[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Archaeopteryx]

It helps to put on your thinking cap when reading my posts

If you're unwilling to really think about what I'm saying for fear of figuring out you're actually wrong then that's your problem.

I think you're confused: the problem is that your posts are barely intelligible. You think you're saying something deep, but you aren't even saying something shallow.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not stating my assumptions, I'm stating my beliefs and I'm explaining the knowledge I've gained from my beliefs about reality. You have a belief that reality was not created by God, I have a belief that reality was created by God. This is really the only difference between yours and my beliefs.

The only difference? You sure know a lot about me for never having met me. If you're really such an accomplished mind-reader you need to get off of this forum and put your superpowers to good use.

So I'm justified in saying the exact same thing back at you: The fact that you don't like the consequences of your assumption that God did not create reality being wrong doesn't make it correct.

Since I never said this was the reason I lack belief, who cares?

The only difference between my logic and your logic is that your logic

... isn't based on obvious fallacies which I'm trying to avoid by changing the subject.

 

[KCfromNC]

science will never be able to provide physical evidence for the reason for existence.

Proof of this claim?

So logically the theory that makes the most sense should be the theory we all believe in, do you agree?

What "theory" is that?

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.

Yep, just not the god concept you're hung up on. If you're going to go with the argument that older is better, you're going to have to convert. If you don't take your own argument seriously enough to follow it through, that just shows how empty it really is.

If an infinite timeless God exists then logically existence is all you'll ever experience

Same as if an infinite timeless god didn't exist. So gods don't add anything to the mix.

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.

Forever? Come on, your creation myths aren't even the oldest ones around.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't share your view so no, I don't have to follow a lot of religions.

You don't believe people from other religions have emotional experiences which they attribute to the supernatural?

 

[KCfromNC]

Take it as:

Google "responses to Bart Ehrman".

Thanks.

I found this : http://ehrmanblog.org/response-to-the-response-how-god-became-jesus/. Based on this source you directed us to, it looks like you're agreeing that the basis of the disagreement with Ehrman is based on wishful thinking rather than historical analysis. Thanks for pointing us to more evidence that the traditional Christian view of the resurrection isn't historically sound.

 

[Chriliman]

I think you're confused: the problem is that your posts are barely intelligible. You think you're saying something deep, but you aren't even saying something shallow.

Well, when you ignore my questions it makes it easier for you to assume I'm being unintelligible.

 

[Chriliman]

The only difference? You sure know a lot about me for never having met me. If you're really such an accomplished mind-reader you need to get off of this forum and put your superpowers to good use.

Indeed I am putting my superpowers to use

Since I never said this was the reason I lack belief, who cares?

The only reason you lack belief is because you lack physical evidence, but you can't expect physical evidence when considering unprovable concepts like the concepts used to explain the origins of the universe. What you can expect is that the one concept that makes the most sense will be the most reasonable concept to believe. The fact that you're unable to understand this truth is the very reason I care to continue explaining it to you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, when you ignore my questions it makes it easier for you to assume I'm being unintelligible.

Is this a deliberate attempt at irony? How many of my questions have you ignored?

 

[Chriliman]

Proof of this claim?

Read my post #509

What "theory" is that?

Reread my post #509

Yep, just not the god concept you're hung up on. If you're going to go with the argument that older is better, you're going to have to convert. If you don't take your own argument seriously enough to follow it through, that just shows how empty it really is.

Reread my post #509, I can't make you believe you have to figure it out for yourself, I'm just trying my best to help you really think everything through. If you don't need my help then simply stop inquiring.

Same as if an infinite timeless god didn't exist. So gods don't add anything to the mix.

Nope, if an infinite timeless God does not exist then its reasonable to conclude that we will go out of existence when we die, but when you consider truth as being unalterable by finite beings then this would mean its unalterably true that we exist so how could it ever be altered to us not existing when we die?

 

[Chriliman]

Is this a deliberate attempt at irony? How many of my questions have you ignored?

Which questions have I ignored?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which questions have I ignored?

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about whether you are open to be convinced. You repeatedly dodged my request that you substantiate the claim that your god concept "makes sense" of the universe's existence.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about whether you are open to be convinced. You repeatedly dodged my request that you substantiate the claim that your god concept "makes sense" of the universe's existence.

I already answered this question back at post #239. The fact is, if I have good reason to believe what I believe and you want to convince me I'm wrong, its then up to you to show me why my reasoning is wrong and you have yet to do this, which is exactly why I'm not convinced that you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[KCfromNC]

The only reason you lack belief is because you lack physical evidence

Please. When you have to resort to making stuff up like this to support your faith you're on really shaky ground. You might want to step back a bit and think about this before continuing to offer false witness here in a public forum.

 

[Chriliman]

Please. When you have to resort to making stuff up like this to support your faith you're on really shaky ground. You might want to step back a bit and think about this before continuing to offer false witness here in a public forum.

Sorry, I don't want to miss-represent your position. Isn't it true that you're an atheist because there is no physical evidence for God and you have not received personal evidence yet?

 

[KCfromNC]

Read my post #509

Reread my post #509

Reread my post #509

Thanks for the suggestion, but nothing in there answers my questions.

but when you consider truth as being unalterable by finite beings then this would mean its unalterably true that we exist so how could it ever be altered to us not existing when we die?

So you claim that because the universe isn't static that truth doesn't exist? To say that makes no sense would be giving it more weight than it deserves. If you think you're saying anything there that's a real problem. One that I don't think I can help with.

 

[KCfromNC]

Sorry, I don't want to miss-represent your position. Isn't it true that you're an atheist because there is no physical evidence for God

That's not the only reason. Stop making stuff up.

 

[Chriliman]

So you claim that because the universe isn't static that truth doesn't exist? To say that makes no sense would be giving it more weight than it deserves. If you think you're saying anything there that's a real problem. One that I don't think I can help with.

By static do you mean eternal? I already explained my reasoning for my belief that the universe is finite, in that it has a beginning but possibly no end. Therefore, it would be unalterably true that something caused it to begin.

 

[KCfromNC]

By static do you mean eternal? I already explained my reasoning for my belief that the universe is finite, in that it has a beginning but possibly no end. Therefore, it would be unalterably true that something caused it to begin.

But by your logic, not unalterably true that it exists since at some point it didn't. You're obviously missing the fact that certain facts include time or space constraints on them. That doesn't make them untrue, it just means that whatever definition of true you're using doesn't agree with how it is actually used by the vast majority of people.

In other words, you're playing pointless word games.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I already answered this question back at post #239. The fact is, if I have good reason to believe what I believe and you want to convince me I'm wrong, its then up to you to show me why my reasoning is wrong and you have yet to do this, which is exactly why I'm not convinced that you're right and I'm wrong.

But you haven't presented anything to support your reasoning. Nothing. You've just piled assertions upon assertions and then said "disprove this!"

 

[Chriliman]

But by your logic, not unalterably true that it exists since at some point it didn't. You're obviously missing the fact that certain facts include time or space constraints on them. That doesn't make them untrue, it just means that whatever definition of true you're using doesn't agree with how it is actually used by the vast majority of people.

In other words, you're playing pointless word games.

But if truth is infinite and timeless, this would mean that truth is even separate from a finite universe. So the truth that the universe has a beginning would have no effect on truth because truth can even be thought of as separate from the universe.