Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
You keep saying that, but you always stop short of actually showing it to be true.
No, not necessarily, since you haven't actually shown that your logic explains anything.
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.
You keep saying that, but you always stop short of actually showing it to be true.The only difference between my logic and your logic is that your logic can't explain existence whereas my logic can.
No, not necessarily, since you haven't actually shown that your logic explains anything.So logically anyone viewing our conversation who has no pre-conceived notions about reality and existence would believe my logic because it actually explains things,
No, not necessarily, since you haven't actually shown that your logic explains anything.
How do you know the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence (without using the circular argument that the concept came from God) ?Not only does the concept of an infinite timeless God make sense, the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence. If an infinite timeless God exists then logically existence is all you'll ever experience and so far this makes sense because its true that existence is all that you've ever experienced.
You're reasoning makes no sense. I'm sorry to say but I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say here.First of all, isn't it true that your logic can't explain existence? Your logic is to wait for physical evidence that proves the reason for existence, but you forget that science will never be able to provide physical evidence for the reason for existence. All science can do at this point is postulate unprovable theories. So logically the theory that makes the most sense should be the theory we all believe in, do you agree?.
My problem is that you haven't actually shown your concept "makes the most sense." You've claimed that repeatedly, but you haven't actually shown anything.Or are you going to continue denying the concept that makes the most sense in hopes of one that makes even more sense? Are you fine with denying the most sensible concept until the day you die?
Again, you've asserted this repeatedly, but you haven't actually shown that it does make sense of anything.Not only does the concept of an infinite timeless God make sense,
How is it reasonable? Again, you've just repeated the claim. You do understand that you need to support your assertions?Sure science can come up with more theories about existence, but I'm going to continue believing the one that makes the most sense and has been around since forever, simply because this is reasonable for me to do.
How do you know the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence (without using the circular argument that the concept came from God) ?
If an infinite and timeless God makes sense, then an infinite and timeless universe makes more sense - Ockham's Razor applies. And if, for some reason, you still need a God concept, there's the Spinozan God-as-universe, which Einstein favoured.
First of all, isn't it true that your logic can't explain existence?
Your logic is to wait for physical evidence that proves the reason for existence, but you forget that science will never be able to provide physical evidence for the reason for existence. All science can do at this point is postulate unprovable theories. So logically the theory that makes the most sense should be the theory we all believe in, do you agree?.
Not only does the concept of an infinite timeless God make sense, the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence.
If an infinite timeless God exists then logically existence is all you'll ever experience and so far this makes sense because its true that existence is all that you've ever experienced.
Sure science can come up with more theories about existence, but I'm going to continue believing the one that makes the most sense and has been around since forever, simply because this is reasonable for me to do.
No, that's the claim, not the proof. Specifically, it's the source of the claim.There is this book that was written a long time ago that explains this concept of God being infinite and timeless, the evidence is the following from the book.
Proof that God is timeless:
2 Peter 3:8
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
Proof that God is infinite:
Isaiah 40:28
"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, He will not grow tired or weary and his understanding no one can fathom."
You haven't shown that it explains anything; you've merely asserted that it does.So this book that was written thousands of years ago can explain our existence better that modern science can and you're trying to tell me I should believe this book is truth?
This is word salad. Logic doesn't explain a particular thing. Logic is a set of tools. Theories offer explanation.
It's not necessary to believe in any creation story, natural or supernatural. The only intellectually honest position is that we don't know.
Soooo, you'll believe any story that has been around a long time? You realize that's a logical fallacy, right?
Existence is what we experience whether or not a god exists. What on earth would we experience other than existence?
You believe the one that makes sense to you. It makes no sense to me.
No, that's the claim, not the proof. Specifically, it's the source of the claim.
You haven't shown that it explains anything; you've merely asserted that it does.
We use logic to make sense of things. If not then what good is logic?
I agree humans do not yet know the complete truth about existence. The question is how long are you willing to not know?
Not any story, but rather the true story.
Well there's two states of existence. There's good existence which would include pleasure, joy, sleep, happiness, rest and whatever else we humans consider good. Then there's bad existence, which basically involves anything emotionally or physically painful. I simply do not believe we've created these two states of existence, these states of existence came from beyond our ability to create them. If they don't come from our ability to create them then logically they've come from something with greater ability than ourselves.
If a concept that made perfect sense of our existence was presented to you, would you believe it? Or would you wait for physical evidence that proves the concept is true?
Er, no. Was that a trick question?So this book that was written thousands of years ago can explain our existence better that modern science can and you're trying to tell me I should believe this book is truth?
We use logic to evaluate the reasoning behind theories. We don't use it to explain things, as you mentioned earlier.
If you're talking about where the universe came from, I don't particularly care if I die without knowing for sure.
But that's not what you said. You indicated that you believed in the "concept of god" because it's an story that's been around for a long time. Which is a terrible reason to believe anything.
Your "two states of existence" is your own arbitrary concept. To me existence is existence. One "state", if you must use that term.
This seems to be more word salad. If you're talking about the beginning of the universe, then physical evidence is the only thing that would reasonably support whatever a theory might be.
It is true. You will not convince me that Christ does not abide in me and I in Him.That answers the second question mostly, but what about the first?
I don't leap. I step.How do you leap from an empty tomb to a bodily resurrection and subsequent heavenly ascension? And please don't bother telling me to "google it."
Right, I've used logic to evaluate your reasoning and I have determined that your reasoning does not make sense.
And if everyone took your view of not really caring, would we ever actually figure it out? I'm glad some people do care so that someday we can figure it out. This is called hope.
I believe the concept of God because it makes more sense than any other concept presented to me.
Again, I'm just trying to be as reasonable as possible when explaining my beliefs.
So where's the physical evidence to support the mutli-verse idea or the imaginary time idea? There is no physical evidence, the only evidence we have is that the mathematics point to these possible concepts, but the mathematics itself is not physical proof of the concept it only points to the concept as being possible.
The Bible is not physical evidence of God, it only points to the truth that God inspired it. Acceptance of this truth is where you begin to find understanding.
What reasoning is that?
Have you ever stop to think that maybe that is the problem...you don't have any reasoning to back your position. All you can say is, I don't know if God exists and I refuse to accept that God exists.
Yet you have no reasoning to back this position, you especially have no physical evidence to back this position.
At least I have reasoning to back my beliefs. I don't just claim non-belief and expect the answers to come out of thin air.
At some point in order to really determine if this God thing is a hoax, you have to take the step and accept the truth that God is possible.
How do you know the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence (without using the circular argument that the concept came from God) ?
If an infinite and timeless God makes sense, then an infinite and timeless universe makes more sense - Ockham's Razor applies. And if, for some reason, you still need a God concept, there's the Spinozan God-as-universe, which Einstein favoured.
Reasons he provides.Not at all.
I know that Ehrman does not think that Jesus was buried in Joseph's tomb. He has his reasons.
Do you find that only honest people agree with you?If one is honest
Are you open to the idea that you are wrong about gods, and that they are only characters in books? Or is that option closed for you?and open
I do not accept your religious opinion as truth. I seek accurate descriptions of reality.and is genuinely seeking the truth
The evidence seems to point to gods being simply characters in books. What happened to that "case" you were going to make that that deity of yours?then they will look at the available evidence and draw conclusions from it.
Understandable, in that he does not come to the same conclusions as you.He makes use of his imagination a lot in his writings and I simply find that problematic.
Sure, but can you demonstrate him to be wrong?I can imagine a lot of things. So personally I find most of his arguments very weak.
I was a Christian growing up. Was a youth leader, a soul winner, the whole nine yards. In college, one of my majors was Philosophy, with an emphasis in comparative religion. I've read the Bible (and the Koran, and the Upanishads, etc.). I know all the arguments for the existence of a god.
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?