God = Kim Jong-il
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2015, 09:29 PM
RE: God = Kim Jong-il
(23-11-2015 08:59 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 08:48 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  No one has to believe me. Don't have to prove anything. It doesn't make sense to completely and wholly not believe a thing, and the go on to make claims about it as if you have experience with it. Just because someone cannot produce evidence to the liking of sceptics doesn't mean that they haven't witnessed irrefutable evidence themselves. It just means that they can't reproduce the evidence.

The brings up the real problem.. you make it about, If a person experienced it, it should matter to them.. why? If they themselves "can't reproduce the evidence" then why would that person even bother to believe it themselves if they can't prove it to themselves?
Things can be proven to you without you having the capacity to prove things in like manner.

It has nothing to do with what I can prove. I am not the one doing the stuff. I mean it's a great way to stall any claims of an individual, but it isn't helping anyone. Man is creation, and as such is not the Creator. Although man may have great potential through the direction of the Creator, while in this existence, in this afflicted form, we will never be able to show the things that we have but been shown. I can only show people a way to allow for them to experience things similar to what I have. In doing such one would have proof. Not heresy, or opinion, or hypothesis, but irrefutable individual fact.

Peace, really
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 09:47 PM
RE: God = Kim Jong-il
(23-11-2015 09:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 08:59 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The brings up the real problem.. you make it about, If a person experienced it, it should matter to them.. why? If they themselves "can't reproduce the evidence" then why would that person even bother to believe it themselves if they can't prove it to themselves?
Things can be proven to you without you having the capacity to prove things in like manner.

It has nothing to do with what I can prove. I am not the one doing the stuff. I mean it's a great way to stall any claims of an individual, but it isn't helping anyone. Man is creation, and as such is not the Creator. Although man may have great potential through the direction of the Creator, while in this existence, in this afflicted form, we will never be able to show the things that we have but been shown. I can only show people a way to allow for them to experience things similar to what I have. In doing such one would have proof. Not heresy, or opinion, or hypothesis, but irrefutable individual fact.

Peace, really

That doesn't in anyway constitute proof.

You act like your memory of your thoughts you recall having 10 years ago would be proof of your thoughts.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
23-11-2015, 09:56 PM
RE: God = Kim Jong-il
(23-11-2015 09:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 08:59 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The brings up the real problem.. you make it about, If a person experienced it, it should matter to them.. why? If they themselves "can't reproduce the evidence" then why would that person even bother to believe it themselves if they can't prove it to themselves?
Things can be proven to you without you having the capacity to prove things in like manner.

It has nothing to do with what I can prove. I am not the one doing the stuff. I mean it's a great way to stall any claims of an individual, but it isn't helping anyone. Man is creation, and as such is not the Creator. Although man may have great potential through the direction of the Creator

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

Quote:, while in this existence, in this afflicted form,

Define "afflicted form".

[quote
we will never be able to show the things that we have but been shown.
[/quote]

What does that even mean?

Quote:I can only show people a way to allow for them to experience things similar to what I have.

Hallucination? Delusion? Indigestion?

Quote:In doing such one would have proof. Not heresy, or opinion, or hypothesis, but irrefutable individual fact.

Peace, really

Not proof - what you describe is utterly subjective .

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-11-2015, 07:28 AM
RE: God = Kim Jong-il
(23-11-2015 08:48 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  No one has to believe me. Don't have to prove anything.

You do if you want anybody to take you seriously.

Quote:It doesn't make sense to completely and wholly not believe a thing, and the go on to make claims about it as if you have experience with it.

I am not making claims about anything except the fact that I do not accept your claims because you are wholly unable to produce a single reason why I should even begin to consider them.

Quote:Just because someone cannot produce evidence to the liking of sceptics doesn't mean that they haven't witnessed irrefutable evidence themselves. It just means that they can't reproduce the evidence.

Then your goal should be to figure out a way to find evidence to support your claims rather than continuing to stamp your feet and whine about nobody taking you seriously. If your "irrefutable" evidence can't be reconstructed or demonstrated in any way then that only means that you do not understand what irrefutable means or what evidence is.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: