Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2016, 08:01 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 07:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 07:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It would not be offensive as it's meaningless, and a false analogy
Just because one has not personally seen the pyramids,
does not mean there is no sensory evidence for them. The definition does not say it has to be *your* sense experience to be empirical.

You for got some important parts.
"The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect.

In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is a unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods that use, in part, basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods, which are purely deductive and based on first principles.

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.

So no. It's not offensive. It's just stupidity, and ignorance of how science works.
It's just questions. I have made no assertions, only listed some possibilities. The ones answering the questions can make assertions.
Are you asserting that popular belief still counts as empirical evidence if you do not personally experienced the evidence yourself?

It perhaps wouldn't be so bad if you're analogy was horrible and nonsensical.

Do you think you don't built false walls and false label distinctions?

What is different of a personal experience and an personal experience though a lense with something through multiple lenses? What is different from an eyes lense to a cameras lense? What grants something different properties to begin with ?

"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
19-03-2016, 08:07 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 07:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't know if a God or Gods exists and if it does I am not that moved to worship it.
That being said I don't think all Christians or Theists are believers in a made up story.
I think it's quite possible Theists & Atheists both share a similar approach in their belief system.

Some Atheists became atheists because of a lack of empirical evidence in their lives whilst others just don't see the need for a God. There are many reasons for not being a Theist and not always due to a lack of empirical evidence I think.

Here are some questions for Atheists & Theists:
If YOU have found Empirical Evidence for the existence of God would you then believe?
What is Empircal Evidence?
Here is the wiki definition:
"Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

What do you think "sense experience" or "means of the senses" is?
Is it not the same as personal experience?
Should an atheist believe the Pyramids of Egypt exist if they have never had any empirical evidence of the Pyramids?
Should a theist believe God exists if they have never had any empirical evidence of God's existence?
Look at the definition of empirical evidence again before you reply.
Do you think a large percentage of the population or literarature or other forms of communication telling you that pyramids exist is reason enough to believe in the Pyramids?
Do you think a large percentage of the population or literarature or other forms of communication telling you that God exists is reason enough to believe in God's existence?
Do you think most of the people telling you pyramids exists, personally experienced it's existence?
Does it really take much more than popular belief for you to believe something exists?
Is popular belief a form of empirical evidence?
Look at the definition again before you reply.

If every time you ordered a pizza, it was delivered, would you doubt that the pizza shop existed?
If it wasn't always delivered would would you be justifid to stop believing it existed?
If every time you prayed to a God the results were in your favor, would you doubt God's existence?
If it wasn't always in your favor would would you be justified to doubt God's existence?
Is this not a form of empirical evidence?

Do you think popular belief counts as empirical evidence instead of personal experience?
Look at the definition of empirical evidence again before you reply
Is there anything you believe in that you haven't personally experienced?
Is empirical evidence really that important for you to accept the possibility that something exists?
If belief in the Pyramids is justified regardless of empirical evidence directly in your life then why can't belief in God also be justified as well?

Who here is willing to argue that believing in empirical evidence gathered by someone other than yourself is not a belief in the unseen?
Do we not do this all the time or do you possess omniscience?
Is such a belief rational?
Is such a belief to be classed as a fairy tail?

If I said all Atheists and Theists that believe in the unseen are fairy tail believers would you feel offended?

No, evidence need not be empirical but it must be tracable to sense perception. All knowledge begins with perception but we are not limited to the perceptual level because we have the ability to form concepts and then higher level concepts by integrating those into wider and wider abstractions. That's what proof is, elucidating the steps back to the perceptual level. I need not actually see the pyramids so long as I can hop on a plane to Egypt and see for myself that they actually exist if I want to. So when it comes to God all I need to see is the logical steps of inference made from the perceptual level to God in a way that is compatible with the primacy of existence principle.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 07:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 07:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It would not be offensive as it's meaningless, and a false analogy
Just because one has not personally seen the pyramids,
does not mean there is no sensory evidence for them. The definition does not say it has to be *your* sense experience to be empirical.

You for got some important parts.
"The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect.

In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is a unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods that use, in part, basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods, which are purely deductive and based on first principles.

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.

So no. It's not offensive. It's just stupidity, and ignorance of how science works.
It's just questions. I have made no assertions, only listed some possibilities. The ones answering the questions can make assertions.
Are you asserting that popular belief still counts as empirical evidence if you do not personally experienced the evidence yourself?

No I'm not. I said nothing like that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 07:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't know if a God or Gods exists and if it does I am not that moved to worship it.
That being said I don't think all Christians or Theists are believers in a made up story.
I think it's quite possible Theists & Atheists both share a similar approach in their belief system.

Some Atheists became atheists because of a lack of empirical evidence in their lives whilst others just don't see the need for a God. There are many reasons for not being a Theist and not always due to a lack of empirical evidence I think.

Here are some questions for Atheists & Theists:
If YOU have found Empirical Evidence for the existence of God would you then believe?
What is Empircal Evidence?
Here is the wiki definition:
"Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

What do you think "sense experience" or "means of the senses" is?
Is it not the same as personal experience?
Should an atheist believe the Pyramids of Egypt exist if they have never had any empirical evidence of the Pyramids?
Should a theist believe God exists if they have never had any empirical evidence of God's existence?
Look at the definition of empirical evidence again before you reply.
Do you think a large percentage of the population or literarature or other forms of communication telling you that pyramids exist is reason enough to believe in the Pyramids?
Do you think a large percentage of the population or literarature or other forms of communication telling you that God exists is reason enough to believe in God's existence?
Do you think most of the people telling you pyramids exists, personally experienced it's existence?
Does it really take much more than popular belief for you to believe something exists?
Is popular belief a form of empirical evidence?
Look at the definition again before you reply.

If every time you ordered a pizza, it was delivered, would you doubt that the pizza shop existed?
If it wasn't always delivered would would you be justifid to stop believing it existed?
If every time you prayed to a God the results were in your favor, would you doubt God's existence?
If it wasn't always in your favor would would you be justified to doubt God's existence?
Is this not a form of empirical evidence?

Do you think popular belief counts as empirical evidence instead of personal experience?
Look at the definition of empirical evidence again before you reply
Is there anything you believe in that you haven't personally experienced?
Is empirical evidence really that important for you to accept the possibility that something exists?
If belief in the Pyramids is justified regardless of empirical evidence directly in your life then why can't belief in God also be justified as well?

Who here is willing to argue that believing in empirical evidence gathered by someone other than yourself is not a belief in the unseen?
Do we not do this all the time or do you possess omniscience?
Is such a belief rational?
Is such a belief to be classed as a fairy tail?

If I said all Atheists and Theists that believe in the unseen are fairy tail believers would you feel offended?

Seriously huh?

I can go see the pyramids in Egypt. I can buy a plane ticket and book a trip.

Let me know when you return from your trip to heaven.

When I order pizza, I'm aware of where I'm calling -- they even answer the phone identifying themselves. I'm not going to call a library to order a pizza.

I'll ask you the same question I asked call of the cartilage -- what is the difference between something you cannot in anyway prove exists...And something that doesn't exist at all?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
19-03-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 08:01 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 07:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's just questions. I have made no assertions, only listed some possibilities. The ones answering the questions can make assertions.
Are you asserting that popular belief still counts as empirical evidence if you do not personally experienced the evidence yourself?

It perhaps wouldn't be so bad if you're analogy was horrible and nonsensical.

Do you think you don't built false walls and false label distinctions?

What is different of a personal experience and an personal experience though a lense with something through multiple lenses? What is different from an eyes lense to a cameras lense? What grants something different properties to begin with ?
What analogy? It's like 99% questions. Where is the analogy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 08:28 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 08:07 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 07:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't know if a God or Gods exists and if it does I am not that moved to worship it.
That being said I don't think all Christians or Theists are believers in a made up story.
I think it's quite possible Theists & Atheists both share a similar approach in their belief system.

Some Atheists became atheists because of a lack of empirical evidence in their lives whilst others just don't see the need for a God. There are many reasons for not being a Theist and not always due to a lack of empirical evidence I think.

Here are some questions for Atheists & Theists:
If YOU have found Empirical Evidence for the existence of God would you then believe?
What is Empircal Evidence?
Here is the wiki definition:
"Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

What do you think "sense experience" or "means of the senses" is?
Is it not the same as personal experience?
Should an atheist believe the Pyramids of Egypt exist if they have never had any empirical evidence of the Pyramids?
Should a theist believe God exists if they have never had any empirical evidence of God's existence?
Look at the definition of empirical evidence again before you reply.
Do you think a large percentage of the population or literarature or other forms of communication telling you that pyramids exist is reason enough to believe in the Pyramids?
Do you think a large percentage of the population or literarature or other forms of communication telling you that God exists is reason enough to believe in God's existence?
Do you think most of the people telling you pyramids exists, personally experienced it's existence?
Does it really take much more than popular belief for you to believe something exists?
Is popular belief a form of empirical evidence?
Look at the definition again before you reply.

If every time you ordered a pizza, it was delivered, would you doubt that the pizza shop existed?
If it wasn't always delivered would would you be justifid to stop believing it existed?
If every time you prayed to a God the results were in your favor, would you doubt God's existence?
If it wasn't always in your favor would would you be justified to doubt God's existence?
Is this not a form of empirical evidence?

Do you think popular belief counts as empirical evidence instead of personal experience?
Look at the definition of empirical evidence again before you reply
Is there anything you believe in that you haven't personally experienced?
Is empirical evidence really that important for you to accept the possibility that something exists?
If belief in the Pyramids is justified regardless of empirical evidence directly in your life then why can't belief in God also be justified as well?

Who here is willing to argue that believing in empirical evidence gathered by someone other than yourself is not a belief in the unseen?
Do we not do this all the time or do you possess omniscience?
Is such a belief rational?
Is such a belief to be classed as a fairy tail?

If I said all Atheists and Theists that believe in the unseen are fairy tail believers would you feel offended?

No, evidence need not be empirical but it must be tracable to sense perception. All knowledge begins with perception but we are not limited to the perceptual level because we have the ability to form concepts and then higher level concepts by integrating those into wider and wider abstractions. That's what proof is, elucidating the steps back to the perceptual level. I need not actually see the pyramids so long as I can hop on a plane to Egypt and see for myself that they actually exist if I want to. So when it comes to God all I need to see is the logical steps of inference made from the perceptual level to God in a way that is compatible with the primacy of existence principle.
Do you believe Gravity exists?
Do you believe Black holes exist?
Do you believe Dark Matter Exists?
Do you believe Dark energy exists?
Do you believe in fairy tales?
Do you believe in God?

If you had a 99% probability that you will die in a certain situation and you lived after praying would you still doubt your prayer had any effect?
What if it happened more than once?
Is believing that your prayer worked irrational?

These are questions, not assertions. I'm searching for logical answers, I'm not trying to debate you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2016 08:41 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 08:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 08:01 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It perhaps wouldn't be so bad if you're analogy was horrible and nonsensical.

Do you think you don't built false walls and false label distinctions?

What is different of a personal experience and an personal experience though a lense with something through multiple lenses? What is different from an eyes lense to a cameras lense? What grants something different properties to begin with ?
What analogy? It's like 99% questions. Where is the analogy?

analogies can be in the form of questions man. The pyramid. bit. You also know questions can be loaded and formed in particular ways right? Making something a question doesn't say OH no it's not x or an assumption it's just a question. Questions can be formed in ways to not have or have assumptions. So to say it's just questions I made no assertions is inaccurate due to the formation of a heavy presumption into a question can take.

It's a association that you're putting up in the form of the question that somehow person experience is limited by something. what limits personal experience of a pyramid? Or how does one personally experience the great pyramid?

"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
19-03-2016, 08:36 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
Thanks for the polite response. Sorry this took so long, had to get the fluffy puppy from the vet. She's been moping all day.

(19-03-2016 04:16 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 01:48 PM)natachan Wrote:  And as a former christian, this is the strength of the faith, that it is NOT fully fleshed out. It relies on a vague sort of spiritualism, that relies on emotion and intuitions.

Fundamentally, every Christian believes that Jesus is the way to salvation and that he lived, died, was buried, and was raised on the third day. What is vague about that? Seems pretty straight-forwarded and we are reminded of those facts every Sunday and it is certainly pounded into our heads every Easter Sunday.

Now don't get me wrong, there are some vague spiritualists that are out there. I know EXACTLY what you are talking about in regards to the vague one's. I am just saying Christianity shouldn't be considered one of them, in my opinion, of course.

I would disagree. The key doctrine of Christianity is the sacrificial death of Jesus in atonement for sin. The resurrection is not necessary, it was only proof of his divinity. There are some people who identify as christian who don't believe that he rose from the dead.

Is it possible that there was a charismatic preacher around the first century who taught about universal brotherhood and was crucified for radical views? Oh absolutely. But this is an incredibly vague belief. Some Christians pile on a bunch of other things to go along with it, but the core of it is very vague.

Quote:
(19-03-2016 01:48 PM)natachan Wrote:  There can be very intelligent people who are religious, and there can be very dumb people who are religious.

Are they intelligent or DUMB for religious reasons, or would they be intelligent or dumb DESPITE religion?

Theism and intelligence are not directly related. It is a position on one issue, and that is it. Again, I would like to use the example of my mother, because she is freaking brilliant. She is a lawyer, specializing in constitutional law. She graduated SCL from her college, and has an IQ of somewhere in the neighborhood of 140. She is scary smart sometimes. She is also a dedicated Catholic. Do I think her theism has any bearing on her intelligence? No. Do I think that her religious views are wrong? Yes. Do I think she holds them for bad reasons? Yes. Does this in any way diminish how incredible she is? No.

Quote:
(19-03-2016 01:48 PM)natachan Wrote:  There is nothing inherently WRONG with these people, except a sort of wishful thinking.

When you say that believers are wishful thinking, you are presupposing that what they believe is false, and that by continuing to believe something that is false, they are wishful thinking....that is begging the question, isn't it?

I thought of answering this with the next part of your post, because they are so closely related, but figured I would give it an answer of it's own. I've spoken with some of the preachers that come to my campus and my experience with them has been very much of the line that they are guilty of wishful thinking. Whether or not there is a god, this would still hold true. They want there to be a god because they want the universe to be small and intimate and to care about them. They want to avoid their own death. They want the universe to be just.

Now if there is a god, then hey, they got what they wanted, yay! But that doesn't mean that they aren't hoping and wishing right now. And there's nothing wrong with that per se, so long as it doesn't negatively impact the rest of your life.

Quote:
(19-03-2016 01:48 PM)natachan Wrote:  What I think of the vast majority of Christians falls into the category of "meh." Most don't believe in those fully fleshed out absurdities. Most want to believe in a sense of cosmic justice, of purpose. Most are scared of their own mortality and the idea of a large an indifferent universe. And that's healthy and normal. Faith is just a coping mechanism for that, and fine whatever. If it makes them feel better and they don't make an issue of it then who cares. It is philosophically unsound, but whatever.

How is Christianity philosophically unsound?

Faith in this sense is philosophically unsound, not Christianity in particular (although that has some doctrines which are but that's another matter). Keep in mind that I said "most" here, that is coming from mainline faiths. Most Christians are empiricists or pragmatists in their day to day lives, but they make a special exception for their faith. They accept the universe that they see around them, as they are presented with it. They reject most forms of supernaturalism, requiring hard evidence for what they believe in. But in this one place they refuse to accept the implications of that framework. And that's a problem.

I have a grudging respect for some fundamentalists. They have defined an internal framework and philosophy that is perfectly consistent with their beliefs. It falls apart, but it is consistent. But that isn't the case for most theists. They split the world, and themselves, in two. They refuse to realize the logical implications of the empirical world that they accept most of the time. Some will even acknowledge that they know what the implications are, but they won't examine that too closely. As such they have to live with a certain amount of compartmentalizing and cognitive dissonance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
19-03-2016, 08:36 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2016 08:46 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 08:09 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 07:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't know if a God or Gods exists and if it does I am not that moved to worship it.
That being said I don't think all Christians or Theists are believers in a made up story.
I think it's quite possible Theists & Atheists both share a similar approach in their belief system.

Some Atheists became atheists because of a lack of empirical evidence in their lives whilst others just don't see the need for a God. There are many reasons for not being a Theist and not always due to a lack of empirical evidence I think.

Here are some questions for Atheists & Theists:
If YOU have found Empirical Evidence for the existence of God would you then believe?
What is Empircal Evidence?
Here is the wiki definition:
"Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

What do you think "sense experience" or "means of the senses" is?
Is it not the same as personal experience?
Should an atheist believe the Pyramids of Egypt exist if they have never had any empirical evidence of the Pyramids?
Should a theist believe God exists if they have never had any empirical evidence of God's existence?
Look at the definition of empirical evidence again before you reply.
Do you think a large percentage of the population or literarature or other forms of communication telling you that pyramids exist is reason enough to believe in the Pyramids?
Do you think a large percentage of the population or literarature or other forms of communication telling you that God exists is reason enough to believe in God's existence?
Do you think most of the people telling you pyramids exists, personally experienced it's existence?
Does it really take much more than popular belief for you to believe something exists?
Is popular belief a form of empirical evidence?
Look at the definition again before you reply.

If every time you ordered a pizza, it was delivered, would you doubt that the pizza shop existed?
If it wasn't always delivered would would you be justifid to stop believing it existed?
If every time you prayed to a God the results were in your favor, would you doubt God's existence?
If it wasn't always in your favor would would you be justified to doubt God's existence?
Is this not a form of empirical evidence?

Do you think popular belief counts as empirical evidence instead of personal experience?
Look at the definition of empirical evidence again before you reply
Is there anything you believe in that you haven't personally experienced?
Is empirical evidence really that important for you to accept the possibility that something exists?
If belief in the Pyramids is justified regardless of empirical evidence directly in your life then why can't belief in God also be justified as well?

Who here is willing to argue that believing in empirical evidence gathered by someone other than yourself is not a belief in the unseen?
Do we not do this all the time or do you possess omniscience?
Is such a belief rational?
Is such a belief to be classed as a fairy tail?

If I said all Atheists and Theists that believe in the unseen are fairy tail believers would you feel offended?

Seriously huh?

I can go see the pyramids in Egypt. I can buy a plane ticket and book a trip.

Let me know when you return from your trip to heaven.

When I order pizza, I'm aware of where I'm calling -- they even answer the phone identifying themselves. I'm not going to call a library to order a pizza.

I'll ask you the same question I asked call of the cartilage -- what is the difference between something you cannot in anyway prove exists...And something that doesn't exist at all?
Are you saying that because you believe you can go see the Pyramids in Egypt it increases the possibility that they exist?
How do you know you can go see the pyramids in Egypt?
Is this not another form of believing in something unproven by yourself to justify believing in something unproven by yourself?
I don't see how believing in the existence of the pyramids can be done by use of Empircal evidence if you never actually go see the pyramids.

I don't think belief has anything to do with cognitive rationalization.
I think it may be just a primal instinct based on a reduced probability of deception.
I could be wrong but I rather discuss it than draw a conclusion.

The answer to your question of:
"what is the difference between something you cannot in anyway prove exists...And something that doesn't exist at all?"
1. Proving what does not exist cannot be done even if you were omniscient, because you can't prove that you are omniscient. It's a paradox.
2. Being UNABLE to prove something exist requires omniscience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 08:37 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 08:28 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 08:07 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  No, evidence need not be empirical but it must be tracable to sense perception. All knowledge begins with perception but we are not limited to the perceptual level because we have the ability to form concepts and then higher level concepts by integrating those into wider and wider abstractions. That's what proof is, elucidating the steps back to the perceptual level. I need not actually see the pyramids so long as I can hop on a plane to Egypt and see for myself that they actually exist if I want to. So when it comes to God all I need to see is the logical steps of inference made from the perceptual level to God in a way that is compatible with the primacy of existence principle.
Do you believe Gravity exists?
Do you believe Black holes exist?
Do you believe Dark Matter Exists?
Do you believe Dark energy exists?
Do you believe in fairy tales?
Do you believe in God?

If you had a 99% probability that you will die in a certain situation and you lived after praying would you still doubt your prayer had any effect?
What if it happened more than once?
Is believing that your prayer worked irrational?

These are questions, not assertions. I'm searching for logical answers, I'm not trying to debate you.

One does not (have to) "believe" in that for which evidence exists, and is the best explanation of the observed/reported evidence, until more evidence or a better theory comes along. Fairy tales, gods, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Black Holes, and the theory of gravity are not in the same category.

Composition fallacy, exception fallacy :
Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: