Discussion in 'Religion' started by Bowser, Jul 5, 2018.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The word "reason" implies a thought process. If God was merely a thought, then I would have a reason.
Any word you type or speak implies a thought process. But "reason" additionally involves a cause or justification for the belief.
Again, no problems if you don't have one. Just say that.
Intellectually honest people rely on thought for truth. That's the mind at work. If you were a body builder, doing curls would be truth.
Have I not defined God in previous posts? If you're looking for something more than the ordinary, I have no reason. For me, God is that pile of bricks on the back patio, my snoozing pup on the couch, the roll of toilet paper on the bathroom counter.
So do liars. Thinking up lies is what some people do best.
Intellectually honest people tend to reject lies, even if they were cleverly thought up.
Well, you could claim that anything is truth, but of course that's not accurate.
Again, that's fine.
Perhaps I should ask for your truth/reason, where you see yourself and existence.
No, not just thought, reason. That's the part you don't yet grasp. How do you determine if your thought is true?
That's a very large question. All the truth of existence? Could you narrow that down a bit?
You didn't ask me but I'll bite. I follow the duck philosophy: swim around, eat stuff and fly south for the winter. That's enough "meaning" for most people to handle.
I made no claim you were representing any "religion" - I did note somewhere that you, like almost all Abrahamic monotheists on science forums, frequently confuse religion and theism.
That's not true.
The question is whether you even know why.
That's not true either. Those were your misrepresentations, not my allusions. (You shouldn't believe everything you type)
And that kind of dishonesty is typical - to the point of ubiquity - in posts from overt Abrahamic monotheists on this and other science forums. It is characteristic, almost definitive.
One might almost classify it as empirical evidence of Abrahamic monotheism.
Regardless, it's the major content of his posting throughout and at all times here - and increasingly of yours, as a typical Abrahamic monotheist posting on a science forum. The point remains - attributing psychological states to other people doesn't work as argument.
We are told that the nature of the major source of claims of observable effects on the material world from a deity described in scripture, in the US, is not relevant in a thread about "Empirical Evidence of God".
By an Abrahamic monotheist.
By an Abrahamic monotheist who a short while before had emphasized the supposed nature of a very minor source of such claims of significance - atheists of some kind - in that very thread.
Right. For you, yes.
But for those of us with whom you are discussing this, what might we use to differentiate between the bricks being a product of a natural universe from that created by this God?
And please don't say 'All you have to do is believe.' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wasn't that kind of the point of saying elsewhere, that 'we should really be talking about the God of Scriptures; there's no point in talking about any other God'?
That unfortunately seems the only available answer for anyone who chooses make believe over the honest answer that they really have no idea.
I wonder if Bowsers God is in his smoke ... the smoke that it would seem is responsible for lung cancer.
And yet we dont seem to have any evidence as yet.
The stand seems to be...why should we offer evidence that we know you will reject.
OK all that means is what little you have even to you that evidence must seem hopelessly inadequate.
Yet you hint there is evidence ...perhaps not...but bottom line nothing as to evidence is posted.
I wish you could take the ranting requests of the atheist for evidence seriously and present something or anything that suggests a hint of God but we all know that wont or rathet cant happen and sadly even your admirable writting style does little to move us away from the most inconvenient fact that you have nothing more than an appealing way to present nothing with a hope we may be swayed by the fact we have an intelligent person advocating these made up stories are real or beneficial or whatever position you fall back to so as to continue with your unsupported claims.
I don't see a separation between the two. They are one and the same.
I don't think it's like turning on a faucet. Either it is with you or it is not. And that's not a put-down. Maybe your experience was never to include God. I'm not judging.
You're asking me to answer the question for you? Actually, you could say it's too large to answer, or you could try narrowing it down to an axiom. It's up for grabs as offered.
It is thought that defines your perception of the world. Again, nothing has any meaning (reason) than that which we give it.
I like the proof against God in the "Hitchhikers Guide To The Universe".
God declares that he isn't going to give proof as he wants believe from his followers. There is something called the Babble Fish in this story that is amazing. It's so amazing that it couldn't have come about naturally so it must have been created but since God offers no proof this disproves God so God promptly vanishes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It’s properly conditioned thought that defines a more accurate perception of the world.
Agreed, meaning depends on what we give it, not we as individuals, but we as an evolved civilization. For your thoughts to have legitimacy, they have to be qualified in regards to their consistency with civilized standards. Just arbitrarily assigning personal meaning defies reason.
Separate names with a comma.