I actually said was that I don´t feel like searching for the post you are referring to.



Be that as it may, all I wanted to communicate is that as far as I can see this particular argument is not reasonable. If it is, you haven´t succeeded in presenting it in a way that convinces me of its value.

Hang on there, brother. Don´t start mind reading. I merely give you my opinion and my feedback on your hypothesis. Do with it what you want. Either adress the points in order to show me how my arguments are wrong, or leave it. But don´t accuse me of an "I am right and you are wrong" attitude just because I give you my arguments, just like everyone else does.


So what´s finally left seems to be an appeal to authority, which I personally do not regard a valid argument.

This argument is pointless if you will listen to no reason but your own.

 

[quatona]

This argument is pointless if you will listen to no reason but your own.

Whose reason do you suggest me to use instead?
Whose reason do you happen to use when thinking and considering ideas, if I may ask?

 

[DeepThinker]

Whose reason do you suggest me to use instead?
Whose reason do you happen to use when thinking and considering ideas, if I may ask?

I said there is no point if you cannot listen to others reason, not that you should not use you own LISTEN lol

 

[quatona]

I said there is no point if you cannot listen to others reason, not that you should not use you own LISTEN lol

If memory serves, I did listen to your arguments, I considered them and adressed them. So what the heck is your point in responding to my arguments with the mere advice that I have to listen?

 

[DeepThinker]

If memory serves, I did listen to your arguments, I considered them and adressed them. So what the heck is your point in responding to my arguments with the mere advice that I have to listen?

Sigh, this will go back and forth forever, your reading the words but not listening to what im saying, mabey you should lean how to do that its a usefull life skill. Nevermind.

toodles, and goodluck

 

[quatona]

Sigh, this will go back and forth forever, your reading the words but not listening to what im saying, mabey you should lean how to do that its a usefull life skill. Nevermind.

toodles, and goodluck

Thanks. While we are at exchanging useful communication tips, allow me to recommend you to abstain from reading intentions and attitudes into words, and particularly negative ones.
Greetings
quatona

 

[DeepThinker]

That isn't the issue. The issue is one of knowing that God has made himself known to a person. I realize that there are plenty of people who have had experiences that they interpret as God making himself known to them, but how do they know this is the case?

For example, it happened once that I fell head over heels in love. It was a singular experience in my life, never quite repeated. It was also a transformative experience -- I wasn't quite the same person coming out as going in. My personality was brighter. Emotional barriers had melted away. I was more open and less guarded. I was a friendlier and more sociable person. It was a thoroughly good experience for me, and completely outside of normal personal growth. (True story.)

Can I reasonably claim knowledge that this was a supernatural experience created for me by Cupid?



It really isn't a question of honesty vs dishonesty. The biggest problem is that hearts are not judges of truth. Even the most honest, well-intentioned heart can be mistaken about reality. Honest hearts can disagree. If only life were so simple that all you have to do is have an honest heart, and then the secrets of life will be revealed, but life isn't that simple.


eudaimonia,

M.

Firstly, about a person not knowing or knowing he spoke to God, if God is real, and made himself known, the person WOULD know it, it would be an experience that the human brain could not compair anything to up untill that time, unfortunately this argument has a flaw, as anyone who thinks he spoke to God when he did not would think he spoke to God so we could never dicide wether or not someone actually has, unless you could transfer those two peoples minds so they could accurately compare their experiences. I hope that makes sense.

I agree with your heart theory, but say that in the absence of a sutable rule book that we all agree to be correct (not seeing that one out in the book shops anytime soon) it is the only moral compass that we have to go on, some may argue that we can use the brain, but the brain is selfish and only leads to self gratification. I dont know what to call, it heart? soul? compassion? but it is the part of us that desires to help others we should listen to, everyone possesses it, just not everyone listens to it, but why should we listen to it? The only reason I have is that it makes the whole world a better place, its up to you if you want it to be like that. You may get things wrong listening to this part of you, but if your intentions are good more often than not results arrise that are good also. ( by good I mean nice, helpfull to others etc, you get the idea. Not desirable outcomes for yourself)