Why do you believe that there is a god?

[wisepharoah]

Do DMT, shrooms,peyote or ayuhausca and I promise you that you will never doubt "God" life after death or the soul EVER again! I feel sorry for you none believers of the soul. You are in for one hell of a rude awakening when you die and I am not talking about heaven or hell. I think the problem isn't God but merely how people conceptualize what "God" is. Its not a man,woman or single entity,its something so vast and all encompassing that the human mind cannot grasp. I love it when people even begin to believe that science has all the answers when it is limited to the material realm and man in the 3 dimensional 5 sense reality paradigm. We are still barbarians thumping around with tools of metal and earth, we aren't even babies, we haven't even been concieved yet in terms of where we will be in 300 years. Stop arguing over things you don't comprehend you barbaric peons.

 

[pleasurephd]

WISEPHAROAH

I'm not even sure what taking a psychoactive compound that affects your brain and nervous system making you hallucinate even has to do with God or life after death anyways. 

But, my friend has taken shrooms on various occasions and is an out spoken atheist.

Rude awakening? I can't speak for others, but I for one will be happy, whether or not God exists, I will know the truth. And, this is all I have been questioning about, nothing else. I will feel happy because I have never attacked the notion of a God existing I have only sought to find the truth, so it will be nice to finally know. And, even if there is a heaven and hell I know I will be accepted into heaven. Unless God isn't all knowing and a beezee. 

No one has stated that science has all the answers, so you're in love with nothing. What science does is seek for all the answers. Also, we can test and experiment on things that don't fall into our 5 senses. For example light or radiation that is not in the visible spectrum.

I do however agree with your last two statements.

Edit. Yuku is messing up and won't let me quote or properly edit.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by WISEPHAROAH

Do DMT, shrooms,peyote or ayuhausca and I promise you that you will never doubt "God" life after death or the soul EVER again! I feel sorry for you none believers of the soul. You are in for one hell of a rude awakening when you die and I am not talking about heaven or hell. I think the problem isn't God but merely how people conceptualize what "God" is. Its not a man,woman or single entity,its something so vast and all encompassing that the human mind cannot grasp. I love it when people even begin to believe that science has all the answers when it is limited to the material realm and man in the 3 dimensional 5 sense reality paradigm. We are still barbarians thumping around with tools of metal and earth, we aren't even babies, we haven't even been concieved yet in terms of where we will be in 300 years. Stop arguing over things you don't comprehend you barbaric peons.

Hmm so people who have brain injuries or psychotic mental illnesses that make them hallucinate are proof that God and the soul exists?

you gotta be sh((ing me

Nonsense like God and the soul are lazy people's explanation's to phenomena they do not understand, THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE


Oh sh$$% I'm delirious from my HIV encephalitis and I keep hearing voices, must be God

Unlike "WISE" pharoah, I'm not going say sh like "I  feel bad for believers who when they die will realize there is no afterlife", because I'm not a bloody idiot and I've never died


You're just as clueless about the after-life as the rest of us, stop it

Psychoactive substances, brain injury, hypoxia can cause disruptions in your brain's neuronal mechanisms that allow it to process information without external stimuli-Eg a lesion heschl's gyrus may cause people to hear things because that it the part of the brain that process's such information

 

[bboy1827]

It's unfair and it shows how childish atheists, and some scientist, are. It's cool to question the basic tenets of God, which is a Philosophical question, and not ok to use the same standard to challenge Science. PleasurePhd I don't think you have a degree in Philosophy because you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of Cartesian Skepticism, which is one of the base concepts of Philosophy, liken it to Newtons Laws or the Multiplication table, if you graduate in Philosophy you should understand the Cogito and more importantly the Mind Body Distinction. Just realized how hard philosophy is to grasp in this thread, as the basic concept is going over peoples heads. Honestly, it's BS. Someone asks about God, a purely Epistemological argument, and you bring science into it, which Epistemology has taken care of time and time again.

I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but damn. People in here acting holier than though but no one has answered any of my questions, nor have they truly been able to understand my questions. Everyone harping on the sun "Rising and Setting" is linguistic hair splitting. The question "how do we know the earth is going to "rotate" everyday to make it appear that the sun is rising and setting" but that sounds dumb, because when you see a sun rise you don't think about the rotation of the earth, You say "Hey, it's sunrise" not "Hey, the earth has rotated on it's axis again." But as I said it's hair splitting, the true meat and potatoes of the argument is how do we KNOW, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the sun will rise tomorrow? Basically we "know" this because it has happened millions of times before. But that is only commenting on what has happened before, I would venture to say that no one can predict the future, as such there is absolutely no way to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the next time you jump in the air you will fall down to earth etc. as we can't predict the future. That is the basis of Bertrand's argument, but no one seems to understand what I, or many other philosophers before me are saying.


Long and short, I think a lot of those arguing on the side of science a devoid of any philosophical teachings. They don't give credence to the most ridiculous possibilities, that are still possibilities and that people like Steven Hawkin have already acknowledged. Philosophy taught me how to read, reason and think, a lesson some people really really need.

 

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

'Charles Darwin (1859, p. 30 recognised that the sudden appearance of a diverse and highly derived fossil fauna in the Cambrian posed a problem for his theory of natural selection, "and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Two obvious possibilities are that animal life did, indeed, evolve very abruptly about that time, or, alternatively, had existed long before, but that, for whatever reason, we have failed to find fossil evidence: the "late-" and "early-arrival" models, respectively.'



[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]these losers really idolize Darwin...I swear this Atheist crap is all conceptualized by Europeans: 'DARWIN IS MY HERO'  

 

[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

You might want to cite your source(s).

yeah I'll do that for you professor. 

...of course the cambrian explosion doesn't disprove evolution..the point is the theory is still a theory that is is not complete. Have they found all the intermediate fossil evidence to prove evolution? Evolution isn't even inconsistent with creation...

Nonsense like God and the soul are lazy people's explanation's to phenomena they do not understand, THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE

Again...just because you can describe the chemical reactions that occur in your brain doesn't mean you've explained anything...ok you understand how it works on a scientific level...how does that better your understanding of 'reality'?..Of course one knows what we see on those substances is a product of our brain...thats the point...

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dudes are a little too confident in their studies when it comes to this discussion.....you don't have much of an understanding just because your a scientist or you have a medical background...imagine if the entire world was populated by these %+# holes who think science disproves God.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I've already been around the atheist scientist type enough in real life to know that they have nothing interesting to talk about as people...it's always an atheist who will come at you first....God is all y'all talk about. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Psychedelics are researched and proven to do exactly what we say they do. Just continue your usually routine and mock a psychedelic experience by comparing it to some sexual related disorder, you mentioned asphyxiation last time and now your talking about HIV encephalitis  

[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Have you ever done a psychedelic drug? Your little ego couldn't even handle it. 

 Continue to drink beer and holla a bellow average white girls up in NYC...you can't even see the stars at night in that dirty, congested, city that you refer to as the greatest place on earth 

[/font]

Y'all will be right back in the cycle of life and death after you die. Evolution FTW. 

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

'Charles Darwin (1859, p. 30 recognised that the sudden appearance of a diverse and highly derived fossil fauna in the Cambrian posed a problem for his theory of natural selection, "and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Two obvious possibilities are that animal life did, indeed, evolve very abruptly about that time, or, alternatively, had existed long before, but that, for whatever reason, we have failed to find fossil evidence: the "late-" and "early-arrival" models, respectively.'



[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]these losers really idolize Darwin...I swear this Atheist crap is all conceptualized by Europeans: 'DARWIN IS MY HERO'  

 

[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

You're so damn silly you didn't even read the entire book before you start quoting mining.
Instead of being honest and saying "initially he had trouble accepting his theory before he determined that it was completely true"

This is what happens when you pick out one quote of someone being honest BEFORE they make their realization.

You're being idiotic.

Dude had trouble accepting that he was RIGHT before it was unlike nothing he had seen before. 

 

[b smooth 202]

You're so damn stupid you didn't even read the entire book before you start quoting mining.

Instead of being honest and saying "initially he had trouble accepting his theory before he determined that it was completely true"

This is what happens when you pick out one quote of someone being honest BEFORE they make their realization.

You're being idiotic

Whats wrong sillypitty? Can't defend Atheism without name calling? Thats how I got you banned last time isn't it?

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

It's unfair and it shows how childish atheists, and some scientist, are. It's cool to question the basic tenets of God, which is a Philosophical question, and not ok to use the same standard to challenge Science. PleasurePhd I don't think you have a degree in Philosophy because you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of Cartesian Skepticism, which is one of the base concepts of Philosophy, liken it to Newtons Laws or the Multiplication table, if you graduate in Philosophy you should understand the Cogito and more importantly the Mind Body Distinction. Just realized how hard philosophy is to grasp in this thread, as the basic concept is going over peoples heads. Honestly, it's BS. Someone asks about God, a purely Epistemological argument, and you bring science into it, which Epistemology has taken care of time and time again.

I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but damn. People in here acting holier than though but no one has answered any of my questions, nor have they truly been able to understand my questions. Everyone harping on the sun "Rising and Setting" is linguistic hair splitting. The question "how do we know the earth is going to "rotate" everyday to make it appear that the sun is rising and setting" but that sounds dumb, because when you see a sun rise you don't think about the rotation of the earth, You say "Hey, it's sunrise" not "Hey, the earth has rotated on it's axis again." But as I said it's hair splitting, the true meat and potatoes of the argument is how do we KNOW, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the sun will rise tomorrow? Basically we "know" this because it has happened millions of times before. But that is only commenting on what has happened before, I would venture to say that no one can predict the future, as such there is absolutely no way to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the next time you jump in the air you will fall down to earth etc. as we can't predict the future. That is the basis of Bertrand's argument, but no one seems to understand what I, or many other philosophers before me are saying.


Long and short, I think a lot of those arguing on the side of science a devoid of any philosophical teachings. They don't give credence to the most ridiculous possibilities, that are still possibilities and that people like Steven Hawkin have already acknowledged. Philosophy taught me how to read, reason and think, a lesson some people really really need.

Stop.
Your problem isn't with science but with the world around you outside of your own mind. Most of the rest of us (whoever we might be in your mind) are compatible with real life (whatever that might be in your mind.) Why are you even attacking the scientific process in this discussion on god(s)? Throughout your life, you take for granted and accept what science has brought about (technology, modern medicine, etc.) but when it is used as a tool to measure the validity of a supernatural cosmic being, suddenly, the entire scientific process becomes worthy of skepticism? I'm not even saying take science as an absolute truth (there is no such thing) but you're derailing the thread with your solipsist views. This seems to be more of a personal problem.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

You're so damn stupid you didn't even read the entire book before you start quoting mining.

Instead of being honest and saying "initially he had trouble accepting his theory before he determined that it was completely true"

This is what happens when you pick out one quote of someone being honest BEFORE they make their realization.

You're being idiotic

Whats wrong sillypitty? Can't defend Atheism without name calling? Thats how I got you banned last time isn't it?

Bruh... you PICKED ONE QUOTE OUT OF A BOOK WITH A DUDE WHO WAS HAVING DOUBTS!
Why don't you post the parts that show him ACCEPTING HIS THEORIES AS TRUE AT THE END?!

He says THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE NO MATTER HOW HARD IT IS TO ACCEPT!

He was being HONEST with himself.

Evolution however has NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM

ATHEISM IS A LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD.

THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE GOD YOU BELIEVE IN EXISTS!

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Kramer

Well do you? You just seem very unprofessional for how learned you claim to be

The AUDACITY of this ....right here... 

How does anything about his "tone" imply how smart he is? Or how does that invalidate WHAT he says. 

HOW you say something doesn't mean anything unless you're an emotional fool. 

WHAT is said is all that REALLY matters. 

I could care less for your feelings. 

The POINT is all that matters. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

You're so damn stupid you didn't even read the entire book before you start quoting mining.

Instead of being honest and saying "initially he had trouble accepting his theory before he determined that it was completely true"

This is what happens when you pick out one quote of someone being honest BEFORE they make their realization.

You're being idiotic

Whats wrong sillypitty? Can't defend Atheism without name calling? Thats how I got you banned last time isn't it?

Bruh... you PICKED ONE QUOTE OUT OF A BOOK WITH A DUDE WHO WAS HAVING DOUBTS!
Why don't you post the parts that show him ACCEPTING HIS THEORIES AS TRUE AT THE END?!

He says THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE NO MATTER HOW HARD IT IS TO ACCEPT!

He was being HONEST with himself.

Evolution however has NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM

ATHEISM IS A LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD.

THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE GOD YOU BELIEVE IN EXISTS!

Bruh your behavior in this thread has been beyond mechanical...are you really asking people to put forth empirical evidence of the existence of our creator? 

Atheist are the best example God exists because they're always people claiming they have a scientific understanding of everything.  

The title of the thread is why do you believe in God?...not prove the existence of God with empirical evidence. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by cubanref

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

What makes you believe that a god exists?  The question is geared toward anyone that believes in a god.

Why do I care whether you believe or not?  Answer:  I don't.   I just want to know why you believe. 

If the basis for your beliefs can be scientifically explained or falsified with facts,  I won't be holding back any information.

I am not a religious person at all and I do understand that a lot can be proved by science, but at the same time there are things that happen in life that are just unexplainable 

...there are just too many things that we will never know or understand

How does this prove that there is a god because you "don't understand something?"

There was TONS of stuff we didn't understand 100 years ago.

Now we do.

So if god is responsible for something to believers but we figure it out, what happened? Did god really not do it or did we just figure it out??? 

If you give credit to your god then you have to be consistent and reject the science that explains it.

You can't accept the science that explains it when you just gave credit elsewhere.

OR if you realize that you benefit from the scientific explanation then you should just say "i don't know but i hope we figure it out" so that you can assess the evidence put forth and come to an honest conclusion. 

Your "god did it" explanation is for toddlers and idiots. I refuse to think that you are either. Give yourself MORE credit than that. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202


Whats wrong sillypitty? Can't defend Atheism without name calling? Thats how I got you banned last time isn't it?

Bruh... you PICKED ONE QUOTE OUT OF A BOOK WITH A DUDE WHO WAS HAVING DOUBTS!
Why don't you post the parts that show him ACCEPTING HIS THEORIES AS TRUE AT THE END?!

He says THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE NO MATTER HOW HARD IT IS TO ACCEPT!

He was being HONEST with himself.

Evolution however has NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM

ATHEISM IS A LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD.

THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE GOD YOU BELIEVE IN EXISTS!

Bruh your behavior in this thread has been beyond mechanical...are you really asking people to put forth empirical evidence of the existence of our creator? 

Atheist are the best example God exists because they're always people claiming they have a scientific understanding of everything.  

The title of the thread is why do you believe in God?...not prove the existence of God with empirical evidence. 

BIN-FREAKIN-GO!
If you can't prove your claim then what is stopping you from saying ANYTHING then?

Thats the point.

If you can't prove it or suggest it with evidence then you CAN NOT MAKE THE ASSERTION!

Furthermore YOU claim it created you... YOU JUST SAID YOU CANT EVEN SUPPORT THE CLAIM! SO WHY PUT IT FORWARD. Its just what YOU think. You can't even prove it. Its YOUR creator. Its YOUR god. 

Bruh, if you said WHY you THINK Jews are the scum of the earth that is what YOU think. it doesn't PROVE it does it?! You've already been anti-Semitic here enough so I'm calling you out on your BS. 

How does atheists prove that god exists?! Do people who don't believe in Santa or Allah prove god exists? Do native americans prove that Shiva exists? Do Christians prove that Thor or Zeus or Horus or Ra exists?!

What is your logical-mental-thinking problem?

THIS IS NOT REASONABLE.

YOU HAVE NOT MADE SENSE THE ENTIRE TOPIC!

 

[b smooth 202]

How have I not made sense? Is empirical evidence the only thing that can make sense in the world?
Again..the topic is not prove God exists with empirical evidence.which is physically impossible...and shows the delusions of people with scientific backgrounds and condescending attitudes.

the topic is 'why do you believe in God?' not PROVE GOD EXISTS WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Thats why its called BELIEF. 

Zeus Horus and Ra are all religious expressions of belief that reinforce social order. Not GOD the creator of the universe. 

You just put Santa in the same sentence as Allah..

...wow..pathetic. 

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

yeah I'll do that for you professor. 

...of course the cambrian explosion doesn't disprove evolution..the point is the theory is still a theory that is is not complete. Have they found all the intermediate fossil evidence to prove evolution? Evolution isn't even inconsistent with creation...

Great, more ignorant comments. The whole "it's still just a theory" comment that I've seen come up in this topics more times than I can remember demonstrates your lack of understanding of science. Because of that, you have no place in a discussion on science. There are tons of intermediate fossils that support the theory of evolution, but even if fossils didn't exist, we would still know evolution to be true through observations and genetic evidence. Now insert the "you atheists just have to be right!" comments that result when someone is corrected.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

How have I not made sense? Is empirical evidence the only thing that can make sense in the world?



Again..the topic is not prove God exists with empirical evidence.which is physically impossible...and shows the delusions of people with scientific backgrounds and condescending attitudes.

the topic is 'why do you believe in God?' not PROVE GOD EXISTS WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Thats why its called BELIEF. 

Zeus Horus and Ra are all religious expressions of belief that reinforce social order. Not GOD the creator of the universe. 

You just put Santa in the same sentence as Allah..

...wow..pathetic. 

If your evidence is subjective how can you prove that it exists?



There are things that can't be explained that make sense but the context and presentation of your arguments for the existence of YOUR god are inconsistent and fallacious. 




Its not because I don't like you or anything, its your ARGUMENTS that don't stand on their own. 




If you can't prove something, what is stopping you from saying anything and everything and never being wrong about any of it?




Answer this. 

Look, if you can't prove or back up what you're saying how can you assert that someone else is "incapable" of accepting your argument with out any backing or evidence?




But i bet you accept anything else outside of "faith" and "religion" with proof right.




I bet you won't draft a kid out of high school without proof will you?




I bet you won't go on a ride at a theme park without proof its safe, will you?




I bet you wont use a pen without proof it won't leak on you, will you?




I bet you won't eat food without proof that its safe, will you?




Yet when it comes to your "god" you say, you don't need to prove it to believe in it.




WHY?!




its NOT exempt from proof. No matter how much you "BELIEVE" it or "WISH" it to be real. 




Is it condescending because you disagree with someone or is it objectionable because your claims dont stand on their own?




Thats the problem.




Thats been the ENTIRE problem.




Your BELIEF is just what YOU believe. Its not even universally true and is a contradictory and subjective entity. 




You can't even support WHY you believe something with evidence and thus you have no actual reason to believe it.




Just BELIEVING something DOES NOT make it TRUE or more VALID or more REAL. 




False wrong again.




You could use those definitions to talk about ANY god that people have thought existed. You can't deny that people FOUGHT over the existence of those gods and yet you say they don't mean that to YOU...thats because YOU don't believe in them!




You clearly don't know any greek or norse or egyptian mythology. THESE GODS WERE TO THE ULTIMATE CREATORS TO THOSE THAT BELIEVED IN THEM.




You can't trivialize their gods without recognizing YOUR bias. 





BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF THEY EXIST.




How is that pathetic? 

 

[b smooth 202]

you are an uninteresting mechanical robot.^ have fun living in your rational prison brother.

More than twenty-five centuries have passed since that which has been called the Perennial Philosophy was first committed to writing; and in the course of those centuries it has found expression, now partial, now complete, now in this form, now in that, again and again. In Vedanta and Hebrew prophecy, in the Tao Teh King and the Platonic dialogues, in the Gospel according to St. John and Mahayana theology, in Plotinus and the Areopagite, among the Persian Sufis and the Christian mystics of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance--the Perennial Philosophy has spoken almost all the languages of Asia and Europe and has made use of the terminology and traditions of every one of the higher religions. But under all this confusion of tongues and myths, of local histories and particularist doctrines, there remains a Highest Common Factor, which is the Perennial Philosophy in what may be called its chemically pure state. This final purity can never, of course, be expressed by any verbal statement of the philosophy, however undogmatic that statement may be, however deliberately syncretistic. The very fact that it is set down at a certain time by a certain writer, using this or that language, automatically imposes a certain sociological and personal bias on the doctrines so formulated. It is only the act of contemplation when words and even personality are transcended, that the pure state of the Perennial Philosophy can actually be known. The records left by those who have known it in this way make it abundantly clear that all of them, whether Hindu, Buddhist, Hebrew, Taoist, Christian, or Mohammedan, were attempting to describe the same essentially indescribable Fact.
-Aldous Huxley

 

[sillyputty]

B Smooth 202, why do you believe in a god you can't prove or provide evidence that exists when you use evidence and proof to make conclusions for every other argument you make?

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by WISEPHAROAH

Do DMT, shrooms,peyote or ayuhausca and I promise you that you will never doubt "God" life after death or the soul EVER again! I feel sorry for you none believers of the soul. You are in for one hell of a rude awakening when you die and I am not talking about heaven or hell. I think the problem isn't God but merely how people conceptualize what "God" is. Its not a man,woman or single entity,its something so vast and all encompassing that the human mind cannot grasp. I love it when people even begin to believe that science has all the answers when it is limited to the material realm and man in the 3 dimensional 5 sense reality paradigm. We are still barbarians thumping around with tools of metal and earth, we aren't even babies, we haven't even been concieved yet in terms of where we will be in 300 years. Stop arguing over things you don't comprehend you barbaric peons.

Let me get this straight...and I'm a big fan of yours usually on NT so don't get me wrong...
I have to take PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS to experience a god?

So you might as well suggest heroin or cocaine...or even weed... because the feelings I feel are "god" now?! 

On top of that, how can you feel SORRY for someone that doesn't use these drugs?

Did your god "create" you you to have to discover and use drugs to experience that same god?

So life is a treasure chest for drugs that affect various receptors in HUMAN brains? Because not all brains or neural centers of other animals are the same or have the same receptor chemistry. 

Dude, you have to accept that while we do not know everything and will not be able to explain everything that we can only assert what we can prove. Everything else is speculation.

Also asserting "god" to be your "feelings and perception" doesn't help your point. It only shows that its...YOUR PERCEPTION. 

It doesn't prove the entity that people exists as "god" 

Humans clearly don't have a grasp on it all...we can't even visualize the same spectrum of the Electromagnetic Spectrum to see like dogs or birds can. WE HAVE LIMITATIONS ON OURSELVES.

I understand and accept this...HOWEVER... to assert something that you can not prove BEYOND those limits does NOT prove your point without EVIDENCE my friend. 

Changing your mental state to alter how you feel or perceive does not prove that the entity that is asserted to exist as a "god" or is in fact "god(s)" 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

It's unfair and it shows how childish atheists, and some scientist, are. It's cool to question the basic tenets of God, which is a Philosophical question, and not ok to use the same standard to challenge Science. PleasurePhd I don't think you have a degree in Philosophy because you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of Cartesian Skepticism, which is one of the base concepts of Philosophy, liken it to Newtons Laws or the Multiplication table, if you graduate in Philosophy you should understand the Cogito and more importantly the Mind Body Distinction. Just realized how hard philosophy is to grasp in this thread, as the basic concept is going over peoples heads. Honestly, it's BS. Someone asks about God, a purely Epistemological argument, and you bring science into it, which Epistemology has taken care of time and time again.

I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but damn. People in here acting holier than though but no one has answered any of my questions, nor have they truly been able to understand my questions. Everyone harping on the sun "Rising and Setting" is linguistic hair splitting. The question "how do we know the earth is going to "rotate" everyday to make it appear that the sun is rising and setting" but that sounds dumb, because when you see a sun rise you don't think about the rotation of the earth, You say "Hey, it's sunrise" not "Hey, the earth has rotated on it's axis again." But as I said it's hair splitting, the true meat and potatoes of the argument is how do we KNOW, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the sun will rise tomorrow? Basically we "know" this because it has happened millions of times before. But that is only commenting on what has happened before, I would venture to say that no one can predict the future, as such there is absolutely no way to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the next time you jump in the air you will fall down to earth etc. as we can't predict the future. That is the basis of Bertrand's argument, but no one seems to understand what I, or many other philosophers before me are saying.


Long and short, I think a lot of those arguing on the side of science a devoid of any philosophical teachings. They don't give credence to the most ridiculous possibilities, that are still possibilities and that people like Steven Hawkin have already acknowledged. Philosophy taught me how to read, reason and think, a lesson some people really really need.

I have already addressed you in the long and short form.
Science has limitations. I've already admitted this. 

But you asking epistemological questions does not 

A. show proof or evidence of a god. 

B. mean your arguments are equal in weight because they lack evidence. 

You showing that the existence of god as an epistemological question basically shows that there isn't a to even say exists god because we can't even provide proof for it to exist. Its merely something for you to ponder at that point without going either way.

Science seeks to gather evidence for the claim...if there is no evidence...the claim does not stand. It is neither true nor false. There is simply no evidence.

There MAY be a god. There MAY NOT be a god. But there is no evidence to support the claim that there is. 

Thats the point. 

I know plenty of the philosophy of scientific methodology...but if you're asking questions like...if proof, really proof? is a conclusion really a conclusion? How much can we ever know?

While you're busy asking that, we're trying to actually figure it out. 

There is a time for thought and there is a time for action through evidence. 

I appreciate their contributions to how we think about thinking...but....

You can't sit up all day pondering fact and theory if you don't pursue trying to establish or gather evidence for any. 

 

[pleasurephd]

 

Originally Posted by bboy1827

It's unfair and it shows how childish atheists, and some scientist, are. It's cool to question the basic tenets of God, which is a Philosophical question, and not ok to use the same standard to challenge Science. PleasurePhd I don't think you have a degree in Philosophy because you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of Cartesian Skepticism, which is one of the base concepts of Philosophy, liken it to Newtons Laws or the Multiplication table, if you graduate in Philosophy you should understand the Cogito and more importantly the Mind Body Distinction. Just realized how hard philosophy is to grasp in this thread, as the basic concept is going over peoples heads. Honestly, it's BS. Someone asks about God, a purely Epistemological argument, and you bring science into it, which Epistemology has taken care of time and time again.

I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but damn. People in here acting holier than though but no one has answered any of my questions, nor have they truly been able to understand my questions. Everyone harping on the sun "Rising and Setting" is linguistic hair splitting. The question "how do we know the earth is going to "rotate" everyday to make it appear that the sun is rising and setting" but that sounds dumb, because when you see a sun rise you don't think about the rotation of the earth, You say "Hey, it's sunrise" not "Hey, the earth has rotated on it's axis again." But as I said it's hair splitting, the true meat and potatoes of the argument is how do we KNOW, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the sun will rise tomorrow? Basically we "know" this because it has happened millions of times before. But that is only commenting on what has happened before, I would venture to say that no one can predict the future, as such there is absolutely no way to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the next time you jump in the air you will fall down to earth etc. as we can't predict the future. That is the basis of Bertrand's argument, but no one seems to understand what I, or many other philosophers before me are saying.


Long and short, I think a lot of those arguing on the side of science a devoid of any philosophical teachings. They don't give credence to the most ridiculous possibilities, that are still possibilities and that people like Steven Hawkin have already acknowledged. Philosophy taught me how to read, reason and think, a lesson some people really really need.

You think that because I don't credit a few philosophical ideologies (which I'm not even discrediting them) that I don't have my degree in phil, or that I don't understand it? LOL coming from the same guy who posted that horrendous link about Darwin's Evolution and Natural selection, and claims "oh I have taken BIO 101, 102, and physics." I doubt that. 

I fully understand and can appreciate those ideas (I have even enjoyed discussing them), but in a philosophical setting, not one where we are discussing modern non-theoretical science. As I just said I am not discrediting them I am merely disagreeing with the idea of applying them the aspects of modern science that have been tested over and over again, and are in fact true. You might begin to understand why if you were in MY position.

HAVE YOU stopped to think about and say to yourself  "well honestly what DO I know when it comes to practicing modern science. I have taken a few classes yes, but I am not a scientist or research, nor have I even studied science at a graduate level; heck not even at an upper division level." Think about that.

Trust me! AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL, PHILOSOPHY IS NOT A HARD MAJOR NOR IS ITS CONCEPTS HARD TO GRASP.  AN 8 YEAR OLD CAN PONDER OUR EXISTENCE.

WE ARE BRINGING UP SCIENCE!? WTH GO BACK TO MY LAST POST THAT IS ALL IN RED AND ENLARGED, OR EVEN MY FLOW CHART. THE THEISTS AND INDIVIDUALS LIKE YOU HAVE BROUGHT SCIENCE, NOT THE SCIENTISTS. ALL WE HAVE DONE IS JUST SAT BACK AND TRIED TO CORRECT YOUR MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE.

DID I EVER SAY IT SOUNDED DUMB, THE SUN SETTING QUESTIONS? NO, I SAID STHU TO IT, YES BECAUSE IT HAS NO PLACE IN THIS ARGUMENT.  AN ARGUMENT THAT IS DISCUSSING ONLY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF GOD, NOT DISCUSSING SCIENCE OR PHILOSOPHY. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS COMING IN HERE AND APPLYING THOSE IDEAS TO OUR DISCUSSION. NO ONE ELSE CARES. CALLING OUT ATHEIST AND SCIENTIST WHEN YOU'RE PRECIOUS THEIST HAVEN'T EVEN ANSWERED YOU. THEY DON'T CARE. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR DUMB METAPHYSICAL IDEAS.

YES, THEY ARE VALID QUESTIONS TO QUESTION THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING, OR THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE THAT WE CAN ATTAIN, BUT WE DON'T GIVE A FLYING %@*@. SERIOUSLY.

I TOLD YOU, YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT $#!T THEN GO JERK OFF TO THE MATRIX.

LASTLY,

 

[pleasurephd]

 

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Let me get this straight...and I'm a big fan of yours usually on NT so don't get me wrong...



I have to take PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS to experience a god?




So you might as well suggest heroin or cocaine...or even weed... because the feelings I feel are "god" now?! 

On top of that, how can you feel SORRY for someone that doesn't use these drugs?




Did your god "create" you you to have to discover and use drugs to experience that same god?




So life is a treasure chest for drugs that affect various receptors in HUMAN brains? Because not all brains or neural centers of other animals are the same or have the same receptor chemistry. 

Dude, you have to accept that while we do not know everything and will not be able to explain everything that we can only assert what we can prove. Everything else is speculation.




Also asserting "god" to be your "feelings and perception" doesn't help your point. It only shows that its...YOUR PERCEPTION. 




It doesn't prove the entity that people exists as "god" 




Humans clearly don't have a grasp on it all...we can't even visualize the same spectrum of the Electromagnetic Spectrum to see like dogs or birds can. WE HAVE LIMITATIONS ON OURSELVES.




I understand and accept this...HOWEVER... to assert something that you can not prove BEYOND those limits does NOT prove your point without EVIDENCE my friend. 




Changing your mental state to alter how you feel or perceive does not prove that the entity that is asserted to exist as a "god" or is in fact "god(s)"

In before, your perception is your reality, BS.

 

[mycoldyourdone]

OT: What is your views on karma?

 

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

How have I not made sense? Is empirical evidence the only thing that can make sense in the world?
Again..the topic is not prove God exists with empirical evidence.which is physically impossible...and shows the delusions of people with scientific backgrounds and condescending attitudes.

the topic is 'why do you believe in God?' not PROVE GOD EXISTS WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Thats why its called BELIEF. 

Zeus Horus and Ra are all religious expressions of belief that reinforce social order. Not GOD the creator of the universe. 

You just put Santa in the same sentence as Allah..

...wow..pathetic. 

Originally, the thread was about why do people believe that gods(s) exist.  I wasn't asking why people felt that they believe in god(s).  By this, I mean why they worshiped or prayed to god(s).  I wasn't asking for that.

If the reasons for as to why they believed god(s) exists could be explained with science, THE VERY SAME SCIENCE THAT THEY USE EVERYDAY, that reason for their belief of God's existence could then be dismissed.

If they had questions that can be answered by science, THE VERY SAME SCIENCE THAT THEY USE EVERYDAY, those questions would no longer be used to claim that god(s) exist.

That's what the whole topic is about.  Read the OP.  I clearly said that this was going to be happening in this thread.  People knowingly replied with their reasons as to why they believe god(s) exists..  Other people responded with science, just as this thread was meant to discuss.

This thread wasn't about proving the existence of god(s).  This thread was about the evidence or arguments that people used to assert that god(s) exist. 

God(s) might exist, but the evidence or arguments that people have presented here do not hold up under same scientific, rational, or logical scrutiny that people apply to everything else in life.

 

[questlife]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

How have I not made sense? Is empirical evidence the only thing that can make sense in the world?
Again..the topic is not prove God exists with empirical evidence.which is physically impossible...and shows the delusions of people with scientific backgrounds and condescending attitudes.

the topic is 'why do you believe in God?' not PROVE GOD EXISTS WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Thats why its called BELIEF. 

Zeus Horus and Ra are all religious expressions of belief that reinforce social order. Not GOD the creator of the universe. 

You just put Santa in the same sentence as Allah..

...wow..pathetic. 

the topic obviously has changed somewhat. You said it yourself that there is no way to emperically prove that God exists. That right there is Sillyputty's point. You cannot prove that God exists, so why do you believe in one?