Jump to content

God -- Theories that effect our existence and scientific processes


KerrTexas
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 935
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Good question, Rhudey, what is the point of our existence?

I hope you did not take my post as an argument against yours, I honestly do not know if I believe one way or the other. I hope there is a god, I hope there is more, but unfortunately for me (unlike yourself) I have not found him yet. There have been times when I felt that there was no point, but I still hold on to the hope that there is.

I will not argue against your posts since I found them to be enlightening as well as very encouraging. :D

 

 

"You aren't from my future because your being stupid" Chronohistorian 2004

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When sitting in a room without any windows, can you prove absolutely that the outside world is still there...or do you have the faith that it will there when you exit the building?

 

And..can you prove absolutely that it is Roel that is posting?

I just don't think that this is a fair comparison. I lived in the outside world before entering the room, I saw it, felt it, tasted it. I know that the unverse follows a set of laws that cannot be broken, therefore the outside world will be there when I leave the room (barring an earthquake, explosion, etc.). I cannot prove that the person posting is Roel, but I do know that someone IS posting regardless.

As for god, I have never seen, heard or felt god, nor has god communicated to me in any form that I am aware of. Don't get me wrong here, I am not arguing that there is no god, I just don't feel that this type of comparison is a valid argument, you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Now saying this, as I posted above, I find your posts to be good reading and they have made me stop and think about what I truly believe. Unfortunately in this debate I am truly a "lost soul".

 

 

"You aren't from my future because your being stupid" Chronohistorian 2004

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to explore what standard of proof might be acceptable to you, Roel.

That's very difficult to determine. Let me ask you a question. How can someone convince you to believe (or have faith) in something you think is completely illogical and which none of your senses can sense? Moreover, of which there is no proof available. You could - at best - consider the possibility, right?

 

So.... while this might not speak to being "proof of God", I think it does speak to an interconnectedness of humans, beyond the physical, that some might say is "proof of soul or spirit" in that massive numbers of humans reacting to a global event can have a statistically significant effect on random number generating computers that are completely isolated from one another. Is this good enough "proof" for you Roel?

I never denied and I even acknowledged that there are undoubtly countless phenomena which we can't explain using regular science. But like you say: this might not speak to being "proof of God". You could have left it at that, because that's exactly my point. I can't really argue with the rest of your post, except for the fact that it's not proof of god. None of your posts - and I must add, I've read them with great interests - contain factual proof of god.

Roel

 

 

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Godess?

 

Let me ask you a question. How can someone convince you to believe (or have faith) in something you think is completely illogical and which none of your senses can sense?

That's easy! Experience. Same point OvrLrdLegion is making. And now let me utilize the history of our world (hey! Time! on-topic!) :) to "prove" my point ;) :Over 200 years ago, your average person would have considered it "illogical" if someone walked up to them and told them "it is possible to have a back-and-forth conversation with someone who is 2000 miles away from here." That person would want "proof". Now, if we further say that the person making this claim was a time-traveling scientist from the future (I'm doing good weaving the topic in here, huh?), that scientist could, indeed, provide "proof" by writing out the electromagentic equations of Maxwell, and the communications theory of Shannon. Would the person accept that as "proof"? Not in the least. Yet it IS a major form of proof, it is simply "not accessible" to a person of that day and age. Now our time traveler whips out his cell phone and calls his partner on the other side of the continent (let's also assume they brought a COMM satellite with them on their trip!) ;) . Now the person is actually experiencing what the other person told them is possible. Will the person believe it? It depends solely on the person. If they are an ultimate skeptic, then they would never buy it. They would claim "that is just a parlor trick...you've just got a miniature phonograph in that little box and it is playing the phonograph." The demonstrator could even hand the cell phone to the disbeliever and say "ask the person on the other end anything you wish". Even if the person responded, and the subject may become totally astounded that he got an answer, he can still be hard-headed enough to refuse to believe. One must first be open to belief before one can recognize an experience that can reinforce that belief as "proof".

So how does this apply to God? I would be willing to bet that you have had at least one experience of God in your life. However, you have obviously not ever attributed it to God, since you are so vehement in your disbelief. How about when you are thinking of someone, and suddenly they call you, and they happen to have some wonderful information for you that you can put to use right then and there? Many can say "oh, that is just coincidence". Others can look at this as an experience of God. When such a "coincidence", which may have a statistically LOW probability of ever occurring, saves your life....many people will see this as an experience of God.

 

You could have left it at that, because that's exactly my point. I can't really argue with the rest of your post, except for the fact that it's not proof of god. None of your posts - and I must add, I've read them with great interests - contain factual proof of god.

Yes, I could've left it at that...but if I did, that would not serve *my* point. As I pointed out to trollface in the other thread: Facts change. It was once deemed a "fact" that the earth was the center of the universe. That changed. And in the old "fact" there was never a good scientific explanation for retrograde motion of the planets. With the changing of the "facts", suddenly we had "factual proof" that explained retrograde motion!And the point of my link was, again, to show you that "factual proof" is not a boolean step function. It is a continuum, and it is always morphing. So let's not jump directly to God just yet. Let's stick closer to the point of my link. Would you see this data as statistically significant "proof" that human beings can be, and are, connected to each other in non-physical ways? Ways that cannot be positively detected by our limited senses? If so (and again, I find this data hard to argue with), then we are approaching some "factual proof" that humans may, indeed, have a non-physical soul and spirit that are capable of interacting with each other on exo-physical levels.

Per the teachings of Qabalah and the Tree Of Life, the "road to God" is consistent with climbing the Tree. This is also not a boolean function. The first level to climb is from the physical world (10) up to the world of the conscious mind (7-8-9). This is fairly easy, since you know you can think about things in your mind that you are not physically interacting with. The next step along the road is ascending to the world of the soul (4-5-6). A great many people NEVER get this far, and the reason is....their limiting beliefs. Those who do make it this far must now take the next step, up to the world of their spirit (1-2-3). There is another whole group of people who will not make it this far...even some of those who DO believe that they have a spirit. Still fewer people make that final "leap" from 1 to 0, and integrate with God.

 

Christ, Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, etc. These were mortal men who made that leap. In fact, there are many (myself included) who believe Christ was actually trying to teach people the precepts of Qabalah. It was the ego-driven "elders" of the Catholic Church who twisted that teaching in order to enslave people. This is precisely why I reject religion and embrace spirituality, and why I maintain there is a significant difference between the two. There is a big difference than wanting to "convert" someone and wanting to "enlighten" them. One involves control, the other involves providing information and experience.

 

Cheers! :)

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What proof do you have that God does not exist?

 

A more expanded response then.."I dont have any evidence" would be nice. Everybody has reasons as to why they accept a specific thought pattern.

 

What points are illogical?

I think I have to dissapoint you again. I am unable to provide negative proof of god's existence. You might as well ask me if I have proof that aliens do not exist.

 

Roel, because I don't limit my view, I DID demand proof and went out and found it to satisfy my questions. Not all proof is necessarily words or mathematics on paper. God is an experience.

Probably not to everyone, since I have never "experienced" god. I can't smell, see, hear, touch or taste god. I have never seen, or heard of any miracle either. That's why I think it's illogical for me to believe in god.

 

If you walk in the forest to listen to the win.d, to view the sunlight streaming through the leaves, to fill your lungs with the scent of the pines, oaks and maples...that is an experience.

But there's a significant difference between god and a forrest. I can drive to a forrest and use all my senses to confirm that the forrest DOES actually exist. In fact EVERYONE can do that! That's absolutely not the case with god.

 

At this moment I could deny your existence. I have absolutely no proof you exist as I type these words in this reply. You may well be a construct of my imagination.

Well, I think that's a ridiculous argument. I'm a human being and any other human being can confirm my existence using his or her senses.

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do so many people believe in God? Because without the belief that we are part of a larger plan, then what is the point of our existence? It is what gives people hope to get up in the morning, believing that there is more than this. Unfortunately there is only one way to find out.

Who ever said there is a point to our existence? People somehow think that there must be a reason why we are alive.

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Godess?

 

Thank you for that. I believe this is the crux of what myself and OvrLrdLegion are trying to get across to Roel. The entire concept of logical and/or physical proof is only as valid as the grounding assumptions.

I know what you are trying to say, but I totally disagree. Regardless of the fact that absolute proof doesn't exist, in my experience there's not even an indication that god really exists.

 

It is no real trick, or even a good debating argument, to simply say "I think you are wrong, show me proof".

But accepting something as the truth, without any proof or indication is an even worse debating argument!

 

However, trollface has only wanted to descend into minutia and use his debating tactics to argue about a "point mass" issue. That is reductionism, and it is a dead end.

Well, trollface has his debating tactics and you have yours. Instead of complaining about these "tactics" try replying to what he is saying. In the "In Triplicate, Please!" it seems as if you're avoiding answering certain questions. Personally I think trollface has made some excellent points.

 

I maintain that the biggest "clue" to this integration is given in the recursive, universal function we call creation, as manifested through the basic concepts of Matter in Motion, which we conveniently refer to as: Time. Time, Motion, and Matter are the 3 mutually orthogonal, independent variables that define the 3 systemic domains of Operational, Functional, and Physical respectively.

And I maintain that there is no reason as of yet to believe or assume that Creation is a process practiced by other entities besides the enitities of which we've confirmed their existence.

 

I would be willing to bet that you have had at least one experience of God in your life. However, you have obviously not ever attributed it to God, since you are so vehement in your disbelief.

You're making, what I believe is, a classic mistake. I could take this argument and turn it right around: You've probably had experiences in your life which you've attributed to god because there was no other explanation. Just like the people who "experienced" lightning for the first time. Since they had no explanation for this phenomenon, they attributed it to a god. Also, you are just as vehement in your BELIEF as I am in my DISBELIEF.

 

How about when you are thinking of someone, and suddenly they call you, and they happen to have some wonderful information for you that you can put to use right then and there? Many can say "oh, that is just coincidence".

Attributing that to god is what you call "reductionism" and that's "a dead end". I also experience these things, but I can't think of a single reason why I should attribute them to god. There are probably a million wonderful theories why these things occur, but if you attribute everything to god you're just limiting yourself.

 

Facts change.

Facts change. I'm willing to agree with you, BUT only if you accept the possibility that one day people will discover the NON-existence of god. Just like they once discovered that the universe was not the centre of the universe.

 

Qabalah

You can choose to deny it, but Quabalah is also a religion and that's an indisputable fact.

 

There is a big difference than wanting to "convert" someone and wanting to "enlighten" them. One involves control, the other involves providing information and experience.

No offence intended, but I think both are equally arrogant. When you say you want to "enlighten" me, you're assuming that you know more than me and that I am wrong in my thinking. I don't want to be enlightened... at least not in that way. Enlighten me with facts, not with fiction.

Cheers! (How did you know I was having a beer?) :)

 

Roel

 

 

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank-You. I have always been impressed with your posts and wondered if it was ever possible to equal them, your statement indicates that perhaps I am posting worthwhile information. Thank-You again!

 

I apologize to you , I did sense you where debating in response to my post. And there is a point to existence. We influence others by our actions during the day, sometimes merely by smiling at someone will bring them happiness for the moment. Also whether you believe in God or not, to be able to appreciate what God/nature has done with some of the natural wonders is a gift on its own. Beauty is all around us, it is up to us to notice it.

 

If God did not create, how could He experience Himself as God?

 

If no one was around to notice the beauty or awesome creations of God/Nature...then what would bethe point of their existence as well?

 

In philosophy class, I felt the same way as you regarding the question of existence as posed by the instructor. We believed that indeed the outside WAS still there even though we couldnt see it, taste it, hear it, etc.. All we could go on was that it always seemed to be present when exiting the building. To deny that it still existed would in essence be a denial of your existence as well, and this is where the arguement shifts to your point of view. How do you know we exist when we vanish inside the building? You are going on the idea that in the past we return from within.

 

There are methods of satisfying your questioning of our existence via cell-phone, monitoring the room via cameras, possible noise heard from behind closed doors...but even with these tools it does not absolutely prove we still exist. You accept the fact that what you see or hear is a conveyance of the truth at the moment. The missing components are filled in with faith.

 

Such is the "proof" of God. I accept the fact of what I see/hear/feel as a conveyance of truth and the rest is filled in with faith.

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We believed that indeed the outside WAS still there even though we couldnt see it, taste it, hear it, etc..

You had a perfectly good reason to believe that there was an outside and you even found proof for it:

 

All we could go on was that it always seemed to be present when exiting the building.

There's your proof. You can proof there's "an inside" by going INTO the building and you can proof there's "an outside" by stepping OUT OF the building. It's that simple. That's the same proof I'm asking for, but which you are unable to provide me with.

Roel

 

 

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's your proof. You can proof there's "an inside" by going INTO the building and you can proof there's "an outside" by stepping OUT OF the building. It's that simple. That's the same proof I'm asking for, but which you are unable to provide me with.

Actually, this is quite comical, Roel. Because what you are describing is sheer FAITH, not proof.The fact that you could sense the outside before you went into the building does not amount to proof that it still exists when you are inside the building. It is barely even proof that it exists when you are outside experiencing it, because your senses can be deceived (ever heard of an illusion?).

So, while sitting in the building, you are referring back to your past experience that told you there was something outside. Since you can no longer directly experience that outside while you are sitting inside, you are drawing on sheer, unadulterated, 100%, homogenized FAITH that someone or something did not completely remove the outside scene you experienced, and replace it with the fire and brimstone of a hellish scene.

 

The same holds true for the sun rising tomorrow. You have duped your mind into believing that, because you watched the sun rise yesterday, that is PROOF that it will rise again tomorrow. Unfortunately, I am quite sorry to tell you that you are incorrect in this belief. As brokerage firms are forced to say in their commercials in this country "Past performance is not a guarantee of future profits".

 

Welcome to the club, Roel. You have just "proven" to us that even you, the ultimate non-believer, must rely on faith...every single day of your life. As much as you may feel comfortable in your physical world, you cannot escape faith. Can you give me factual proof that you will be alive tomorrow? By your very own descriptions in this thread, if you cannot perceive it, there is no factual proof that it exists. This obviously has to apply as time marches on, otherwise you would be subject to faith.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had a perfectly good reason to believe that there was an outside and you even found proof for it:

There's your proof. You can proof there's "an inside" by going INTO the building and you can proof there's "an outside" by stepping OUT OF the building. It's that simple. That's the same proof I'm asking for, but which you are unable to provide me with.

Not proof at all, Roel. When inside the building, you assume the outside is there without any absolute proof. At the moment you are inside, your faith is all you got as to the outside.. Unless you actually are experiencing the outside, there is no proof. Your senses are not providing you one iota of any type of validation of the outside. It is ironic you mention the senses when the experience of God is a result of enhanced senses. That is the whole point of meditation and ritual..to break the veils of this world / society and quiet the mind, to be able to experience the subtle truths buried underneath complexity and prejudices.

What I was simply asking for is something besides..."God doesn't exist". In your responses in this thread, I am pleased to see you have expanded on your thoughts. I know I can not nor will not "make' you believe in God.

 

Basically, the only reason I pursue this line of reason is too be able to move on. How can one discuss time travel principles when scientific information or inquiry is presented because it is sourced from a religious text or has God mentioned within it it is tossed to the way side with.."Well, I don't believe in God, so everything that the text contains is false'!

 

The base of creation being formatted on 0 and 1, as mentioned in the Kabbalah is consice, easy to understand, and can not be rendered as false. If you can not except this premise, how can you advance to the next step in pursuit of a time travelling formula? Just because this truth was contained within a religious text does not discount it's value.

 

As a side note: Roel, you are a dead ringer to a good friend of mine, Danny Brown! I know you are not him, but the similarites are uncanny. Everytime I see your picture, I have to look twice to confirm you aren't Danny. I know this doesnt realy matter to you, but, damn if I dont like you! He is a good man, good sense of humor, and interestingly enough, he is a graphic web designer in Florida.

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overl' This entire thread is B.S. as both you and Rainman had ignore what is indicated here.

 

If God did for a time exist here on Earth, in an office of sorts, the other input, would not be human and consist of zeros and ones.

 

The input would hail from a sort of electron cloud, which is not zero and one based, however from a unilateral cloud.

 

Input may be in the one thousands, or more, all at once?

 

 

Creedo 299

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Godess?

 

You can choose to deny it, but Quabalah is also a religion and that's an indisputable fact.

:D ROTFLMAO! Roel, my friend, I am afraid you have left me no recourse on this one but to use your very own methods on you:

I would like for you to provide me some factual proof of what you have just stated as an indisputable fact. CAUTION: You are about to tread into waters which you have already exhibited scant knowledge of. :)

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, buddy....pull your ass over to the next oort cloud!

 

I've been following you for the last 10 parsecs, and I'm afraid it is terribly obvious that you have been deeply dipping into the tromithian ale.

 

By the power vested in me by the sector 19 Milky Way Peace Officer Corps, I am going to have to ask you for your license.... and while you are at it, you had better pony-up some PROOF that you are a real, live, human being!

 

:)

 

Honestly, creedo, have you ever had your DNA sequenced? I think you might be missing a "stop transcription" codon!

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rainman' not to be ignorant, but you don't seem to understand what either God is, or can be.

 

You don't even understand the necessarily of a god's union which exist here on Earth.

 

The Quabalah is just another belief system, that explains something that you can cope with the universe, in your particular understanding of it.

 

The closest thing that I can come up with, that would be like God, as he is said to exist here on Earth, is the beginning holograph scenes from Spy-kids One, when the kids find themselves in the holograph room.

 

You can believe in God, and he would exist for you, but the publicized mistake in the book The Andreasson Affair series of books, the wrong man abducted, seems to tell that for man as we know him in this era, and how he relates to God is over.

 

There will be new eras in the future, but for now, God is on hiatus, of favoring any religious group.

 

Again, God put man together in some respects, like an automobile, with the body made by these beings over there, the genetics engineering over there still by those beings, but the soul, by the God Angelic hierarchies.

 

In the real, this is the way creation exist for man.

 

Someone told you to come here and try to conquer.

 

But what they did not tell you, is that the truth of the situation would conquer you.

 

I have had my DNA sequenced twice.

 

The first time was by accident, the second was by others that I have not been able to uncover.

 

 

Creedo 299

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not intending to ignore your postings, I am still trying to figure out what you said. I apologize if I seem blunt, but I am blunt.

 

I responded to what I could fathom and that was regarding the 0, 1 theory.

 

You just plain out can not escape it. Anything that contains multiple anything has got to begin with 1 or contain 1. You can not have 4 without 1, nor 3, nor 2....if you have 4...then that is 4 of 1+1+1+1.

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who ever said there is a point to our existence? People somehow think that there must be a reason why we are alive.

Have you ever heard the saying "without hope you cannot start the day". What I was trying to say is that most people need to believe that there is a point to their existence, if there wasn't they would see no point in continuing with living. To answer your question, religion has told us that there is a point to our existence, it is up to the individual to believe whether or not this is true. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong, just that it is an essential element in the lives of most of the population.

Rainman Time, I am beginning to put myself in the same category as yourself I think. I have long ago turned by back on organized religion, they try to control our lives as much as possible under the claims that they are enlightened by God. On the other hand I am becoming more "spiritual" as each day passes by. I have reached a point in my life that as I look back, every setback and disappointment has directed me to where I am now, and I wouldn't trade "now" for anything in the world. Is it luck or was I guided? Sometimes things appear to be too "coincidental" to be chance.

 

Many of you have voted against a religion section to the forum, but I have enjoyed this thread alot more than most.

 

 

"You aren't from my future because your being stupid" Chronohistorian 2004

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, this is quite comical, Roel. Because what you are describing is sheer FAITH, not proof.

I was dead serious, but I'm kinda hoping that you're joking right now :)

 

The fact that you could sense the outside before you went into the building does not amount to proof that it still exists when you are inside the building. It is barely even proof that it exists when you are outside experiencing it, because your senses can be deceived (ever heard of an illusion?).

I know you like to think that everything is an illusion Ray, but what you are saying here is definitely not true. It seems as if you're applying the Schrödinger Cat Paradox to almost each and every situation. With all due respect, but that's plain silly. "Inside" and "outside" are manmade definitions. Walking into a building proofs that there is an inside. Walking out of it proofs that there is an outside. You can't possibly deny that.

 

So, while sitting in the building, you are referring back to your past experience that told you there was something outside. Since you can no longer directly experience that outside while you are sitting inside, you are drawing on sheer, unadulterated, 100%, homogenized FAITH that someone or something did not completely remove the outside scene you experienced, and replace it with the fire and brimstone of a hellish scene.

That makes no sense at all. Please read what you've written and ask yourself if there is any indication whatsoever that something like that could ever happen. Besides, you are contradicting yourself in this paragraph. First you say that I'm referring back to my past experience, next you claim that it's pure faith!

 

The same holds true for the sun rising tomorrow. You have duped your mind into believing that, because you watched the sun rise yesterday, that is PROOF that it will rise again tomorrow.

I'm not the one duping my mind into anything here. Tell me, do you think there's proof for anything? Do you think there are things that can be proven, or is everything just a big illusion?

 

Welcome to the club, Roel. You have just "proven" to us that even you, the ultimate non-believer, must rely on faith...every single day of your life.

Sorry, I'd like to cancel my subscription. Perhaps even I have to rely on faith sometimes, but the things you have just described have nothing to do with faith.

 

Can you give me factual proof that you will be alive tomorrow? By your very own descriptions in this thread, if you cannot perceive it, there is no factual proof that it exists.

No I can't. I have no reason to believe that I'm going to die tomorrow, but it could happen. This is a perfect example of faith, UNLIKE the other two examples!

I'll bet you a dollar that the sun will rise tomorrow. Hell, I'll even bet you a million dollars!

 

Roel

 

 

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, the only reason I pursue this line of reason is too be able to move on. How can one discuss time travel principles when scientific information or inquiry is presented because it is sourced from a religious text or has God mentioned within it it is tossed to the way side with.."Well, I don't believe in God, so everything that the text contains is false'!

Well, I agree that the focus should be on timetravel. And if there are certain truths in religious texts, I think that they shouldn't be ignored. However, there are some things that you and Ray might consider true, while I think they aren't. That's why I'm so "vehement" in my disbelief sometimes :)

 

As a side note: Roel, you are a dead ringer to a good friend of mine, Danny Brown! I know you are not him, but the similarites are uncanny. Everytime I see your picture, I have to look twice to confirm you aren't Danny. I know this doesnt realy matter to you, but, damn if I dont like you! He is a good man, good sense of humor, and interestingly enough, he is a graphic web designer in Florida.

Talking about coincedences... I think I might have already mentioned this, but there's a man here in Holland by the name of Roel van Houten who has the same date of birth as I do. Furthermore, I discovered this on the moment that he was exactly twice my age.

I can assure you I'm not the same person ;) Another minor coincedence is that of all the states in the US, I have only visited one... Florida.

 

 

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roel....

 

Walking into a building proofs that there is an inside. Walking out of it proofs that there is an outside

When you are inside, it is faith alone that the outside is still there. You have no proof that it actually exists if you can not see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it.

The only reason you can count on that the outside is still in existence is because it always has been there so far. In the moment of experiencing the inside of the building, the outside is no longer an experience of the moment.

 

Inside" and "outside" are manmade definitions

Definitions of terms again?

 

you are contradicting yourself in this paragraph. First you say that I'm referring back to my past experience, next you claim that it's pure faith!

Rainman did not contradict himself at all. Your faith is based on past experiences . You are basing the fact of there being an outside on the premise it has been there before, but while inside the building you have absolutley no proof that it actually is there.

 

the things you have just described have nothing to do with faith.

Has everything to do with faith. Walking outside doesnt prove it was there whilest you didnt see it! Provide me with "proof" it exists whilest you dont see it!

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you understand that I am not in a quest to insult you in any way, nor trash your ideals..but I tend to be blunt at times.

 

However, there are some things that you and Ray might consider true, while I think they aren't

Of course, I am certain there are many things not true, such is the purpose of debate.

Logic follows a clear and plain path regarding method of inquiry. I am sorry, but you are not following that path.

 

If a is like b, and b is like c, then c must be like a.

 

If I am not experiencing the outside of the building at this moment in time, and I can't prove that it is still there at this moment in time, then I can't prove the outside exists at this moment in time because I am not experiencing the outside of the building at this moment in time.

 

I know you dont like the building analogy, but it does serve the purpose of our debate. It is rather simple to demonstrate what is meant by certain terms, without bringing in complex formulas and philosophical quotes by masters of thought.

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Godess?

 

CAUTION: You are about to tread into waters which you have already exhibited scant knowledge of.

I have to agree with you. But again, the basic meaning of the word "religion" gives me every reason to assume that it is a religion. I admit that in this case I was a bit overconfident. Perhaps you could be so kind to explain why the Quabalah does not comply to the definition of a religion?

Roel

 

 

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you are inside, it is faith alone that the outside is still there. You have no proof that it actually exists if you can not see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it.

 

The only reason you can count on that the outside is still in existence is because it always has been there so far. In the moment of experiencing the inside of the building, the outside is no longer an experience of the moment.

I fail to see the logic in that. This way of thinking renders any type of proof obsolete. How can you proof anything if the validity of the proof vanishes when you're temporarily unable to access it?

 

Rainman did not contradict himself at all. Your faith is based on past experiences . You are basing the fact of there being an outside on the premise it has been there before, but while inside the building you have absolutley no proof that it actually is there.

No, in this case my knowledge is based on past experiences. I don't believe there's an outside; I know there's an outside. Of course you will say that the same applies to god. You rely on your experiences when you say god exists, but the main difference is that I can proof to other people that there's an inside and an outside. So yes, Rainman DID contradict himself.

 

Provide me with "proof" it exists whilest you dont see it!

I can proof to you right now that there is an outside!

Roel

 

 

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...