allfoak
Alchemist
I have said it over and over again.
If you want proof you will have to seek it out for yourself.
I have provided more than enough information on this message board for you to do so.
Now leave me alone about your proof.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Lack of belief"
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
I have said it over and over again.
If you want proof you will have to seek it out for yourself.
I have provided more than enough information on this message board for you to do so.
Now leave me alone about your proof.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
proof?
Hells bells, you cannot even offer up evidence...
allfoak
Alchemist
If you do not have it in you to seek out the proof for yourself you will never know, nobody can do it for you.
I can't do it, or i would be happy to.
So i would appreciate it if you would get the message.
God must be proven to exist on a personal level.
There is no other way.
allfoak
Alchemist
This is a complete contradiction of everything that i have said to you.
You are simply harassing me now.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
when all you offer up are bold empty claims...
No worries, I know now not to take you seriously.
have a nice day
No, I honestly don't think neither real nor symbolic cannibalism should be encouraged.
Augustus
…
People who think it is cute to mindlessly parrot 'strawman' instead of making an actual point are amusing, especially when they have completely missed the point of the previous few posts and are, ironically, the ones 'strawmanning' (hint: there is no dichotomy false or otherwise
- I even clarified this for you after you asked)
McBell
Admiral Obvious
So sorry that I am to lazy to be bothered with even looking for peer reviewed documentation that contradicts your false dichotomy.People who think it is cute to mindlessly parrot 'strawman' instead of making an actual point are amusing, especially when they have completely missed the point of the previous few posts and are, ironically, the ones 'strawmanning' (hint: there is no dichotomy false or otherwise
I know it is a false dichotomy because i do not fit into either side of it.
That you are unwilling and or unable to accept that is not my problem.
If you mean furthering understanding, then yes, I admit to that problem.
Kartari
Active Member
Hi Artie,
* grumpy old man frown *
Kids these days...
Seriously, I understood the meanings you were going for exactly. It's just that there is a communication problem which arises when word meanings are changed from established definitions. But then again, word meanings are always changing, so what else is knew.
* grumpy old man frown *
Kids these days...
Seriously, I understood the meanings you were going for exactly. It's just that there is a communication problem which arises when word meanings are changed from established definitions. But then again, word meanings are always changing, so what else is knew.
Like when people claim they are abducted by aliens. The only problem is that if I have an experience where I believe I am abducted by aliens I don't take that as proof that aliens are abducting people. I require objective evidence because no matter how many claim they are being abducted by aliens including me that in no way constitutes proof that aliens abduct people.
allfoak
Alchemist
This is why people should be judged by what they do.
How people live their lives tells you what they know and understand about God.
What people think they "know and understand" about god(s) is completely subjective to the person and has nothing to do with whether these gods objectively exist or not.
allfoak
Alchemist
God is not to be found through the exercise of reason alone.
God is indeed personal.
What is true and stated by all who have searched for answers is that the existence of God can only be proven by those who seek him out and this proof will only be proof that he himself is able to accept.
I cannot point to anything but creation as objective proof and since the rational is the only thing that most people can see they do not see God in his creation.
Augustus
…
Correct. Your problem is you don't bother to read people's posts properly and then confuse your lack of comprehension for their logical errors.
I know it is not a false dichotomy, because it is not and never was a dichotomy. You have misinterpreted it 3 times, maybe 4th time will be luckier.
What I said was "It is impossible to lack/have an absence of belief in a concept that you can understand". You can agree/disagree or anything in between if you like, but there is no dichotomy.
The article I referred to explained why you can't 'lack belief' - comprehension entails forming a belief "I deny that a man makes no affirmation in so far as he has a perception":
"Is there a difference between believing and merely understanding an idea?Descartes thought so. He considered the acceptance and rejection of an idea to be alternative outcomes of an effortful assessment process that occurs subsequent to the automatic comprehension of that idea. This article examined Spinoza's alternative suggestion that (a)the acceptance of an idea is part of the automatic comprehension of that idea and (b) the rejection of an idea occurs subsequent to, and more effortfully than, its acceptance.
Spinoza argued that comprehending an idea did entail accepting that idea, however briefly. "Will and intellect are one and the same thing," he wrote, and thus, "I deny that a man makes no affirmation in so far as he has a perception" (1677/1982, pp. 97 and 99). Although Descartes's assumptions about the symmetry of acceptance and rejection and the disunity of comprehension and belief have silently dominated scientific thinking about these issues, psychological evidence suggests that Spinoza's hypotheses may have been closer to the truth. Findings from a multitude of research literatures converge on a single point: People are credulous creatures who find it very easy to believe and very difficult to doubt. In fact, believing is so easy, and perhaps so inevitable, that it may be more like involuntary comprehension than it is like rational assessment."
How Mental Systems Believe, Daniel T. Gilbert (February 1991 • American Psychologist)
Any thoughts on this?
Utter nonsense of course. All that is required to objectively prove that some god exists is that he shows up and undergoes a battery of tests until he has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is what or who he says he is.
Would that actually do it, though? Or can the senses be distrusted?
I can understand the concept of the Christian God but I still have an absence of belief in the existence of the Christian God. How do you explain that?
Just keep sending this god around to every laboratory and research institution you can think of until all reasonable doubt has been removed.
allfoak
Alchemist
I am sorry that what i say is utter nonsense to you.
I would like to do better but i cannot produce the proof you expect, God is already here.
You can ask him any questions you would like.
Before you get the wrong idea, i am not suggesting that i am God.
The questions we ask are between us and God.
God is more than willing to be put to the test.
Do what he says and see if the results follow.
Simple.