Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Davian]

That's good. I don't accept anyone's opinion as truth either, I only accept the truth.

And by "the truth", you mean, what you believe to be true.

Do you not see the problem there?

 

[Chriliman]

And by "the truth", you mean, what you believe to be true.

Do you not see the problem there?

Whether there is a truth or not, does not depend on my beliefs.

 

[Davian]

Whether there is a truth or not, does not depend on my beliefs.

Do you concede the problem I pointed out?

 

[Chriliman]

Do you concede the problem I pointed out?

No, because whether there is truth or not, does not depend on my beliefs.

I hope you agree.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I do, but I don't want anyone to believe just because I believe. The truth speaks for itself.

I'm pretty sure no one here is going to believe what you believe just because you do.

And "the truth speaks for itself" seems to be a nonsense statement to me.

Do you realize that the only way to get someone to believe what you believe is to provide good evidence that what you believe is actually true?

 

[Davian]

No, because whether there is truth or not, does not depend on my beliefs.

I hope you agree.

But that is not what I asked. By "truth", do you mean, what you believe to be true, or what is actually true?

 

[Chriliman]

But that is not what I asked. By "truth", do you mean, what you believe to be true, or what is actually true?

What is actually true.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm pretty sure no one here is going to believe what you believe just because you do.

And "the truth speaks for itself" seems to be a nonsense statement to me.

Do you realize that the only way to get someone to believe what you believe is to provide good evidence that what you believe is actually true?

We can only be so reasonable and logical, eventually our reason and logic points to the truth that we are right or wrong in our beliefs. We can then correct our beliefs according to the truth.

 

[Billybob]

I am taking a wag at it but maybe logical and reasonable also goes back to Descartes. Part of his response to external world scepticism was that his senses were not voluntarily willed by him, so there must be an outside force, outside world. Logic and reason we're his only paths to knowledge maybe truth, but truth is a tricky one.


I meant that to go after the logical and reasonable deal, but I was slow and missed a bunch. Oops. Good discussion though I like this stuff.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you go on to study more of the quantum physics studies, they talk about how you can change the history of particles in the past. may I suggest you watch Robert Lanza's videos on Biocentrism, here is a 2 part video discussion given by Lanza on Biocentrism: Biocentrism explaining 'What Is Real' Question of 'The Matrix' ? part 2, is the video that is showing Robert in the picture and part one is the link above

Lanza and bio centrism have been soundly debunked by the scientific community. I can show you not only the explanations...but links to experiments that debunk this new age nonsense.

 

[Davian]

What is actually true.

Yet the existence of this "God" you go on about is not demonstrably true, is it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

But you are making an assumption that the tree actually exists outside of consciousness.

Yeah, just like I make the "assumption" that reality is real and that we don't live in the Matrix.

When you wake up, did the monster in your dream stop existing, or are they real too?

Dreams and reality are not the same thing.

why do you assume the physical world actually exists, is it not because of its longevity?

It's because I have no other choice.

The physical world is a construct of our consciousness

No. The physical world exists wheter you exist or not.
Your consiousness is not the creator of reality - it is an observer of reality, itself also part of reality.

and when we die, our conscious state will be altered once again and this reality will no longer be ours.

No. When we die, we simply are no longer part of reality. Well, our consiousness at least. Our bodies will decay and all the atoms will be recycled into other objects.
We will effectively no longer exist.

What we see cannot be proven, but our conscious present awareness cannot be denied. The only thing that we can prove without a doubt is our conscious existence, not what we see in our conscious awareness.

If you say so.

 

[2 know him]

Yet the existence of this "God" you go on about is not demonstrably true, is it?

Conscious awareness is the proof, it is what you are seeing that is to be questioned.

 

[The Cadet]

The only thing that we can prove without a doubt is our conscious existence, not what we see in our conscious awareness.

Congratulations, you've discovered the problem of hard solipsism; a problem for which no solution exists (and we don't even know if it's possible to solve) and which is as utterly useless to discussions of philosophy as it is to the crew of the starship Dark Star. So... what's the point, exactly? Do you think this somehow helps your case for god? How?

 

[The Cadet]

Conscious awareness is the proof

Conscious existence is proof I exist. It's not proof you exist, let alone a personal, all-powerful deity who created the world in the last 6000 years.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Blessed is He in Whose Hand is the dominion, and He is Able to do all things.

2. Who has created death and life, that He may test you which of you is best in deed. And He is the All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving;

3. Who has created the seven heavens one above another, you can see no fault in the creations of the Most Beneficent. Then look again: "Can you see any rifts?"

4. Then look again and yet again, your sight will return to you in a state of humiliation and worn out.

5. And indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with lamps, and We have made such lamps (as) missiles to drive away the Shayatin (devils), and have prepared for them the torment of the blazing Fire.

http://www.noblequran.com/translation/surah67.html


“Tikkun olam” (literally, “world repair”) has come to connote social action and the pursuit of social justice. The phrase has origins in classical rabbinic literature and in Lurianic kabbalah, a major strand of Jewish mysticism originating with the work of the 16th-century kabbalist Isaac Luria.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/tikkun-olam-repairing-the-world/

 

[Chris B]

No, because whether there is truth or not, does not depend on my beliefs.

I hope you agree.

Correct. And what the truth is does not depend on your (or my) beliefs concerning it.
No matter how firmly or vehemently held. That of itself changes the chances of the beliefs being right or wrong not one iota.
Many fall for that, but that is not so surprising because many still fall for the utterly false idea that point in a debate is more valid when it is shouted or delivered with high emotion.

What the truth is (I take it that reality is singular: any other idea rapidly gets into trouble) and how our beliefs or mental maps and models do or do not correspond to that... Big can of worms.

 

[Chris B]

What is actually true.

And do you think you know that?
And if so with what degree of probability, or even up to total certainty?

I've been wresting with this area for over fifty years, eve since I caught my paren lying to me sat about the age of five:
if you can't trust your own parents for reliable information, how can you find a source that you should trust, and how do you know that?

 

[Chriliman]

Yet the existence of this "God" you go on about is not demonstrably true, is it?

Not if you personally do not search for God. Remember the water bowl and the fish? Just because the fish did not search for the evidence of the bowl of water, doesn't mean the bowl of water isn't real.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not if you personally do not search for God. Remember the water bowl and the fish? Just because the fish did not search for the evidence of the bowl of water, doesn't mean the bowl of water isn't real.

The fish bowl is an awful example Chiliman. Even if one fish believed in the bowl and the other doesn't...the fish who believes can show the bowl to the other fish.

That's something you've never been able to do with your claims. It's not a matter of one fish thinking about it correctly and the other not....they can prove these things to each other.

For the analogy to work, there would have to be two fish floating around in space...no observable water or bowl....and then they make those dumb claims. One says they're in a bowl...but he can't give any evidence of it. In fact, he should be telling the other fish that the bowl is immaterial and timeless and that he has a deeply satisfying relationship with the bowl.