Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think I just showed the opposite. That it cannot be. Therefore ex materia is self-defeating. the "god" used in the hypothesis is not God, since something else made the materia.Why do you assume that the "material" of creation ex materia must be self existing?
Yes, that's the assumption I meant. Why are you making it?I think I just showed the opposite. That it cannot be. Therefore ex materia is self-defeating. the "god" used in the hypothesis is not God, since something else made the materia.
Not my lists, but very good:
Empiricism itself being very limited:
1. Empiricism cannot resolve Is/Ought dilemma.
2. Empiricism reduces law of causality to a question-begging fallacy.
3. Empiricism cannot be accounted for empirically.
4. Empiricism cannot resolve Problem of Induction.
And science, while very useful, cannot be the sum-total explanation of reality, due to the greater fact that:
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate logic.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate math.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate morals.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate ethics.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate metaphysics*
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate aesthetics.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate science itself.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate uniformitarianism.
(my (MQ) note here: The above things are "non-falsifiable")
* Such as the metaphysical claim known as "scientism."
These facts are irrefutable.
Thus, you need to think rationally from outside your little box.
Obviously that is the case, as demonstrated every day by every non-psychopath.
I have no more reasons to believe in gods, then I have to believe in leprechauns or unicorns. Why do you reject the hundreds, thousands even, of religions that you don't believe in?
Things work the way they do and not the way they don't.
If you jump from the Eiffel tower, gravity will make you fall down at 9.81 meters per second per second in a vaccuum. Every. Single. Time.
For the same reason that you understand today that Poseidon only existed in the imagination of ancient peoples and that there is no god with a pitchfork ruling over the tides of the seas.
Or that there is no Jupiter throwing lightning bolts during storms. Or that there is no Thor smashing his hammer to create thunder.
The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to. The data of the world. There is no data pointing to any gods. Hence all data is consistent with gods not existing.
The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to again: human psychological weaknesses.
On the count of them being imaginary.....
Imaginary beings, can't be shown to being real. Since they are imaginary. If you could show them real, they wouldn't be imaginary now would they?
Again.... on the count of them being imaginary + human psychology.
The stuff I just told you in the post you are replying to. You should read with a bit more attention.....
Everything. And I'm not going to list everything I ever observed.
The burden of proof is not on me. If you wish to argue christianity is accurate, then upto you to come up with evidence to support it. If you don't, then I get to dissmiss your religion without evidence as well.
No evidence and the bible contradicts reality.
Budhism is a bit of a special case, since they don't really have a god. I think certain types of budhism believe in reincarnation, no? In the case, I guess they also make some kind of claim for the existence of a "soul".
That would require me to write several books, which I won't be doing.
Instead of asking me to list EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that contradicts some religion, perhaps you live upto your own burden of proof and give me your best piece of evidence of the religion you happen to follow (by geographic accident?)
My hobbies are playing the drums and reading science books. And Xbox. Lots of Xbox.
Professionally, I am cofounder of a software start-up with which we create, distribute and maintain a software product for specialised retail stores.
For example, as a software engineer,
I'm a software engineer. By default, I can be expected to know quite a bit about software engineering, but not so much about chemistry.
What is there to test?
By the definition of a tautological argument, every single test which can be performed will result in affirmation.
If there is "X" (a god who can defy logic), then "Y" (there is a god that can defy logic). X=Y
If there is "X" (a lepricorn who can blind creationists), then "Y" (there is a lepricorn that can blind creationists). X=Y
If there is "X" (I am holding up two fingers), then "Y" (I am holding up two fingers). X=Y
What test could be performed which falsifies any of these tautologies?
So you believe human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god.
What or who is your moral authority?
I see unicorns and leprechauns are not real therefore so mist be God?
Dude how about i give you my testimony.
Lucky for you, i record most of our conversations, i have it on file - so to speak.
I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.
All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.
After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!
I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good! Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief.
I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly. Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.
Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2. There was fire everywhere.
It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen. Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'.
The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.
I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.
I was given the Holy Spirit!!!
I was given a result by following the Christian formula. I had an undeniable experience that effected me to my core.
What would you do if that happened to you?
What say you?
My dear you and i have debated many times to know a vague answer when it occurs such as this one. Is nature bound by certain laws that Nature can not break?
What reason is that? I gave you my testimony - evidence -
it would only be fair for you to give me yours?
Lets have some fun. Show me how you arrived at this conclusion?
My dear if i were to give you this answer that explains nothing, you would not accept it either.
What data do you refer to or authority for this data and how did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary?
Or do know not how to answer?
Icon - "Why would you expect them to invent countless mutually exclusive gods?"
Tmonster - "The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to again: human psychological weaknesses."
Icon - "Why would you expect human psychological weaknesses to invent countless mutually exclusive gods?"
Do you want to find out if God is real?
So my dear you would prefer that i take your word for.
You said it is, therefore it must be so, you do not need prove what you say. You want me to accept it with no question?
Lucky for you and i i supplied my testimony - evidence. What say you?
Would you provide me with an example as to why you believe there is no evidence and the bible contradicts reality?
You previously said
"But since they all make the same kind of claims (faith based supernatural / superstitious claims) and are supported by the same kind of non-evidence and fallacious arguments, it is infinitly more likely that they are all wrong."
So this statement has an disclaimer, all religions are not the same or make the same claims? Buddhism is a special case? /quote]
I don't really see buddhism as a religion. Buddhism is not theistic. Theism is the belief in a god. There is no god in buddhism.
Lets ask @ananda. Hey ananda does Christianity and Buddhism make the same claums about the soul? What does Buddhism say about the soul?
I'm not sure what budhism has to say about it. I thought certain versions believe in reincarnation. If they believe in reincarnation, that means that they believe that a "person" is something more then just the body and brain. If "you" can reincarnate as some other animal or person, then it implies that there is some "soul like" thing that defines personhood, rather then just the physical body and brain.
I'll call that a "soul".
I dont mind being on the defense, you have my testimony. Spool through and get back to me? We have lots to speak about but i will need more from you if you choose to continue. Dont be shy.
I have nothing to say about your anecdote.
Bring me something that is actually verifiable and doesn't require me to "just believe" you.
Hey hey my dear
We must use a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use or consideration.
We need to test which belief may produce a result.
We have 2 competing claims, a God that defies logic and - as you said, a worthless agruement - a Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.)
We can move past the he said she said and prove? How would you test or do you not?
How would you - as an atheist - use a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of both propositions?
46and2 - "I do a pretty dang good job of responding to nearly everything addressed to me".
Please excuse me. I believe you are sincere but my dear i fear we may have a tautological catastrophe.
A tautology when used in everday speak is a redundancy ie lets go see the sunset this evening or we should unite together.
A logical tautology, the statement is always true because one half of the "or" construction must be so.
Either it will rain tomorrow, or it won't rain
You have made a category error and assume a creature you admittedly invented is comparable to God (who is experienced by many).
To be succesful you would have to prove God was made up, do you wish to disprove the existance of God to me or can tou prove he is man-made(.eg made up)?
You have my undivided attention my dear
I can disprove your creature ie Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) You made it up recently and acknowledge it is a worthless argument.
It has no real value or use. What say you my sincere friend?
Would it not be correct for a tautology to say; a God who can defy logic OR a God who cannot defy logic
Would it not be, a Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) OR a Lepricorn (.eg who cannot blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.)
Iam holding up 2 fingers OR iam not holding up 2 fingers
Asking questions and getting to the core of your arguement. What say you? Cheers my dear
You have made a category error and assume a creature you admittedly invented is comparable to God (who is experienced by many).
To be succesful you would have to prove God was made up, do you wish to disprove the existance of God to me or can tou prove he is man-made(.eg made up)?
I can disprove your creature ie Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) You made it up recently and acknowledge it is a worthless argument.
It has no real value or use. What say you my sincere friend?
Greetings.Lets ask @ananda. Hey ananda does Christianity and Buddhism make the same claums about the soul? What does Buddhism say about the soul?
Yet, the data available to us, including and maybe specially, empirical data, is in fact altogether supportive of Self-Existent First Cause. aka God. (no, not a god, but God)
Forget religion. Even the best of us falls short of comprehension of what "God" implies, but we all try, some of us even semi-honestly.
Hey hey my dear
We must use a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use or consideration.
We need to test which belief may produce a result.
We have 2 competing claims, a God that defies logic and - as you said, a worthless agruement - a Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.)
We can move past the he said she said and prove? How would you test or do you not?
How would you - as an atheist - use a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of both propositions?
46and2 - "I do a pretty dang good job of responding to nearly everything addressed to me".
Please excuse me. I believe you are sincere but my dear i fear we may have a tautological catastrophe.
A tautology when used in everday speak is a redundancy ie lets go see the sunset this evening or we should unite together.
A logical tautology, the statement is always true because one half of the "or" construction must be so.
Either it will rain tomorrow, or it won't rain
You have made a category error and assume a creature you admittedly invented is comparable to God (who is experienced by many).
To be succesful you would have to prove God was made up, do you wish to disprove the existance of God to me or can tou prove he is man-made(.eg made up)?
You have my undivided attention my dear
I can disprove your creature ie Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) You made it up recently and acknowledge it is a worthless argument.
It has no real value or use. What say you my sincere friend?
Would it not be correct for a tautology to say; a God who can defy logic OR a God who cannot defy logic
Would it not be, a Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) OR a Lepricorn (.eg who cannot blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.)
Iam holding up 2 fingers OR iam not holding up 2 fingers
Asking questions and getting to the core of your arguement. What say you? Cheers my dear
His handiwork is.....Data can't support anything that is not measurable. God is not measurable.
Whether a thing is measurable or not, if it has effects, its existence is supported by those effects. Many, if not most, things are not measurable, except in the unfulfilled hopes of those who suppose them to be measurable. The Universe is not measurable. Gravity's effects are measurable, but gravity? We don't even know what it is, yet.Data can't support anything that is not measurable. God is not measurable.
Greetings.
IMO Buddhism teaches that there does exist a gestalt that many would identify as a "soul", e.g. consciousness, mind, will, volition, etc. However, in contrast to most other religions, we observe that this "soul" is something that is not eternal, and is therefore seen more as a "lifestream" than a "being".
(If the soul is eternal, then it would not be subject to change; however, consciousness/mind/etc. does change, therefore it cannot be considered eternal.)
Yes, of course it does. Is there any controversy about this question?I am curious if any Christians believe that evolution occurs
Yet, the data available to us, including and maybe specially, empirical data, is in fact altogether supportive of Self-Existent First Cause. aka God. (no, not a god, but God)
As a matter of fact.... a dog giving birth to a cat, would also falsify biblical creationism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?