Lack of belief in gods.

[Nakosis]

then belief cannot happen for you

you have to make a choice to best of your reasoning

I take what science leads to (the point)
I get it
I then proceed to make a choice

Sure, based on something I find credible, you find credible.
I make a judgement on the certainty of my belief based on evidence I gather.
I'm never 100% certain about anything. There's always some thing, some variable I didn't account for screwing things up.
However I have some level of certainty. If I tell someone I believe something to be true there is a degree of certainty that I can prove it to them. Get them to reasonably accept it is likely true.

I've looked for something I've found credible, to say to another person, look here, here be God in all his glory. because if I say something is true, I expect it of myself to show why acceptance is reasonable.

I'm not a atheist for lack of trying. I tried and failed.
Or actually I tried and succeeded, and that was the real problem, but maybe it's a story for another time.

 

[Thief]

Sure, based on something I find credible, you find credible.
I make a judgement on the certainty of my belief based on evidence I gather.
I'm never 100% certain about anything. There's always some thing, some variable I didn't account for screwing things up.
However I have some level of certainty. If I tell someone I believe something to be true there is a degree of certainty that I can prove it to them. Get them to reasonably accept it is likely true.

I've looked for something I've found credible, to say to another person, look here, here be God in all his glory. because if I say something is true, I expect it of myself to show why acceptance is reasonable.

I'm not a atheist for lack of trying. I tried and failed.
Or actually I tried and succeeded, and that was the real problem, but maybe it's a story for another time.

if you tried and failed....the cause and effect has lost it's meaning for you

now.....no form of experiment will ever prove anything to you

 

[Willamena]

all motion has a starting 'point'

God was there
Spirit first

But do you consider that true for each motion?

Or was it a one-off?

 

[ratiocinator]

deny cause and effect....and the choice moves to non-science

Not strictly true.

Cause and effect in place....
the universe is the effect
and God is the Cause

What caused god?

 

[Nakosis]

if you tried and failed....the cause and effect has lost it's meaning for you

now.....no form of experiment will ever prove anything to you

If God is capable proving himself, I'm certain God could find a way.

God could exist or not exist. It doesn't matter to me either way. It's up to God to make his existence known if God wants folks to believe in him.

When I needed God to exist, God existed. When I let go of that need I found it was my need that created God. Whatever I needed God to be, God was.

If you need God to exist, your mind will find ways to fulfil that need. The truth of Gods existence doesn't matter, only your need matters to God's existence.

I realized that I was the creator of God's existence. If I was going to find the truth, whatever that is, I was going to have to stop creating God. The only way to do that was to stop needing God to exist.

Truth requires objectivity. If we want to know the truth of God's existence, it requires the objectivity of the atheist, not the need of the believer.

 

[Thief]

If God is capable proving himself, I'm certain God could find a way.

God could exist or not exist. It doesn't matter to me either way. It's up to God to make his existence known if God wants folks to believe in him.

When I needed God to exist, God existed. When I let go of that need I found it was my need that created God. Whatever I needed God to be, God was.

If you need God to exist, your mind will find ways to fulfil that need. The truth of Gods existence doesn't matter, only your need matters to God's existence.

I realized that I was the creator of God's existence. If I was going to find the truth, whatever that is, I was going to have to stop creating God. The only way to do that was to stop needing God to exist.

Truth requires objectivity. If we want to know the truth of God's existence, it requires the objectivity of the atheist, not the need of the believer.

I suspect....to form unique spirit in each of us....
it's a hands off, let them figure this out.....kind of deal

similar to the Prime Directive in Star Trek fame

 

[Thief]

Not strictly true.


What caused god?

the hall of mirror trick stops at the beginning

Someone had to be First
no matter what

 

[Thief]

But do you consider that true for each motion?

Or was it a one-off?

ALL motion

science would have your believe ALL of the universe came from one location
the regression of observed expansion strongly implies as much

 

[ratiocinator]

the hall of mirror trick stops at the beginning

Someone had to be First
no matter what

Why someone?

You have basically decided (with your very, very limited and outdated notion of science) that there is a problem and then arbitrarily called your preferred answer 'spirit' (which, for all detail you've given, might as well of been 'hilkirlil' or 'green arkleseizureness') and then, equally arbitrarily decided that it cannot be subject to the same questions.

It is neither consistent, reasonable, logical nor scientific.

 

[Thief]

Why someone?

You have basically decided (with your very, very limited and outdated notion of science) that there is a problem and then arbitrarily called your preferred answer 'spirit' (which, for all detail you've given, might as well of been 'hilkirlil' or 'green arkleseizureness') and then, equally arbitrarily decided that it cannot be subject to the same questions.

It is neither consistent, reasonable, logical nor scientific.

what part of regression do you not understand?

at the end of the hall......there is only ONE that can be First

 

[ratiocinator]

what part of regression do you not understand?

at the end of the hall......there is only ONE that can be First

Maybe you misunderstood: given your 'reasoning' for the sake or argument - why someone not something?

As for the regression stuff - repeating the same banal pop science misunderstanding, while continuing to not define what your supposed answer even is - does not make it any less daft.

 

[Thumper]

what part of regression do you not understand?

at the end of the hall......there is only ONE that can be First

No, it's turtles all the way down.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

apparently the participants here don't get it

there will never be proof of God
that happens after your last breath

So you consider all that stuff about "cause and effect" to not be proof of God. Interesting.

I don't consider it proof of God either, which is why I remain an atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

what part of regression do you not understand?

at the end of the hall......there is only ONE that can be First

"Every tree needs a root, therefore all trees share the same root."

 

[Thief]

So you consider all that stuff about "cause and effect" to not be proof of God. Interesting.

I don't consider it proof of God either, which is why I remain an atheist.

yeah....not tangible proof

you gotta THINK about it

 

[Thief]

"Every tree needs a root, therefore all trees share the same root."

that was really poor

 

[Thief]

No, it's turtles all the way down.

if you want to call the First .....a turtle .....to His Face

I will stand back and watch

 

[Thief]

Maybe you misunderstood: given your 'reasoning' for the sake or argument - why someone not something?

As for the regression stuff - repeating the same banal pop science misunderstanding, while continuing to not define what your supposed answer even is - does not make it any less daft.

and denying to every post makes your view better?

 

[leibowde84]

precisely.....

for all that we might think we know.....

we make the choice
and better to do so with a touch of logic @Willamena

it's one or the other ....Spirit first or substance
and science would insist.....substance does not move of it's own volition

Spirit first

But, we don't know that the universe had a beginning. So, doesn't this premise make an unfounded assumption about the nature of things? What if the universe had no beginning?

 

[Thief]

But, we don't know that the universe had a beginning. So, doesn't this premise make an unfounded assumption about the nature of things? What if the universe had no beginning?

ever hear of Hubble?

an expansion implies a starting point