Does God Exist?

It is an inherent capacity.

 

He was not out to proof it to anyone, you silly goose. He was just sharing his personal beliefs.

But fact of the matter is that many use some kind of mythology (wether it be the one you just happen to hate or another) to do so :sunny:

 

Yes, this is exactly the ideology I would desire. I honestly think everyone is agnostic though, you can't claim anything to be illogical from our narrow amount of knowledge. We don't know the limits of our own universe yet, not even our selves, new fields of science are found constantly throughout history. Maybe the idea of God is illogical now, but that's not to say the logic isn't there.

 

I don't need religion to praise God and give thanks, but it didn't obstruct it neither (it's more on the contrary)

 

Yes, that's always the case with these kind of discussions. Always. Without a single exception.

 

Myopic view. My view, we share our thoughts.

 

Just because it almost always is doesn't mean it has to be or should be so :sunny:

 

Yes. Very correct. However, we live in a society and culture that says verbal abuse is okay. Moron and idiot are spat from mouths like bullets, every single day. Those words themselves are a barrier and obstruction, and they're destructive. So you can see the barrier and obstruction to learning; the abusive word.

 

If the right hemisphere of your brain is suppressed, disabled and defunct, that doesn't give you (or anybody) cause or reason to want to incapacitate it in others.

 

I don't think burning books is a good solution. If I defend myself, I am already attacked. Rudeness and taking offense are the same phenomena. Forgiveness restores a chance to apprehend correct proportions as we predetermine to hold the world harmless and be honest about our own effects.

 

It isn't a matter of burning books but it is a matter of .. "forgive them while being brought into awareness of what the Hell they do".

In other words, "forgive them, for they know not what they do" is expired.

 

for once i honestly do believe you have said and got something right.

 

ginalee:

Yes, lots! :-D


thedope:

Your suggestion thought is somehow required for attraction, the notion of its having to precede everything - misconceptions.

Not that simple doc. I'm not afraid of the god fetish, but I see the play of willing ignorance, the cloud and confusion, a curtain drawn up where we may see more clearly, a shroud over naked beauty. You want the end of the individual. I want its whole expression.

lol Try a more informal definition!

No, it's an association that consists of our non-reliance on the concept of god. You say you're not a theist thedope. Have you gone the way of the agnostic, purporting to have neither reliance or non-reliance on the concept? :-D

Friend, kimosabe.

I am specifically myself. If there's an illusion there, it's that there's one at all.

Your hewing hummed hymn into homonym, illuminates naught on this subject grown dim, from your darkness that being is not yet to come - play it more brightly, or let it be dumb. ;-D

No, everyone is not identical in power to create. Tacking on the truth that there are no idle thoughts does nothing to support your lie. Everything in the maintenance of your lies tends towards either the conception of creation as static, or what seems to be the desired absence of the individual.

Not sore at all, just not in agreement with them overall. I'd be sore if they were mine! I haven't claimed to teach you straight speech. I have claimed that I can. And if I don't? It's not like we can't be friends regardless! :-D

I haven't attempted to define god, though my definition of good, as being without god, does make your conception of god as good utterly redundant. lol

 

what is inevitable is that there is more we don't know then we do. orders of magnatude times more.

might something we don't know resemble in some way this definician we have invented we call gods? sure. why not?

but are they or it, likely to resemble anything we claim, believe, imagine or think we know about it or them?
this, i would think, seems a wee bit unlikely.

so gods? sure. but gods we think we know? probably not.

 

There you go again with the verificationism. A.J. Ayer tried to inflict this on us in the 1930s. Most scientists and philosophers have moved on. When Democritus put forward the theory of atoms over 2,000 years ago, without a shred of empirical verification, I guess people like you would have dismissed him as some kind of fool. Is M-theory similarly to be dismissed because we don't yet have solid empirical or even mathematical, grounding for it? Verification, and more importantly refutation, are important in accepting or rejecting scientific theories, and if someone were to say God definitely exists, I'd expect some strong evidentiary support. But Sleeping Caterpillar simply stated his personal belief in God, which is a matter of opinion, and he should be able to share that in a discussion forum. No one can prove whether or not the Democrats or the Republicans are the best party, although people can have reasonable opinions either way. I'm confident enough in my political judgments to vote in the upcoming election, but I couldn't prove them scientifically. There's enough evidence for God that reasonable people, including topnotch scientists and philosophers, take Him seriously (e.g., Kenneth Miller, Freeman Dyson, Georges Lemaitre, Francis Collins, Paul Davies, to name a few). It's a matter of opinion. Neither their beliefs nor the evidence makes God or M-theory "real". It just provides a focal point for thought, discussion, action and living. Nobody has verified verificationism, and in fact most scholars and thinkers have given it multiple thumbs down decades ago. We hope that our efforts at logic and scientific inquiry put us in touch with aspects of reality, but the totality may forever be beyond our grasp and even the aspects require a degree of faith and judgement.

 

Well to be fair you have attributed to me partial rightness on another occasion. I usually say something somewhere that coincides with someones beliefs, it is only a matter of time since we share our thoughts. As to whether or not your statement represents some kind of guidance, encouragement, or approval that I can count on I have no idea because I don't know where or how steadily you hold your bar or in comparison what other or parts of other statements you found insufficient. Having said all this, due to my impressionistic apprehension of you as being someone thoughtful I am inclined to say thanks again.

 

No it doesn't, nor does it make Him unreal. BTW, agnosticism, not atheism, is the default position in this dialogue, and "soft atheism" ("I just don't believe in God" will get you by without needing to prove your claim. But you've been arguing hard atheism: that there is no God, or that believers are wrong because they haven't offered proof. He who asserts must prove, so where;s your "verifiable evidence" that God isn't real?

 

:iagree:

 

No it doesn't, nor does it make Him unreal. BTW, agnosticism, not atheism, is the default position in this dialogue, and "soft atheism" ("I just don't believe in God") will get you by without needing to prove your claim. But you've been arguing hard atheism: that there is no God, or that believers are wrong because they haven't offered proof. "Our evolved thinking and our study of the natural world has informed us that a hypothesis based on zero evidence to support it is an illogical and dangerous way of perceiving reality."
He who asserts must prove, so where's your "verifiable evidence" that God isn't real?

 

So true.
The onus to provide supporting evidence lies with the one making the claim or formulating the hypothesis and looking to support it.

most people forget that in these type of discussions.

So AiryFox, got evidence?
:mickey: