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.
Your willing to say you don't know, that is clear, but the question is are you willing to objectively think about possible truths?
In order to objectively think about a possible truth we must assume the truth is possible, otherwise, we're not being truly objective. The fact that we are assuming it's possible does not mean we accept it as true, we're just assuming it's possibly true, which again, is a reasonable thing to do.
Its seems your willing to just claim you don't know, without assuming possible truths in order to change the fact that you don't know. Are you willing to claim you don't know, forever, if no reason or evidence is ever provided that shows you what the truth is? If so then you're willing to accept that the truth can never be known, which you claim is not the case, but in fact it is if you really think about what your claiming by saying you don't know.
And I'm trying to honestly figure out the exact question you're asking. If you're asking why the universe exists, that's essentially the same as "why is there something rather than nothing?".
And my answer to that question is that I'm not even sure that's an intelligible question. It might be like asking what's north of the north pole. At best you might get me to say "I don't know."
Now what?
Your posts make little sense.There's an infinite amount of posibilities north of the North Pole. Does this answer get us any closer to the truth?
Reasonably the truth will make all other possibilities false.
Reasonably the truth can't possibly be nothing because if it is then we'd never know it.
So the answer that there's nothing north of the North Pole is an illogical answer because we can't know that nothing is true.
So logically the truth will both be a single truth as well as infinite eternal truth.
Nothing false can exist where there's only truth.
Truth by its own nature separates what is false from itself and we have no control over that fact, we can only accept it as true.
I hope you can begin to see how God can be viewed as truth itself.
Not at all.There's an infinite amount of posibilities north of the North Pole. Does this answer get us any closer to the truth?
Reasonably the truth will make all other possibilities false.
Reasonably the truth can't possibly be nothing because if it is then we'd never know it.
So the answer that there's nothing north of the North Pole is an illogical answer because we can't know that nothing is true.
So logically the truth will both be a single truth as well as infinite eternal truth.
Nothing false can exist where there's only truth.
Truth by its own nature separates what is false from itself and we have no control over that fact, we can only accept it as true.
I hope you can begin to see how God can be viewed as truth itself.
Pardon me?
If there is a rational reason to do so, yes.
There's an infinite amount of posibilities north of the North Pole. Does this answer get us any closer to the truth?
Reasonably the truth can't possibly be nothing because if it is then we'd never know it.
So the answer that there's nothing north of the North Pole is an illogical answer because we can't know that nothing is true.
So logically the truth will both be a single truth as well as infinite eternal truth.
Nothing false can exist where there's only truth.
Truth by its own nature separates what is false from itself and we have no control over that fact, we can only accept it as true.
I hope you can begin to see how God can be viewed as truth itself.
Only one is true.Every religionist says that. You can't all be right.
Why do you look down to see what is up?The idea that there is a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? I have tried, but I cannot fathom that.
Use your imagination...or your brain. Would you expect to find a tasty meal in the garbage, or peace in the midst of chaos, or the right anything in the wrong location? There are no answers of the type you would like, where you are looking...and when we point you in the right direction...you criticize.I would like a testable, falsifiable scientific explanation, if you have it. Got anything?
Good point
Even at this point in the study of time and matter, it is understood (just as I said) that they are not what they appear: Time is an illusion, and matter is rather energy.And that is simply false.
Seeing is how one comes to know that things are not what they initially appear to be. It was only through seeing that we know just how much of the volume of an atom isn't protons, neutrons, and electrons, which isn't obvious from some perspectives. It is only because of seeing that we are even aware of the issue.
Scientists are working on answering questions such as what time and matter are, and they are doing that through observations. They haven't just thrown their hands up in the air and declared that seeing won't accomplish anything. Science just doesn't take the epistemologically skeptical position that you would like, nor does it support your conclusion.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Sounds like you have made your choice.No evidence around me supports the idea of cosmic beings that care about what we do while naked.
No, no...
At least 1 is wrong. And actually, there are a LOT of religions.
So, more accurately: at most 1 is correct, since all these religions are mutually exclusive.
And since they all make the same kind of claims, and since all of them depend on "testimony" and "dreams" and "visions" and NONE of them have actual proper supporting evidence... Most likely all are wrong.
No, you are not that far along. You could all be wrong.Only one is true.
What has that do do with what I said?Why do you look down to see what is up?
Which one are you using?Use your imagination...or your brain.
I do not believe what I "like" to believe. I do not presume that reality cares what we think.Would you expect to find a tasty meal in the garbage, or peace in the midst of chaos, or the right anything in the wrong location? There are no answers of the type you would like,
Who is this "we" that you speak for?where you are looking...and when we
..your particular interpretation of the bible...point you in the right direction
Do you consider your particular beliefs beyond reproach? Are you infallible?...you criticize.
1. Wring = Wrong.No, you are not that far along. You could all be wring.
What has that do do with what I said?
Which one are you using?
I do not believe what I "like" to believe. I do not presume that reality cares what we think.
Who is this "we" that you speak for?
..your particular interpretation of the bible...
Do you consider your particular beliefs beyond reproach? Are you infallible?
Nobody is suggesting you throw your hands in the air and be foolish, but rather to take the next step....
7. "Beliefs" is also wrong. The correct term would be "know." Yes, what I know, is beyond reproach. I, on the other hand, am not perfect in my humanity, but I am in my spirit.
There are no answers of the type you would like, where you are looking...and when we point you in the right direction...you criticize.
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?