- May 22, 2015
- 5,895
- 569
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
When I have questions, I want them to have answers that are most likely to be true and that is how I roll.
The more controls I have in place, to assure I am relying on objective evidence and facts to realize those answers are most likely to be true, the better I feel about the process.
You see, I want to believe in as many true things as possible and not believe in as many false things as possible. Personal perceptions, based on personal needs, absent these objective facts and evidence, tend to be highly flawed in my opinion.
You're not really getting this at all...
Sure I do. You can't prove that there was ever nothing, nor can you prove that there has always been something. Where does that leave us? It leaves us believing one or the other or choosing to lack belief in either.
Sure I do. You can't prove that there was ever nothing, nor can you prove that there has always been something. Where does that leave us? It leaves us believing one or the other or choosing to lack belief in either.
Again, those are not the terms I set out. I classified mutations as a type of aberration which is either neutral or positive. I then classified defects as a type of aberration which is inherently negative. The biologists I personally know agree with those definitions in general. So can you?
A. I don't know that "nothing" is an intelligible concept. It doesn't seem to be.
B. In light of "A", I'm more likely to believe that something has always existed.
C. Your point is?
Either that something will make itself known to you as the truth or when you die you will vanish into nothingness.
You've never met one because most atheists are intellectually honest. That is to say, we don't make things up, like you.Well, I've never met an atheist who actually claimed to know the truth of why we all exist in this reality we call the universe. If I ever do meet such an atheists, I would think he would have quite a god complex.
Is the purpose of science to continue questioning everything indefinitely?
OR
Is the purpose of science to continue questioning everything until an undeniable truth is found?
If the purpose is the former, then how can any individual ever know if they are correct in their beliefs about reality?
If the purpose is the latter, then wouldn't each individual be expected to accept the undeniable truth?
IMO, the purpose of science is to question everything, not necessarily find the truth. I find this to be an irrational way to figure out reality.
The most rational way to view reality is to question it with the intent of finding the truth.
Thoughts?
Correct me if I am wrong.
Does this mean; either accept God as the truth, or die and vanish into nothingness?
Most people would never get to Christianity that way. You are discounting faith.Experiences of what I perceive to be reality.
Even if one does not believe in a God?
Most people would never get to Christianity that way. You are discounting faith.
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?