Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

the Everlasting is visible and physical for even those without vision to see.

How do you identify spiritually? What do you call yourself? Just curious.

 

[daws101]

But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.

If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.

No it hasnt been proven to billions and billions of people.

Believed by / faith in -----does not equal proven.

Gluck with that.

Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.

bullshit and gobbledygook....
believing and faith only prove themselves and nothing else..

 

[daws101]

Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.

Proving and having faith; however, are not one in the same.

The spirit is not proven.

Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. Virtually EVERYTHING including reality itself, is a matter of faith. We believe it or we don't believe it.

CHERRY PICKING ALERT.....
QUOTE IN CONTEXT :has anything ever been "proven" in Philosophy. [ The answer is no.] In fact nothing is ever "proven" in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems. In the natural sciences things are "evidenced" they are not proven, which is how old theories can be replaced with new ones which see the world.


THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems".

 

[Boss]

Proving and having faith; however, are not one in the same.

The spirit is not proven.

Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. Virtually EVERYTHING including reality itself, is a matter of faith. We believe it or we don't believe it.

CHERRY PICKING ALERT.....
QUOTE IN CONTEXT :has anything ever been "proven" in Philosophy. [ The answer is no.] In fact nothing is ever "proven" in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems. In the natural sciences things are "evidenced" they are not proven, which is how old theories can be replaced with new ones which see the world.


THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems".

Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe.

As we see, retard dawsy has a little problem with his reading comprehension skills.

 

[Boss]

No it hasnt been proven to billions and billions of people.

Believed by / faith in -----does not equal proven.

Gluck with that.

Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.

bullshit and gobbledygook....
believing and faith only prove themselves and nothing else..

Too rich!! Cannot comment, laughing too hard and cleaning the beer from my monitor!

 

[daws101]

But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.

If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.

the imaginary authority of the masses ploy.......not evidence ..

You look up into the sky and see a moon there. Billions of people have seen it too. Scientists have confirmed it is there and exists. We've sent rockets there and men have set foot on it. Is that authority of the masses ploy as well? What if I tell you the moon is not there? It's an illusion from God? That your so-called "physical evidence" is an "authority of the masses ploy" and not evidence?

Show me the spiritual evidence for anything you think is proven to exist in the physical world, or I will tell you it's an illusion put there by God to make you think it exists. Now, I MUST be speaking the TRUTH because you can't show me any spiritual evidence and you can't refute my argument with spiritual evidence.

Game--set--match!

FALSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD .......
Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of research have shown that our brains comprise and produce our true selves. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.

“Human and animal mental processes look just as they can be expected to look if there is no soul or other immaterial component.”
Prof. Victor Stenger (2007)

Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism


rationalizing in 5....4...3...2..1

 

[daws101]

Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. Virtually EVERYTHING including reality itself, is a matter of faith. We believe it or we don't believe it.

CHERRY PICKING ALERT.....
QUOTE IN CONTEXT :has anything ever been "proven" in Philosophy. [ The answer is no.] In fact nothing is ever "proven" in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems. In the natural sciences things are "evidenced" they are not proven, which is how old theories can be replaced with new ones which see the world.


THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems".

Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe.

As we see, retard dawsy has a little problem with his reading comprehension skills.

false boosy is dodging :THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems"
colorizing your shit does not make it any less false...

 

[daws101]

Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.

bullshit and gobbledygook....
believing and faith only prove themselves and nothing else..

Too rich!! Cannot comment, laughing too hard and cleaning the beer from my monitor!

I knew you were an alcoholic..thanks for proving to everyone!

 

[PostmodernProph]

Should I have continued and preached what I believed to be true and undermine the beliefs of the larger church?

Difficult to say without further information.....if you truly lost your faith, obviously you shouldn't have continued to preach....leading a congregation into hell is not the role of a pastor.....however, I believe its a cop out to say you lost your faith because your congregation was headed in the wrong direction......if they were at fault you tell them they were at fault, then if they fail to change you look for a wiser congregation and suggest they disband and become a night club.....

 

[daws101]

Should I have continued and preached what I believed to be true and undermine the beliefs of the larger church?

Difficult to say without further information.....if you truly lost your faith, obviously you shouldn't have continued to preach....leading a congregation into hell is not the role of a pastor.....however, I believe its a cop out to say you lost your faith because your congregation was headed in the wrong direction......if they were at fault you tell them they were at fault, then if they fail to change you look for a wiser congregation and suggest they disband and become a night club.....

what part of this did you not understand:Should I have continued and preached what I believed to be true and undermine the beliefs of the larger church?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Should I have continued and preached what I believed to be true and undermine the beliefs of the larger church?

Difficult to say without further information.....if you truly lost your faith, obviously you shouldn't have continued to preach....leading a congregation into hell is not the role of a pastor.....however, I believe its a cop out to say you lost your faith because your congregation was headed in the wrong direction......if they were at fault you tell them they were at fault, then if they fail to change you look for a wiser congregation and suggest they disband and become a night club.....

Your right about one thing. You shouldn't have made assumptions when you didn't have enough information. That was out of line.
And I didn't say I lost my faith because of the congregation. Read it again. That is a completely inaccurate statement.
I thought better of you than you are showing in these last two posts directed at me.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You can prove to yourself that things of a spiritual nature exist by examining spiritual evidence, but in order to do this, your mind has to accept that spiritual nature is real.

huh?



anyone?

cart before the horse
circular logic
fallacy

whoo00o geez, too many to list patna

There's no "cart before the horse" or fallacy. Circular logic doesn't mean incorrect logic. If you encountered a jungle tribe deep in the heart of Africa, where they did not believe or know of anything regarding physical science, and you began trying to explain things in terms of physical science, but they just pointed to the sky and grunted at you... would you likely ever be able to convince them of any relevant scientific fact? If they rejected your concept of physical science and demanded you could ONLY appeal to spiritual evidence, could you ever make them realize physical evidence?

The same thing is happening here in reverse. You refuse to recognize spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature. Doesn't matter what evidence I present, you will reject it because you don't believe the premise to begin with. I can't reach you with spiritual evidence, you just point to your science book and grunt.

Actually circular logic IS INCORRECT LOGIC.


Main Entry: circular reasoning
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic

 

[BreezeWood]

the Everlasting is visible and physical for even those without vision to see.

How do you identify spiritually? What do you call yourself? Just curious.

I would just say and you might agree it is readily apparent, what is confusing is why you insist humanity alone is responding to something other than self ... and insist an Orchid's display similarly in response to something other than self requires "proof" of spirituality inferring it is ??? something else. -

between the two, humanity and the Orchid the Orchid wins the contest hands down, responding to something other than self.

.

 

[Boss]

the Everlasting is visible and physical for even those without vision to see.

How do you identify spiritually? What do you call yourself? Just curious.

I would just say and you might agree it is readily apparent, what is confusing is why you insist humanity alone is responding to something other than self ... and insist an Orchid's display similarly in response to something other than self requires "proof" of spirituality inferring it is ??? something else. -

between the two, humanity and the Orchid the Orchid wins the contest hands down, responding to something other than self.

.

Why didn't you answer my question? It appears you aren't an Atheist or agnostic, you do believe in spiritual nature. I am just curious as to what you identify with spiritually.

Per your argument, I have never said that things don't respond to their environment. Every living thing responds to it's surrounding environment. Obviously, a surrounding environment is not part of self. Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.

 

[Boss]

Actually circular logic IS INCORRECT LOGIC.

Main Entry: circular reasoning
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic

Actually, no it's not. Your definition doesn't say it's incorrect, it says it's "false logic" but I disagree with your definition as well. It's not necessarily false logic.

"Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." --this is logically true, not false. It is also circular logic. Now, it doesn't explain all the various reasons a criminal might break the law, so it's maybe an "incomplete" logic. An argument based on this alone is circular reasoning and weak support for an argument, but my argument didn't simply depend on this one point.

 

[Boss]

the imaginary authority of the masses ploy.......not evidence ..

You look up into the sky and see a moon there. Billions of people have seen it too. Scientists have confirmed it is there and exists. We've sent rockets there and men have set foot on it. Is that authority of the masses ploy as well? What if I tell you the moon is not there? It's an illusion from God? That your so-called "physical evidence" is an "authority of the masses ploy" and not evidence?

Show me the spiritual evidence for anything you think is proven to exist in the physical world, or I will tell you it's an illusion put there by God to make you think it exists. Now, I MUST be speaking the TRUTH because you can't show me any spiritual evidence and you can't refute my argument with spiritual evidence.

Game--set--match!

FALSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD .......

There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God. We're here, we exist. The universe is here, it exists. Logic and physics work.

Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of research have shown that our brains comprise and produce our true selves. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.

Bwhahahaha... THOUSANDS of years, dawsy? Really? You do realize that only a few HUNDRED years ago, your precious scientists all mutually agreed our 'essence of true self' came from the heart and not the brain, right? The research regarding chemical reactions in the brain is less than 75 years old.

You're all over the board with this, first you start by stating that our spirit and soul are physical in nature, but before you finish your paragraph, they do not exist. Now, in YOUR case, you're probably correct, YOUR "biochemical self" is probably copious amounts of methamphetamines working on your atrophied brain to produce random thoughts that don't comport with logic and reason. That would certainly explain your profound stupidity on this and many other topics.

“Human and animal mental processes look just as they can be expected to look if there is no soul or other immaterial component.”
Prof. Victor Stenger (2007)

Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism

rationalizing in 5....4...3...2..1

Yes, well, someone needs to introduce some rationality to this idiot, that's for certain. Did this moron not notice that humans have the capacity to rationalize right from wrong and react on that, while other animals react on primal instinct alone? Victor must be hittin' the meth pipe too.

 

[Boss]

CHERRY PICKING ALERT.....
QUOTE IN CONTEXT :has anything ever been "proven" in Philosophy. [ The answer is no.] In fact nothing is ever "proven" in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems. In the natural sciences things are "evidenced" they are not proven, which is how old theories can be replaced with new ones which see the world.


THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems".

Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe.

As we see, retard dawsy has a little problem with his reading comprehension skills.

false boosy is dodging :THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems"
colorizing your shit does not make it any less false...

Well, I did not copy and paste my remarks from a third-party source like you did. In my own words, I said: except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. You somehow deduce it is a "gotchya" moment because your copy-n-paste definition says: except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems.

I'm not sure if you are comprehending this, but "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing. I mean, it's not identical, but mine is my own words and yours is a copy/paste from someone smarter than you.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Actually circular logic IS INCORRECT LOGIC.

Main Entry: circular reasoning
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic

Actually, no it's not. Your definition doesn't say it's incorrect, it says it's "false logic" but I disagree with your definition as well. It's not necessarily false logic.

"Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." --this is logically true, not false. It is also circular logic. Now, it doesn't explain all the various reasons a criminal might break the law, so it's maybe an "incomplete" logic. An argument based on this alone is circular reasoning and weak support for an argument, but my argument didn't simply depend on this one point.

Are things that are false incorrect?

 

[Boss]

Are things that are false incorrect?

Well, false and incorrect are two different words, aren't they? I would imagine if they both meant the identical same thing, there would be no need for both words. A false pregnancy test is not an incorrect pregnancy test, is it? False teeth aren't incorrect teeth, are they? A false bottom is not an incorrect bottom, is it? I can go on and on with examples, but I don't know what the purpose is of this idiocy, I disagree with the definition that it's "false logic" OR "incorrect logic." Circular logic is neither. It's just circular.

Again, my example: "Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." Do you think that is an "incorrect" or "false" statement, or not? It's clearly circular logic, but it's still true.

Back to the point... you cannot objectively evaluate something as evidence if you don't first believe in whatever the evidence is supposed to be for. None of you have been able to give a single example of something you do not believe exists or is true, yet accept credible evidence exists to support it. Not one thing... it's been three days... not ONE THING!

Instead of myopically trying to pin me down with semantics and minutia, why not just post an example to prove me wrong? That shouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong, should it?

 

[MrMax]

bullshit and gobbledygook....
believing and faith only prove themselves and nothing else..

Too rich!! Cannot comment, laughing too hard and cleaning the beer from my monitor!

I knew you were an alcoholic..thanks for proving to everyone!

Ha! He's a drunk. That explains a lot!!!!