Terrapin Station
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa
So would you say that something is a guess if it has evidential support, even if it's not certain? — Terrapin Station
If you have opinions to share...share them. — Frank Apisa
Terrapin Station
8.6k
If you have opinions to share...share them. — Frank Apisa
At the moment I'm only interested in exploring your views as I have been attempting to do. If you don't want to respond to the questions I'm asking, then okay, there's not much we can do about that. — Terrapin Station
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that prevents reasoned discussion and blocks the kind of understanding I am talking about. — EnPassant
Convincing to who? :brow:
— S
To anyone who is capable of understanding the arguments. — EnPassant
Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant
And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about. — S
EnPassant
96
And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about. — S
The intellect cannot discern spiritual truth. Truth must come to us from God. The world is filled with human patterns. These patterns are not ultimately real, they are ephemeral. The true pattern of the world is spiritual. Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment. — EnPassant
This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa
EnPassant
97
This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa
This is what I call meaningless rhetoric designed to avoid proper discussion. — EnPassant
People are willing to have a meaningful discussion with you, EnPassant, but you are averse to it — Frank Apisa
Because theists ask for evidence against gods, when clearly there is none. And on and on it goes, because it's impossible to prove or disprove that something that doesn't exist either exists or doesn't. — whollyrolling
Therefore, that it doesn't exist seems the obvious conclusion, or does it? — whollyrolling
French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand. — SethRy
(1) Human beings and other animals are conscious and self-aware.
(2) Human beings and other conscious animals are made of matter.
(3) Matter collected and organized itself somehow in order to become conscious.
(4) Either matter collected and organized itself into conscious beings purely by accident or by design.
(5) It seems highly unlikely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance.
(6) Thus, it is highly likely that matter was guided by some conscious being to form into conscious animals.
(7) I call this guiding consciousness "God". — Noah Te Stroete
This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa
And abductive reasoning is a very weak form of reasoning that can't be used to arrive at truths. — Christoffer
Pattern-chaser
974
This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa
And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point. — Pattern-chaser
EnPassant
98
People are willing to have a meaningful discussion with you, EnPassant, but you are averse to it — Frank Apisa
Not at all. What do you want to discuss within the context of the thread? — EnPassant
No, it doesn't. Not if the "obvious" conclusion is intended to be the "logical" conclusion. For logic mandates that our conclusions should be justified, and justification requires evidence. There is no evidence - none at all - and therefore logic dictates that we must stop short of a conclusion. So, not only is there no "obvious" conclusion, but there can be no (logically-justified) conclusion at all. — Pattern-chaser
Shamshir
18
I will tell you God exists, but I will ask what does it matter?
Before the discovery of gold, gold existed, though it was not evident.
Now by the same characteristics, I say God exists - because it is possible.
But of course, it is not evident - and as the word would imply, that means there is no evidence to showcase. One is just left with the notion of God, unsure what to do with it.
God being nonevident - is like trying to point out water, fully submerged in it.
I cannot point out the water from within just as I cannot look at my own eyes; but I may be aware.
Even so, what does it matter? — Shamshir
"Who created your God?" — TheSageOfMainStreet
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.