How to prove God exists.

[VirOptimus]

You reject that imagination exists in reality?

I'd argue that imagination does exist in reality but that it doesn't always accurately reflect reality.

Well, the thought exist (for certain values of exist) but nothing more.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's awesomely put dude.

I've rarely seen it expressed so elegantly!

Er, thanks

 

[Chriliman]

That's awesomely put dude.

I've rarely seen it expressed so elegantly!

The implications of that thought process is that our material brains have become aware of themselves for no apparent reason...or is there a reason? Some might prefer there not be, some prefer there is, but the truth is what matters. Consequently, if our brains have become aware of themselves for no reason, then the truth is that there's no truth, which is a contradiction.

 

[just a believing guy]

Ow yes. Pre-columbian native american populations have all but disappeared, killed by the hands of these christians that came to "civilize" them.

You know better. Have you watched Gibson's film Apocalypto?

 

[just a believing guy]

Nore anything for it. The point exactly.

There is a thing called theology.

 

[just a believing guy]

Really?

So... because the current western civilisation model is the most succesfull, therefor christianity is correct?

Here's something I told you in other topics as well:
correlation does not imply causation.

Is there any other civilization model in sight?

 

[Radrook]

No, its not. You simply dont understand the different concepts. You should study philosophy and theology.

I have very likely studied theology longer than you have been alive and studied philosophy in college. Assuming to know things about a person whom you know nothing about is irrational. I don't reject your views because I am ignorant. I reject your views simply because they just don't make any logical sense.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have very likely studied theology longer than you have been alive and studied philosophy in college. Assuming to know things about a person whom you know nothing about is irrational. I don't reject your views because I am ignorant. I reject your views simply because they just don't make any logical sense.

This isnt about rejecting or accepting views. This is about understanding and using the correct terms and conclusions. Your posts are very ignorant on both subjects why I very much doubt you have any real studies in either.

 

[Radrook]

This isnt about rejecting or accepting views. This is about understanding and using the correct terms and conclusions. Your posts are very ignorant on both subjects why I very much doubt you have any real studies in either.

Really? Accepting and rejecting views is totally unrelated to a debate? Now you are providing reason for me to doubt whether you even know the basics of argumentation as taught in high school.

BTW
Unlike many unbelievers, Christians have very good reasons to refrain from lying in the way that you are accusing me of.

 

[Radrook]

That wasn't a counter-argument, just a paraphrase of your claim and a simple question.

I'm quite happy to say why something seems overwhelming likely to me, but I may be wrong. If someone questions my view, I'm happy to explain why I think it's overwhelmingly probable and/or point them in the direction of authoritative & reliable supporting evidence. If someone contradicts my view I'm happy to listen to why they think it's wrong and/or examine authoritative & reliable supporting evidence against it. If the explanation or evidence plausibly suggests my view is mistaken, I'm happy to revise my view. My views are contingent on the best evidence and/or arguments I have encountered - it seems like the most reasonable approach.

Is that what you meant by my, 'penchant for selective vision'?

What I don't generally do is try to explain my views by exclaiming, "It's obvious! If you can't see it you're blind!" or, "there must be some very sinister reasons why you don't see it!". I don't think that's very helpful or polite. If I think something is overwhelmingly likely or obvious to me, I like to think I could explain why, so that someone else can at least understand my reasons, whether they agree with them or not.

The problem with your argument is that both of us are aware of our previous extensive conversations concerning the videos which I posted approx. a few months ago and which provided detailed reasons for justifiable belief in a creator but which you and a host of other atheists on this forum immediately unceremoniously rejected as totally irrelevant.

You folks also unceremoniously rejected any quoted materials from none Christian scientists and by experts in the field under discussion and glibly rejected all attempts at logic. So I finally closed all threads to such videos and haven't posted any others because I already know what your modus operandi will be.


Now you are acting as if this never happened and demanding that I provide you folks with the same in order to witness a repeat? Surely you jest!

 

[Radrook]

Severe case of projection as well as strawmanning what atheism actually is.

Theism is the belief.
Atheism is when you don't have that particular belief.
Atheism is not a belief by itself.

That is unnecessary nitpicking which needlessly obfuscates what is involved..

 

[Radrook]

I haven't asserted a belief. My position is one of not being persuaded that the supernatural and/or God is more than a fiction.

To me the world looks exactly as one would expect it to look if gods and the supernatural are human fictions; there are hundreds of them claiming to be the only true path, generally backed by writings interpreted in multiple conflicting ways; they appear to have no explanatory or predictive value and only social utility. I'm curious to hear plausible arguments or see authoritative and reliable evidence for any of them.

I grew up in a religious community, so I'm not unfamiliar with the ideas - but although the moral guidelines and cultural mores were generally reasonable, I heard only evasion, obfuscation, and platitudes about God and the associated supernatural beliefs.

If you think my skeptical view is irrational, you should be able to explain the flaw in my reasoning. If you think it's unjustifiable, you should be able to show why.

If you think the evidence in favour of your religious belief is obvious and overwhelming, shouldn't you be able to explain, describe, or demonstrate it so that a non-believer can understand why you think so, even if we don't agree?

Both of us are aware of our previous conversations concerning these issues and how you folks unanimously reacted to all attempts at reasoning and the provision of evidence. So if you are already familiar, why are you asking for a repeat and feigning total ignorance?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The problem with your argument is that both of us are aware of our previous extensive conversations concerning the videos which I posted approx. a few months ago and which provided detailed reasons for justifiable belief in a creator but which you and a host of other atheists on this forum immediately unceremoniously rejected as totally irrelevant.

You folks also unceremoniously rejected any quoted materials from none Christian scientists and by experts in the field under discussion and glibly rejected all attempts at logic. So I finally closed all threads to such videos and haven't posted any others because I already know what your modus operandi will be.

Now you are acting as if this never happened and demanding that I provide you folks with the same in order to witness a repeat? Surely you jest!

I was asking - not demanding - if you could explain the basis of your beliefs; I've seen various videos and other quoted materials and don't find them compelling; I thought personal experience might be more to-the-point. I don't recall rejecting any valid logic, but I do recall questioning a number of unexplained non-sequiturs and fallacies.

But I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Both of us are aware of our previous conversations concerning these issues and how you folks unanimously reacted to all attempts at reasoning and the provision of evidence. So if you are already familiar, why are you asking for a repeat and feigning total ignorance?

OK, I'll take that as a 'no'. At least you're consistent in your refusal to engage.

 

[Radrook]

I was asking - not demanding - if you could explain the basis of your beliefs; I've seen various videos and other quoted materials and don't find them compelling; I thought personal experience might be more to-the-point. I don't recall rejecting any valid logic, but I do recall questioning a number of unexplained non-sequiturs and fallacies.

But I'll take that as a 'no'.

Since the basis for my beliefs are already rejected by persons who want a repeat in order to reject them once more I see no logical reason to provide a repeat. As for the former evaluation of the videos, which in fact were usually never viewed or even made reference to in the responses or were immediately tagged as irrelevant and unacceptable, I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.

 

[Radrook]

OK, I'll take that as a 'no'. At least you're consistent in your refusal to engage.

The problem is that there has been a previous engagement which led nowhere. So a repetition would be illogical and timewasting.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The problem is that there has been a previous engagement which led nowhere. So a repetition would be illogical and timewasting.

So you keep saying. "If at first you don't succeed, never try again and always harp back to a negative view of the first attempt". I get the idea.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The implications of that thought process is that our material brains have become aware of themselves for no apparent reason...or is there a reason?

Yes, a darwinian one.
We aren't the only species with such self-awareness by the way. The other Great Apes also are self-aware... they pass the so-called "spot test".

It consists of putting a paint mark on their face and then put them in front of a mirror. They immediatly understand that they are looking at themselves and are immediatly aware of the spot on their face.

So it's not like this is a human-only trait or something. Not that it would have been a particular problem if it was though, but it's not even needed to ask that what-if question... because we are NOT the only ones with self-awareness.

Some might prefer there not be, some prefer there is, but the truth is what matters.

Agreed. And truth is demonstrable.

Consequently, if our brains have become aware of themselves for no reason, then the truth is that there's no truth, which is a contradiction.

That makes no sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You know better. Have you watched Gibson's film Apocalypto?

Are you really going to deny that early Americans didn't slaughter native americans and subsequently stole their land?

Maybe you should stop getting your history lessons from hollywood.

 

[just a believing guy]

Yes, a darwinian one.
We aren't the only species with such self-awareness by the way. The other Great Apes also are self-aware... they pass the so-called "spot test".

Yes, the other Great Apes can light a cigarette as well imitating humans, but lack the knowledge of just how damaging cigarettes are.