Gnosticism
-
Hello we are not talking about inanimate objects like dark matter here.... sure there will be people who will insist that the sun goes around the earth even if you take them up on a spacecraft for them to see for themselves.Originally posted by nightzip:hmm..let me try to answer.
So let's say if you can produce evidence of the existence of God, then it is final right? Ans: No. Why? cuz people will always question the authenticity of the evidence anyway and also people who are narrow-minded etc.
Then let's say if you cannot produce the evidence of the existence of God, then it also does not mean that you cannot produce the evidence down the road, let's say after 10 years, 20 years or even 100 years?
Some things are very hard to prove or disprove, facts may be only true at certain periods of time.
We are talking about claims of a loving God who is omni this and omni that and yet they cannot produce 1 iota of evidence like the kind of evidence that proves whales exists. -
Actually I wasn't the one who claimed to have proof of God like you have for whales.Originally posted by casino_king:where is your evidence that God exists like evidence to prove that whales exists? If you feel comforted talking to imaginary friends, so be it. Just do not go around trying to convince people that your imaginary friend exists.
On the contrary, I proposed for a different tactic in answering to your challenges.
You got the wrong person.
-
The atom as they understood it 2000 years ago certainly did not exists. You telling me they understood the atom as having protons and electrons nuetrons spinning around it 2000 years ago? Do not try to change the subject with blatant display of stupidity.Originally posted by Icemoon:But there was no proof of the atom 2000 years ago. So according to your argument, atoms don't exist 2000 years ago.
Get it? -
\Originally posted by casino_king:Hello we are not talking about inanimate objects like dark matter here.... sure there will be people who will insist that the sun goes around the earth even if you take them up on a spacecraft for them to see for themselves.
We are talking about claims of a loving God who is omni this and omni that and yet they cannot produce 1 iota of evidence like the kind of evidence that proves whales exists.
The love of God is evident in all religions. Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you shall find. -
I do not know for sure who is who since it is an annoymous forum and frankly I couldn't care less as the name and face behind the argument is not as important as the argument; for me.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually I wasn't the one who claimed to have proof of God like you have for whales.
On the contrary, I proposed for a different tactic in answering to your challenges.
You got the wrong person. -
If you want to imagine the love of a non existent God, you can go ahead. But until you can provide proof of the existence of the God you talk about, please do not try to convince people that your religion is based on solid evidence.Originally posted by shade343:\
The love of God is evident in all religions. Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you shall find.
Many people I know personally worhips the idols before them a few times a day and it makes them happy... just like it makes you happy. As far as I can see, there is no difference.
They also tell me that I will be happy if I do like they do and as far as I can see, they and you are probably right.
I might even be happier than I am now if I suscribe to a religion but unfortunately I cannot deceive myself in that way and so I try to find my happiness based on reality.
But as a human I sometimes slip and "hope" and "percieve" events more to my favout than to reality. -
Yah, but there was no proof then that atom (the way we know it) exists. So since there was no proof then that atoms even existed and things that do not exists are not real, atoms were not real then.Originally posted by casino_king:The atom as they understood it 2000 years ago certainly did not exists. You telling me they understood the atom as having protons and electrons nuetrons spinning around it 2000 years ago? Do not try to change the subject with blatant display of stupidity. -
You are not blind right?Originally posted by casino_king:I do not know for sure who is who since it is an annoymous forum and frankly I couldn't care less as the name and face behind the argument is not as important as the argument; for me.
Can't you see the plo guy and icemoon are two different entities as far as nicknames are concerned?
You don't care abot name and face, that's why you ask the wrong person the question. -
Like I said earlier, you are incapable of understanding the concept that ther are things the human brain has not yet conceived and so the issue of the existence and the non existence of these as yet conceptualised concepts are moot.Originally posted by Icemoon:Yah, but there was no proof then that atom (the way we know it) exists. So since there was no proof then that atoms even existed and things that do not exists are not real, atoms were not real then. -
You are incapable of realizing the issue of existence or non-existence has no bearing on whether they're conceptualized or not.Originally posted by casino_king:Like I said earlier, you are incapable of understanding the concept that ther are things the human brain has not yet conceived and so the issue of the existence and the non existence of these as yet conceptualised concepts are moot. -
It has everything to do with it.... but your simplemindedness fails to see the point.Originally posted by Icemoon:You are incapable of realizing the issue of existence or non-existence has no bearing on whether they're conceptualized or not. -
so pray tell me .. how does it have everything to do with it then?Originally posted by casino_king:It has everything to do with it.... but your simplemindedness fails to see the point. -
When you think of something you proceed to establish the proof of it. Get it? Otherwise it is totally meaningless to talk about the existence of non existence of something... what? something.... what? I tell you something means something.... see how ridiculous your position is?Originally posted by Icemoon:so pray tell me .. how does it have everything to do with it then? -
Oh .. so you just want them to "think" of that something first right?Originally posted by casino_king:When you think of something you proceed to establish the proof of it. Get it? Otherwise it is totally meaningless to talk about the existence of non existence of something... what? something.... what? I tell you something means something.... see how ridiculous your position is?
That's easy. We just invent a time-machine, go back and explain to them everything about atoms in our secondary school combined science textbook. But too bad we never bring all our machines back, like the electron microscope. So we still cannot proof the existence of atoms. So atoms don't exist, according to your argument.
Don't give me the crap time travel is bullshit or things like that. The time travel might be crap, but the whole mind experiment isn't. -
On another note,Originally posted by casino_king:When you think of something you proceed to establish the proof of it. Get it? Otherwise it is totally meaningless to talk about the existence of non existence of something... what? something.... what? I tell you something means something.... see how ridiculous your position is?
The Greeks already had the most fundamental idea about the atom - it is the smallest indivisible part of matter. However they couldn't prove it in the way scientific proofs are presented today because there is a limit to how small they can chop something up.
I [finally] understand where you're coming from, but too bad your argument is flawed. -
Can you also bring the electron microscope and the proof of the existence of atoms as we understood it now with the time machine? Yes. So what is your the stupid point you are trying to make again?Originally posted by Icemoon:Oh .. so you just want them to "think" of that something first right?
That's easy. We just invent a time-machine, go back and explain to them everything about atoms in our secondary school combined science textbook. But too bad we never bring all our machines back, like the electron microscope. So we still cannot proof the existence of atoms. So atoms don't exist, according to your argument.
Don't give me the crap time travel is bullshit or things like that. The time travel might be crap, but the whole mind experiment isn't. -
At that time, they had proof that big things are made up of smaller things and as you said it was easy to prove that because all you have to do was to chop up big things and show that it was made up of smallere things....Originally posted by Icemoon:On another note,
The Greeks already had the most fundamental idea about the atom - it is the smallest indivisible part of matter. However they couldn't prove it in the way scientific proofs are presented today because there is a limit to how small they can chop something up.
I [finally] understand where you're coming from, but too bad your argument is flawed. -
True. May I add these 3 justify my continued belief. Personally, I belive because I had a tangible experince of God 7 yrs ago.However, i doubt this discussion would entertain such experinces.
don't need philosophy, theology and logic. (though I subscribe to these three for my belief also)The problem of suffering (which is a reality to everybody) already whack the belief in God half dead liao.
Not so true, suffering actually proves God indirectly.
You know my point is not to denounce the existence of whales
Wait he brings you to Sentosa Underwater World then you suck thumb , I'm suprised you don't see where that point of mine is leading to.
Different things are proved to be true differently.However, that perhaps will change in time.
You have evidence of God but it will not be presented the way we have evidence of whales? If God exists why cannot you have evidence of God presented the way we have evidence of whales? Your God is is a coward in hiding? You God is a so small and cannot be seen? Your God is a kid who like to play hide and seek?You want proof that God is not real? That is so easy, there is no proof that God even exists and things that do not exists are not real.
Your proof that God does not exist is because there are no proofs? Surely, you have some proofs to show that God does not exist?(I know every atheist has at least 13 of these) -
Even the flintstones could see big things are made up of smaller things, so no, this is not even a proof.Originally posted by casino_king:At that time, they had proof that big things are made up of smaller things and as you said it was easy to prove that because all you have to do was to chop up big things and show that it was made up of smallere things....
Their idea of atom was the smallest indivisible unit of mater. Very small and indivisible. This they cannot prove. And they weren't taken seriously 'cos they had no proof! Just like casino_king liddat .. you don't take God seriously 'cos you claim theists have no proof! -
No .. I can't. Do you know how heavy is an electron microscope? The time machine cannot tahan lah. And not all time machines are literally 'machines'. Some are just time portals where you jump into a hole in space and presto!Originally posted by casino_king:Can you also bring the electron microscope and the proof of the existence of atoms as we understood it now with the time machine? Yes. So what is your the stupid point you are trying to make again?
The point becomes stupidier 'cos the person whom I'm trying to convince is even more dense.
-
True. May I add these 3 justify my continued belief. Personally, I belive because I had a tangible experince of God 7 yrs ago.However, i doubt this discussion would entertain such experinces.
That's why I said if we minus any miraculous experience, it is more logical to believe there is no god.Not so true, suffering actually proves God indirectly.
This is warped when you try to argue for a benevolent God.
Actually the problem of suffering is part of the problem of evil. Well, they go hand in hand in whacking the theist position.You know my point is not to denounce the existence of whales , I'm suprised you don't see where that point of mine is leading to.
Well .. but he has yet to see your proof of God. Me too. So we dunno what you're up to.Different things are proved to be true differently.However, that perhaps will change in time.
He won't accept this position. He wants God to be as evident as the whale in documentaries, books and photographs. -
As I had said all along.... no point lah...Originally posted by Icemoon:He won't accept this position. He wants God to be as evident as the whale in documentaries, books and photographs.
And I think I've said this before: the issue is not whether is evidence or not, but what one constitute as evidence. -
I'm even more radical. If any of you read the philosophy article I posted, I wanted to overturn his evidentialism mindset.Originally posted by Chin Eng:As I had said all along.... no point lah...
And I think I've said this before: the issue is not whether is evidence or not, but what one constitute as evidence. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:I'm even more radical. If any of you read the philosophy article I posted, I wanted to overturn his evidentialism mindset. I wish you well in your endeavour.....
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng: I wish you well in your endeavour.....
