Here's another example. If materialism is correct and we're just a bunch of animals - a glorified chimp if you will - then you would expect the sexual revolution to have an excellent psychological profile (or at least to have a marginal effect). Instead, science has discovered that the sexual revolution, i.e. the humanist conception of family values, are much, much harder on children. Study after study is now coming out showing that the traditional, "theistic" family is much more successful statistically. Again, this is exactly what you would expect if there was a God (since all theistic religions emphasize this). Does this prove there is a God? No - but one can't help but ask why it matches theism so well...
Were that true, we could equally say our brain is hard wired for logical relativistic sensory perceptions and conclusions. As such, we could never say with certainty that our hard wiring was indicative of an ultimate absolute reality, as our hard wiring could be faulty and not representative of reality outside of human consciousness. We could at best say, this is how it appears, but we don't know with certainty if how it appears is how it really is. Yet, the atheists act as if they are absolutely right in their conclusions. They accept their "logic" and "reason" as necessarily the correct tools to explore the concepts of God. That is why they practice a religion, a belief system of creed dogma, based in the hard wiring of their system....yet never conceding to the fact that the wiring may be faulty...either by design or in practice. It is just as logical as not that the practice of faith is the method to overcome the hard wiring that does not reveal absolute perfection. The hard wiring may be something that needs to be overcome where knowledge of God is concerned.
logic & reason are all we have we must use them we have no choice. besides, you havent proven they are not useful! and you havent given us anything else to use !:-/
They are very useful if applied in some areas. They have not been proven to be useful in all areas though. They are not all "we" have, they may be all you have....but from what I have read, I sincerely doubt that you are purely reasonable and logical. It is not my job to "give you something else." The well doesn't go the thirsty.
Do this for me please. Tell what your concept of God is, and tell me what would constitute proof of God's existence.
GOD? no god, no intelligence, no supernatural.. only that which we can measure EXISTS. everything else is essentially bullshit, rank speculation. PROOF? first ,obviously, you would need to define what you mean by god, then submit your evidence/argument/theory for critical analysis. however, i agree with Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Up to this point your arguments are capricious and lacking in substance. You have the rhetoric of a new age crank, but if you truly have something lets see it.
According to your definition, only that which we can measure exists. How do you measure faith? How do we measure if someone is really in love? How do you measure if someone is telling the truth (lie detectors are not reliable)? How do you measure someone's intent, love, faith to a mathematical certainty? How do you measure one person's pain or love versus another person's experiences of pain and love. How do you know that when I look at some object I am seeing it exactly the same way you are seeing it? We may measure it in the same way, but that doesn't mean we are seeing it the same way. A computer can measure something and report that data, but does the computer see it the way I see it? How do you measure the subjective side of life, which does in fact exist? "first ,obviously, you would need to define what you mean by god, then submit your evidence/argument/theory for critical analysis. If you say there is no God, then that statement is intelligible only if you have a concept of what God is. Saying there is no mxlkueoysoidyury is unintelligible, as we have no working concept of what mxlkueoysoidyury is. If you define mxlkueoysoidyury as the Creator of the universe, then suddenly an unknown word becomes quite intelligible. Lets say I make the following statement: There is no oiuwer7mva0873qw4r-.lasdf80%23498. Is there anyway to confirm or deny the truth of my statement? Impossible without having some concept of what oiuwer7mva0873qw4r-.lasdf80%23498 is. So, please share with us what your working definition and concept of God is. I am asking you to define what your concept of God is, and how you would either prove or disprove your concept of God to be true or false. "You have the rhetoric of a new age crank," I am asking you to please, stop the name calling. Name calling has no place in civil discussions. If you continue with the name calling, then the discussion is over, as you have decided to no longer be reasonable but instead surrender to emotionalism and logical fallacy. If you continue this practice, it indicates you cannot win without these personal attacks, which reveals that your arguments of a purely reasonable objective and a non personal nature are not sufficient to win the argument.
longshot is either a bot of some kind, or a 1970's rock guitar player in a flopped stadium wannabe band. so you are probably wasting your time. so much for your theory on the "socialist jesus" rouge. the article i posted toasted your bleeding heart liberal agenda. happy new year, surfer