To Christians:

Why do you dedicate your life to something that cannot be proven to exist?

I'm guessing that faith has a lot to do with it.

Not everything can be proven. The things that can't be, relies on instinct and faith.

Can you prove he doesn't exist? You can't.

quote:Originally posted by tryss:

Not everything can be proven. The things that can't be, relies on instinct and faith.

Can you prove he doesn't exist? You can't.

Of course I can't. I don't believe in anything I don't observe personally, regardless of proof.

[ArgonPlasma2000]

Creation of the universe no matter what interpretation you believe in cannot be proven.

quote:Originally posted by tryss:

Not everything can be proven. The things that can't be, relies on instinct and faith.

Can you prove he doesn't exist? You can't.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Creation of the universe no matter what interpretation you believe in cannot be proven.

There is a wonderful phrase that realists use: "I don't know." This way, you don't have to be an idiot and insist "God did it" when such a statement has no basis.

It is technically possible that God may exist, but there is no reason to believe so.

Likewise, it is technically possible that the scientific understanding of reality is fundamentally wrong, but there is no reason to believe so.

[Zman]

A changed life is the best proof of all.

[LostCause]

Well, considering really nothing can be proven to exist... why not?

Cheers,

Lost

[Viraljimmy]

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

"I don't know."

[HellzShellz]

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:

Why do you dedicate your life to something that cannot be proven to exist?

Why can't you prove God doesn't exist?

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

A changed life is the best proof of all.

No, that is no proof at all. Beliefs in the mind can alter behavior regardless of the truth of those beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Why can't you prove God doesn't exist?

Because it's impossible to prove a negative. By nature of not existing, there is no evidence related to it. For evidence to relate to something, that something must exist.

Lack of evidence may not be proof of lack, but it is evidence of lack. Lack of evidence is not, however, evidence of existence.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 04-26-2005).]

[ArgonPlasma2000]

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Because it's impossible to prove a negative. By nature of not existing, there is no evidence related to it. For evidence to relate to something, that something must exist.

Lack of evidence may not be proof of lack, but it is evidence of lack. Lack of evidence is not, however, evidence of existence.

You are corect sir!

[Hexadecimal]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



You are corect sir!

When you really break it down though, logic is only capable of proving with complete certainty one thing. Everything past that is belief...atheism is typically a rebelious thing meant to either mystify or piss off those around you, some however come to it through the realization that logic and personal revelation are the only two methods of figuring shit out.

If the individual is devoid of personal revelations on religous matters, then logic is all that's left. Here's where most people fuck up though...logic is a system meant to deal with probabilities, not possibilities, as with logic, only one thing is impossible. In the realm of probabilities, zero evidence IS a reasonable basis to deny something...otherwise we'd all be pan-dogmatic in our beliefs. The same reason most Christians deny the gods of the Egyptians is the exact same reason I deny the Christian God-no evidence, no personal revelation involving that god.

I think that logically the only reason one should believe in a god, or even be agnostic, is through personal revelation, as flawed as it can be (drugs, insanity) I think it to be a more reliable proof to the self than 'faith' is.

PS-Sorry if I ramble...just throwing in a thought I had on the matter.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

When you really break it down though, logic is only capable of proving with complete certainty one thing. Everything past that is belief...atheism is typically a rebelious thing meant to either mystify or piss off those around you, some however come to it through the realization that logic and personal revelation are the only two methods of figuring shit out.

If the individual is devoid of personal revelations on religous matters, then logic is all that's left. Here's where most people fuck up though...logic is a system meant to deal with probabilities, not possibilities, as with logic, only one thing is impossible. In the realm of probabilities, zero evidence IS a reasonable basis to deny something...otherwise we'd all be pan-dogmatic in our beliefs. The same reason most Christians deny the gods of the Egyptians is the exact same reason I deny the Christian God-no evidence, no personal revelation involving that god.

I think that logically the only reason one should believe in a god, or even be agnostic, is through personal revelation, as flawed as it can be (drugs, insanity) I think it to be a more reliable proof to the self than 'faith' is.

PS-Sorry if I ramble...just throwing in a thought I had on the matter.

you are a smart person.

Why do you care? Get a life

[Zman]

a changed life is proof to the person whose life was changed. That's how they can believe

[ArgonPlasma2000]

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

When you really break it down though, logic is only capable of proving with complete certainty one thing. Everything past that is belief...atheism is typically a rebelious thing meant to either mystify or piss off those around you, some however come to it through the realization that logic and personal revelation are the only two methods of figuring shit out.

If the individual is devoid of personal revelations on religous matters, then logic is all that's left. Here's where most people fuck up though...logic is a system meant to deal with probabilities, not possibilities, as with logic, only one thing is impossible. In the realm of probabilities, zero evidence IS a reasonable basis to deny something...otherwise we'd all be pan-dogmatic in our beliefs. The same reason most Christians deny the gods of the Egyptians is the exact same reason I deny the Christian God-no evidence, no personal revelation involving that god.

I think that logically the only reason one should believe in a god, or even be agnostic, is through personal revelation, as flawed as it can be (drugs, insanity) I think it to be a more reliable proof to the self than 'faith' is.

PS-Sorry if I ramble...just throwing in a thought I had on the matter.

Id actually have to fully agree with such. But thats still no reason to deny all evidence at all.

Science has brought us technology. Basically, everything man-made that exists in the world today. That should be some major points in favor of its validity...

What has faith brought us? Nothing useful, nothing tangible, nothing we couldn't find another excuse to do (go to war, be stupid, etc.)

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 04-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

a changed life is proof to the person whose life was changed. That's how they can believe

And their belief in their own mind means nothing about reality.

[Zman]

so?

[ArgonPlasma2000]

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Science has brought us technology. Basically, everything man-made that exists in the world today. That should be some major points in favor of its validity...

What has faith brought us? Nothing useful, nothing tangible, nothing we couldn't find another excuse to do (go to war, be stupid, etc.)

If God didnt exist you most likely would not be able t look at the pretty adverts and background for any website. Much less any computer program. The creator of the assembly code that all processors handle graphics and text is a good friend of mine. Very religious man. Had he not been a religious man he wouldnt have worked as a programmer for his company and wouldnt have seen the answer.

Religion brings us lots of things. Morse attributed his telegraph to God. No telegraph, no phone, and no internet. Internet is the basis for wrldwide knowledge now. The internet is paramount to the stability of all industrialized countries.

Just two examples. Think before you speak next time.

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

And their belief in their own mind means nothing about reality.

And?

Reality isn't the only plane that matters(even if it is the only one that matters to you). Scientists venture out of reality regularly. They postulate about things with no or little evidence to support their claims. Reality is a hindrance to human thought. If you set your thought barrier at reality, then you will accomplish nothing in life that hasn't already been done before.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

If God didnt exist you most likely would not be able t look at the pretty adverts and background for any website. Much less any computer program.

Or maybe, he doesn't exist, and we can look at all these things because HUMANS made them.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

The creator of the assembly code that all processors handle graphics and text is a good friend of mine. Very religious man. Had he not been a religious man he wouldnt have worked as a programmer for his company and wouldnt have seen the answer.

Religion brings us lots of things. Morse attributed his telegraph to God. No telegraph, no phone, and no internet. Internet is the basis for wrldwide knowledge now. The internet is paramount to the stability of all industrialized countries.

Just two examples. Think before you speak next time.

Faith may be the motivation, but science is the tool that shows us how to make things work.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Reality isn't the only plane that matters(even if it is the only one that matters to you). Scientists venture out of reality regularly. They postulate about things with no or little evidence to support their claims. Reality is a hindrance to human thought. If you set your thought barrier at reality, then you will accomplish nothing in life that hasn't already been done before.

You equate "reality" to "known reality." This is the flaw in your argument, and what makes it all come undone.

Reality is the only "plane" that exists. There may be aspects of reality that we cannot fathom, but if they are not reality, they are not anything.

Scientists postulate about how reality may be, and then attempt to test their thoughts to determine whether or not they are, in fact, the nature of reality.

If you set your barrier at known reality, that certainly is a hindrance to thought, and you won't accomplish anything new. However, if you venture outside reality entirely, anything you accomplish will either be a lucky guess at reality, or pure fiction.

[Sephiroth]

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:

Of course I can't. I don't believe in anything I don't observe personally, regardless of proof.

How very Aristotelian of you...