|
Post by kronks on Mar 6, 2017 13:35:36 GMT -5
Hi Fretslider, I'm not horrified because I know the truth. Atheism isn't the reality, the existence of God is.!!! I am pleased that your delusion keeps you happy. It's probably better to be messed up on religion rather than drugs. Seems to me you are the one who is deluding yourself, you have no evidence God does not exists yet you are drawing a conclusion he does not exist despite not having evidence, that is what a man high on delusionary drugs does. There is no logic to your reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Mar 6, 2017 14:09:44 GMT -5
Kronks I suggest the following comments of yours are quite inaccurate: “. . . Atheists have absolutely no proof there for their believe God does not exists yet they are happy to believe that without any proof, which make them huge hypocrites, or not very bright. . . . “ While there are a number of different Atheistic foundations, basically it comes down to the fact that an Atheist (at least the perspective I represent) live in a world of accepting evidence supportive of fact. There is no such evidence for a God to exist therefore there is no God. At the same time that doesn’t mean that Atheists do not read and understand the various philosophical writings by religious Scholars as much of what they have written does not require the existence of a God. Your other assertion is also quite interesting in its lack of logic: “ . . . Going by the basics of philosophy a God, a supernatural being, must exist. . . . “ You have worded this as being all inclusive of (all) philosophy and that is simply not true as many philosophical writings have been written by Atheists and yet others have been written by Religious scholars making philosophical pointes without reliance on the existence of a God. So, I am interested as to which writings of philosophical positions you are referring to, and by which scholars. With these questions I am not trying dissuade your apparent belief in a God, but rather simply trying to understand how these particular conclusions came to be, that is. Are they derived from some religious scholar (if so which ones) or are they just meanderings of your own mind. No that is just wrong, lack of evidence does not mean lack of existance. Further and of course lack of a natural explaination for our existance is indicative of a supernatural explaintion. There are many thing in sciece for which there was no solid evidence, but theory suggested might exist although there was no evidence, later however evidence was found. I am refering to my writings, by me. These are my beliefs based on logic as I have explained, as valid as anyone elses, moreso perhaps. To put it another way this is just semantics, I can say there is no evidence God does not exist there for he must exist. Further a lack of evidence may just boil down to your own incomptence in finding evidence so you can't draw a conclusion from lack of evidence. (even though there is evidence anyway, it is a question of whether you belive the evidence or not, so essentailly a matter of believe). Any though is just a meandering of the mind, it may be right it may be wrong only God knows the absolute truth. As you cannpt adaquately explain creation you can't really be making any definitive statements about it, what I think is reason is that as there is no scientifically possible explination then some higher power, some super natural power/emtity must be involved, that to me is the most reasonable position. Kronks I have no doubt they are your beliefs. Part of the challenge in these little dialogs to try and find common meanings and understandings. One such area is philosophy and in that I refer to writers who have been recognized through the ages as having produced writings worthy of reading. They are not always coming to similar conclusions but they are generally well thought out and worthy of consideration. Certainly, you can place your thoughts alongside such works and consider them equal, but most likely others will not find that same equality and, what you consider your thoughts have most likely been addressed by others with more depth. Your use of evidence, or lack thereof, to prove a point and draw a conclusion is interesting but it is not of any school of logic that I am aware of. As far as I am aware, in Western thought the absence of evidence doesn’t lead to a conclusion but rather to additional inquiry. In that context, the existence of something supernatural has been sought throughout know history but never has such evidence been found. This leads many to have a faith in the supernatural, that is, an unprovable personal position accepted by an individual. That is the way of the world and so be it. However, to apply that type logic to an Atheist is merely a backward way for a person of faith in the supernatural to try to make sense in some that they do not, and cannot, understand, that is, that all is of the temporal plane and that nothing else exists.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 6, 2017 15:36:34 GMT -5
I am pleased that your delusion keeps you happy. It's probably better to be messed up on religion rather than drugs. Hi Fretslider, I guess it comes down to what you think is true and what I think is true, as neither of us can prove it. So we will leave it at that. One thing I also know is true: my life is definitely not messed up. I deal in facts and tested hypotheses. Belief is highly irrational and has no evidence outside one's skull. In the absence of a single piece of evidence the conclusion is there is no god. Should evidence come to light in the future....
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 6, 2017 15:42:04 GMT -5
I am pleased that your delusion keeps you happy. It's probably better to be messed up on religion rather than drugs. Seems to me you are the one who is deluding yourself, you have no evidence God does not exists yet you are drawing a conclusion he does not exist despite not having evidence, that is what a man high on delusionary drugs does. There is no logic to your reasoning. One day, kronks, one day you'll twig how science works. Hint one does not set out to prove a negative You say there is a god, prove it. Stop wasting time with these nonsensical arguments. Tip: If you think you are being visited by aliens, gods, spirits, ghosts, or any other magical beings, just ask them for information that you can verify, specifically with a neutral third-party that would prove their existence.
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Mar 6, 2017 17:35:44 GMT -5
I am pleased that your delusion keeps you happy. It's probably better to be messed up on religion rather than drugs. Seems to me you are the one who is deluding yourself, you have no evidence God does not exists yet you are drawing a conclusion he does not exist despite not having evidence, that is what a man high on delusionary drugs does. There is no logic to your reasoning. Kronks, did anybody ever tell you that you can't prove a negative? Can YOU prove you didn't eat breakfast this morning? No? Well then, how do you expect anyone to prove God does NOT exist, or the abominable snowman does NOT exist, or Thor does not exist? Put your head together and think about that.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 6, 2017 18:01:01 GMT -5
No that is just wrong, lack of evidence does not mean lack of existance. Further and of course lack of a natural explaination for our existance is indicative of a supernatural explaintion. There are many thing in sciece for which there was no solid evidence, but theory suggested might exist although there was no evidence, later however evidence was found. I am refering to my writings, by me. These are my beliefs based on logic as I have explained, as valid as anyone elses, moreso perhaps. To put it another way this is just semantics, I can say there is no evidence God does not exist there for he must exist. Further a lack of evidence may just boil down to your own incomptence in finding evidence so you can't draw a conclusion from lack of evidence. (even though there is evidence anyway, it is a question of whether you belive the evidence or not, so essentailly a matter of believe). Any though is just a meandering of the mind, it may be right it may be wrong only God knows the absolute truth. As you cannpt adaquately explain creation you can't really be making any definitive statements about it, what I think is reason is that as there is no scientifically possible explination then some higher power, some super natural power/emtity must be involved, that to me is the most reasonable position. Kronks I have no doubt they are your beliefs. Part of the challenge in these little dialogs to try and find common meanings and understandings. One such area is philosophy and in that I refer to writers who have been recognized through the ages as having produced writings worthy of reading. They are not always coming to similar conclusions but they are generally well thought out and worthy of consideration. Certainly, you can place your thoughts alongside such works and consider them equal, but most likely others will not find that same equality and, what you consider your thoughts have most likely been addressed by others with more depth. Your use of evidence, or lack thereof, to prove a point and draw a conclusion is interesting but it is not of any school of logic that I am aware of. As far as I am aware, in Western thought the absence of evidence doesn’t lead to a conclusion but rather to additional inquiry. In that context, the existence of something supernatural has been sought throughout know history but never has such evidence been found. This leads many to have a faith in the supernatural, that is, an unprovable personal position accepted by an individual. That is the way of the world and so be it. However, to apply that type logic to an Atheist is merely a backward way for a person of faith in the supernatural to try to make sense in some that they do not, and cannot, understand, that is, that all is of the temporal plane and that nothing else exists. No I don't condiser my thought to be e quall to theirs I consided mine to be superior.
It is not unprovable it is proven, your own existence means there must be a superior being.
Now I am at the moment eating a sulyana scone, that sultana scone has no evidence of a supernatural being, a creator, the creator of the scone but we know by it's very existance that a scone creator exists.
So it is quite simple and clear.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 6, 2017 18:11:33 GMT -5
Seems to me you are the one who is deluding yourself, you have no evidence God does not exists yet you are drawing a conclusion he does not exist despite not having evidence, that is what a man high on delusionary drugs does. There is no logic to your reasoning. One day, kronks, one day you'll twig how science works. Hint one does not set out to prove a negative You say there is a god, prove it. Stop wasting time with these nonsensical arguments. Tip: If you think you are being visited by aliens, gods, spirits, ghosts, or any other magical beings, just ask them for information that you can verify, specifically with a neutral third-party that would prove their existence. Science works as God intended it to work You dpn't kniow anything about anything you are not even scientifc, science does not have mindlesss rules. I've already given you evidence of a supermnatural being based on indisputable logic, if you won't believe that you won't beleive any other witnesses either. If I took you to hell and back you still would not believe it.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 6, 2017 18:17:48 GMT -5
Seems to me you are the one who is deluding yourself, you have no evidence God does not exists yet you are drawing a conclusion he does not exist despite not having evidence, that is what a man high on delusionary drugs does. There is no logic to your reasoning. Kronks, did anybody ever tell you that you can't prove a negative? Can YOU prove you didn't eat breakfast this morning? No? Well then, how do you expect anyone to prove God does NOT exist, or the abominable snowman does NOT exist, or Thor does not exist? Put your head together and think about that. A negative is just a negated positive, if you can't prove a negative you can't prove anything and yea I have heard a lot of peoplle say you can't prove negaive. And of course you can prove a negative, ie Shows 6x6 != 35 Is just one negatove you can prove. And you can prove them all becuase the statement is the same as 6x6=36
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Mar 6, 2017 18:43:50 GMT -5
On the subject of this thread - there is lack of evidence, either way. It turns into an endless argument. The way to an answer might depend on how you define "God".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 19:07:20 GMT -5
On the subject of this thread - there is lack of evidence, either way. It turns into an endless argument. The way to an answer might depend on how you define "God". There is evidence all around you that a Holy God exists....the majority of people reject God as they are deceived into thinking they then have no responsibility but on their death bed they will find out to late how wrong they were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 19:26:55 GMT -5
Evidence is not in itself sufficient to constitute proof.
And nor is lack of evidence in itself sufficient to constitute falsity.
The only rational position is the agnostic one.
Atheism, like theism, goes beyond the available evidence and is as much a leap in the dark as belief.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 19:29:49 GMT -5
By the way, Anna, your idea on 'proof' would make it almost impossible for the majority of criminals to be convicted.
How, to take the most obvious example, can a man 'prove' that he did NOT rape a woman?
And of course as well as verification there is also a principle known as falsification.
So to state that a negative cannot be proved is simply not the case.
But of course that in no way supports the strong claim that God does not exist any more than it supports the strong claim that God does exist.
Both claims go beyond the evidence and represent opinions rather than facts.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Mar 6, 2017 20:19:50 GMT -5
Kronks I have no doubt they are your beliefs. Part of the challenge in these little dialogs to try and find common meanings and understandings. One such area is philosophy and in that I refer to writers who have been recognized through the ages as having produced writings worthy of reading. They are not always coming to similar conclusions but they are generally well thought out and worthy of consideration. Certainly, you can place your thoughts alongside such works and consider them equal, but most likely others will not find that same equality and, what you consider your thoughts have most likely been addressed by others with more depth. Your use of evidence, or lack thereof, to prove a point and draw a conclusion is interesting but it is not of any school of logic that I am aware of. As far as I am aware, in Western thought the absence of evidence doesn’t lead to a conclusion but rather to additional inquiry. In that context, the existence of something supernatural has been sought throughout know history but never has such evidence been found. This leads many to have a faith in the supernatural, that is, an unprovable personal position accepted by an individual. That is the way of the world and so be it. However, to apply that type logic to an Atheist is merely a backward way for a person of faith in the supernatural to try to make sense in some that they do not, and cannot, understand, that is, that all is of the temporal plane and that nothing else exists. No I don't condiser my thought to be e quall to theirs I consided mine to be superior.
It is not unprovable it is proven, your own existence means there must be a superior being.
Now I am at the moment eating a sulyana scone, that sultana scone has no evidence of a supernatural being, a creator, the creator of the scone but we know by it's very existance that a scone creator exists.
So it is quite simple and clear.
It is quite simple for you, but please point to a single know and recognized philosopher from any era, that supports your position.
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Mar 6, 2017 22:37:04 GMT -5
By the way, Anna, your idea on 'proof' would make it almost impossible for the majority of criminals to be convicted. How, to take the most obvious example, can a man 'prove' that he did NOT rape a woman? And of course as well as verification there is also a principle known as falsification. So to state that a negative cannot be proved is simply not the case. But of course that in no way supports the strong claim that God does not exist any more than it supports the strong claim that God does exist. Both claims go beyond the evidence and represent opinions rather than facts. If the defendant could not prove he did not commit a crime then the prosecution must bear the burden of proving that he DID, or that he/she most likely did, to the satisfaction of the jury or the court. That would make it harder to convict I should think. I'm a Christian so of course I believe in God, but it is a personal belief. Each of us must find our own way.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 6, 2017 22:44:51 GMT -5
Hi Fretslider, You are right, it is no skin off my nose. The snag is that I happen to care, so want others to share in what I think is the absolute truth. At no time have I felt exasperated except in my last post to Mouse. I just give the facts as I see and experience them, in a calm, positive way.
It is an inborn trait that most people do want to share their goodfortune so will pass it on if thye can, that is all that I am doing. I am sure that I have found the truth so naturally I want to shout it to the world. I know perfectly well that people have their own experiences and can stay with them for as long as they like. But it is rather difficult for me to have to watch a person concentrate only on this earth plane when I know from my experiences that there is a whole lot more.
I will continue to express my beliefs in my posts if they are relevant to the posts that have been sent to me, unless ofcourse you wish to deprive me of that opportunity by refusing to accept my posts. I hate to see time wasted but if that is how it must be then so be it. I know that I have done my best to share the truth with others, no doubt I will still keep plugging away as time goes by.!!!
|
|