the p[oint is my dear imbecile, my faith is all that is necessary, is it not?? is this not what you claim? you need no rational proof, if i conceive it it becomes right? HA!
what the hell is a p{oint???? like most everything you say.....POINTLESS........ however, I will ask this: what proof do you require for the existence of God? Specific example?
Aphex: >I was just curious by a comment you made earlier >about how you see no sign of creation when running >experiments. You'd have to point out my post so I can understand the context of my statement before I could comment. Please let me know which post piqued your curiosity. >If you honestly think that you can test a >hypothesis of god by using science, you >are sadly mistaken. First, that is once again an assertion that is impossible for you to back up -- but I'll accept it as your opinion and more forward. I ask - why must I (in your opinion) be "sadly mistaken"?. Are you saying that your god intentionally toys with science to stay hidden? Are you saying that your god isn't capable of becoming "visible" to the scientific method? JB
The distinction here between having blind faith that "your dick is god" and faith in a "god" is that my observations through life have led me to believe that there is such a balance to this universe, that it is almost impossible for us to assume it has come about by chance. Furthermore, it is not "blind" faith. If I woke up and suddenly believed that pink unicorns existed, that would be an irrational belief. See, a lot of atheists like to use this argument. It goes something like, "Well, since you have faith in god without proof, I believe purple three horned unicorns exist -- and my assumption is just as valid as yours!" Well, no it is not. The reason is because I am drawing an inference on ALL available data that is made through observations -- including non-testable, non-inductive ones. It is important to realize that by doing such a thing doesn't make it WRONG. What works for my world-view is obviously something that best fits my upbringing and intellectual evolution. There are, in my opinion, just too many coincidences to assume that, "there was once nothing, and it exploded." The exponent "2" in the theory of gravity is PRECISELY 2. It isn't an irrational number or some number near two, but EXACTLY two. Many scientists have been puzzled by this because it suggests an almost perfect nature to the equations of gravitation. The inverse square law, so to speak. There are numerous other examples of this fine tuning. Even without fine-tuning, I still have a lot of personal experiences that suggest to me that there is indeed a god and if I were to, in my heart, refuse god's existence than I would, in my mind, be making the most grave error of my entire life. It isn't my duty or nature to force my views on others. I'm very quiet about what I believe and I never actively try to convert anyone. Unlike a lot of atheists on this site, I try not to bash their views. Everyone is entitled to their own views. If you don't see god, then so be it. All I can say is that, at one point in my life I was atheist and when I accepted god's existence, the sense of reward and satisfaction was immense. If you want to play those feelings off with the science of psychology, etc., then by all means do so. The important thing is that my beliefs are central to my existence and they suit my life experiences.
TM: >You just did it again!!!!.... Please explain what I just "did again". I'm simple minded and don't get it. Help me out. JB
How could you use the scientific method to observe something that sets the bar for all that is observable? Do you understand what I am asking? You are suggesting it is possible to use a set of axioms, observations and tests to decipher a superset of all of these, which in my opinion is quite impossible to do. I don't think god is hiding at all -- the very fact that you can experience, feel, touch, taste and live is very solid proof that "some process" made it possible for you to do these things today. In fact, that is as proven as you can get. You exist. If we need to conduct a test to prove existence, then everything becomes nullified because then we cannot trust our observations. I do believe in god, but I never said that god resembles humans or consciousness as we know it. If I define god as the "set of processes from which we exist," will you still deny god's existence?
i believe my dik is god, i have faith, my "observations" are all i have too,, is this enuf?? do you believe me? of course you don't, unless you are a complete fool. you require more PROOF don't you, and you should! if i say, i will cure your cancer by pulling on your big toe, will you forsake convention for my unsupported conviction? of course you wont, if you wanna live. we are much much too prone to cognitive errors to leave such important matters to personal "observation" or whim, we should require more formal proof of our assertions. the grander the assertion the more rigorous proof we should require lest we fall for any whimsy.. and that is greatest sin of all for the rational intelligent being :-/