infinity and god

Diest TKO wrote:

You think you can argue back and forth ...

No, I don't care to. Bye, bye now.

0 Replies

YAH!!! Now get the hell out of here!!!

0 Replies

Diest, do you think that "facts" speak for themselves, that they do not need to be interpreted, that if we were to interpret them such interpretations would not contain any aspect of faith?
To rest too much on an airy faith is to be an airhead; to rest too much on the notion of self-evident hard facts is to be stonehead.
Smile

:

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Diest, do you think that "facts" speak for themselves, that they do not need to be interpreted, that if we were to interpret them such interpretations would not contain any aspect of faith?
To rest too much on an airy faith is to be an airhead; to rest too much on the notion of self-evident hard facts is to be stonehead.
:

Interpretation does not require faith, only method.

A faith method is self promotional and relies on unsupported assumptions. It is not measurable. Faith has zero value. Even a fact that is held in question is of greater value. Because whether you agree or disagree with the statement of fact, it can be evaluated.

Faith can't be evaluated.

Tico's super cute declaration of faith has the EXACT same value as any mental patient who claims in great sincerety that aliens are reading his mind using the internet. The EXACT same value; useless.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
You think you can argue back and forth ...

No, I don't care to. Bye, bye now.

Translation: You can't.
K
O

0 Replies

Facts are "little theories." Interpretation rests on faith. By "faith" I include a secular willingness to leave unexamined presuppositions normally left implicit and tacit.

0 Replies

An interesting philosophical stance on facts. I would not subscribe to the idea of "small theories," but I understand the spirit of what you are trying to say I think.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Fight or flight.

Ticomaya is hopeless at the first, and so resorts to the second.

Btw you're twisting my words so much I don't feeling like bothering to answer, and TKO and Nobody have said enough already, so there's nothing I can add.

Thanks guys. Good to have some sanity around here.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Faith can't be evaluated.

Why not? We are all alive, we all have experience, we all have an ego that is suitable for evaluating that experience. Faith is evaluated in the same way that a science experiment is evaluated, by trying something and seeing if it works. The def of works is to being us closer to the truth. For the follower of the science myth truth is data, for the Christian truth is GOD.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Faith is evaluated in the same way that a science experiment is evaluated, by trying something and seeing if it works.

Unsupported statement. Faith believers DO NOT use the same methods as Scientists. If they do it looks like this...

Person1: "God if you can here me, prove you exist!
*days pass by*
Person1: "Did you see that! God is testing my faith!"
Person2: "This experiment was a success!"

hawkeye10 wrote:

The def of works is to being us closer to the truth. For the follower of the science myth truth is data, for the Christian truth is GOD.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Atheism is just stupid. It the the zenith of the stupidity of/and arrogance. It is a faith in what we know thus far is enough to prove there is no god and we can't even cure a cold.

Atheism is a faith worse the theism.

This is what reason and logic have over the athiest;

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance." -Socrates

0 Replies

Amigo - Atheists nor anyone else needs to DISPROVE god. The burden of proof falls on the Christians or other theists to prove god exists.

Your statements on atheism seem void of a certain required understanding.

I don't identify as an atheist, and I have some philosophical differences with the atheist status quo, but I agree on most points with them. I believe that nature can be viewed and understood without the interference of mysticism.

I don't care about the arguement of proving or disproving god. It seems irrelavant to me because that arguement is essencially made to be a basis for further arguements about things that are well understood. People have been arguing about this for so long that theists have stopped paying attention to the fact the world has become a little... rounder. As for the atheist, they too often place importance on the wrong arguments or arguments that they have already won.

T
K
O

0 Replies

so, as I understand it the atheist believes there is no god and finds no need to prove it.

He believes something that is not proven?

The atheist believes something that can not be proven.

Fill in the void (as an atheist, theist);

Does god exist?

Prove it?

0 Replies

I'll begin with you don't prove a negitive. Why should a atheist spend time disproving god?

Should they have to spend time disproving...

unicorns
elves
fairies
centaurs
etc...

????

No.

They don't need to do that.
K
O

0 Replies

Two very simple questions? They are logical an reasonable.

Does god exist?

Prove it?

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Two very simple questions? They are logical an reasonable.

Does god exist?

Prove it?

A: All empirical evidence says no.
A: Non-sequitor.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Two very simple questions? They are logical an reasonable.

Does god exist?

Prove it?

You'll see the problem when you are faced with two questions of equal logic and reason (at least by your standard).

Does the Flying Spagetti Monster exist?

Prove it?

We both deny the existance of gods. I just reject one more than you. When you evaluate the reasons you don't believe in the others, it becomes clear why I'm one step a head of you.

There's no logical or reasonable reason to believe in a god.
K
O

0 Replies

empirical;

1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Non sequitur; logical fallacy

I don't think the existence of god depends on empirical evidence of men.

And the proof of a belief is not Non sequitur. belief without proof is faith.

here are the answers;

Does god exist? "I don't know"

prove it? "I can't, thats why I don't know"

But more importantly.....God doesn't matter

It is the same argument you posed to Tico about the existence OF god. There is no proof either way so there is no legitimate belief.

Which takes us back to faith.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

I don't think the existence of god depends on empirical evidence of men.

Thanks for your opinion, but there is nothing to support this claim.

Amigo wrote:

And the proof of a belief is not Non sequitur. belief without proof is faith.

You're illustrating that void right now. You've just illustrated how little the value of faith is.

Amigo wrote:

here are the answers;

Does god exist? "I don't know"

prove it? "I can't, thats why I don't know"

And what of the Flying Spagetti Monster? Do you not see that the belief in both have the EXACT SAME reason and logic?

Amigo wrote:

There is no proof either way so there is no legitimate belief

Statement not supported.

T
K
O

0 Replies

You did see the Socrates quote I started with right?

Do you understand that that is where you are going and that is my point?

If there is nothing to support my claim then empirically we can prove nothing at all and we are arguing the same point.

And after you understand this still two weeks from now....a year from now you will find yourself contemplating god not the spaghetti monster.

The spaghetti monster was invented out of this frustration. Why was god invented?

Why do we contemplate god and not the spaghetti monster?

0 Replies

infinity and god

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know