mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
somebody wrong then?
I don't believe in that kind of wrong. Do you?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
somebody wrong then?
Have you any idea what does it mean to believe? For example, I believe that Sun is hot. Bob believes that it is cold. How can we both be right? Sun is either hot or cold.I don't believe in that kind of wrong. Do you?
Have you any idea what does it mean to believe? For example, I believe that Sun is hot. Bob believes that it is cold. How can we both be right? Sun is either hot or cold.
Is here somebody rational?All of the world is not objective.
Is here somebody rational?
I highly suspect that @questfortruth is a bot masquerading as a regular poster. Beware of random posts from this "user".
I don't believe in rational
You are falseAt the time the Quest was born, no agnostic atheism was founded.
There were only Gnostic Atheists around in USSR.
Yes. I heard that in the USSR people were pressured to be atheists and to join the communist party and that the government went to great lengths to claim and to demonstrate that God did not exist. I heard it used fallacious or illogical reasoning then claimed proof no matter how broken the argument. It would attempt to indoctrinate children, too. This was impressed upon the population continually, and the population was expected to conform. This was part of the strategy of unification in the USSR: to strip away all of the religions and regional cultures to form one common people.At the time the Quest was born, no agnostic atheism was founded.
There were only Gnostic Atheists around in USSR.
Evidence is necessary for satisfactory demonstration, at the least.Quest: "Evidence is proof.
No, that's not my idea.So, your idea is: "God does not exist because there is no proof of God."
Doh! THAT's why it's called an hypothesis!But there is no proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
And in maths, if you write a theorem which involves the Riemann Hypothesis, you say clearly at the very start, "Assuming the Riemann hypothesis is correct / is false ..."however, nobody claims that the Riemann Hypothesis must be wrong.
I found the Persian flavor!Yeah, that is a piece of music. I like it. Is there more to it than that?
Identity of a person is his true name.why is there no coherent definition of such a god, so that if we found a real suspect, we could determine whether it was God or not?
*snip*
No, before the identity comes the category, in this case God with Objective Existence, which has no coherent and sufficient definition. So you'll have to clear that up before we come to which God is which.Identity of a person is his true name.
At the time the Quest was born, no agnostic atheism was founded.
There were only Gnostic Atheists around in USSR.
Such gnostic atheist Bob has a debate with Quest:
Bob: "God does not exist."
Quest: "Why?"
Bob: "There is no evidence for it."
Quest: "Evidence is proof. So, your idea is: "God does not exist because there is no proof of God." But there is no proof of the Riemann Hypothesis; however, nobody claims that the Riemann Hypothesis must be wrong."
Bob: "Evidence is not proof. The proof is a stronger word than Evidence. Evidence is a hint. Hint for B is increase of probability for B. For example, the hint for Big Bang is the redshift of galaxies."
Quest: "The hint for Old Testament of the Bible is the existence of Jerusalem and Jews. This is a hint for God. Hence -- there are pieces of Evidence for God."
Quest: "The hint for Old Testament of the Bible is the existence of Jerusalem and Jews. This is a hint for God. Hence -- there are pieces of Evidence for God."