haha ... but unlike bigfoot, i've found God, my friend. He is accessible to everyone that wishes to seek Him. thank you, mr. master_g. but your theory "if not real = fake; fake = non-existence" is not a plausible theory. this soy sauce i'm using isn't real (water + black food coloring); but does that mean my soy sauce does not exist???
lol no, your soy sauce doesnt exist because it isnt soy sauce... its just water and food coloring. Your naming it as soy sauce is the only thing that defines it as such, but anyone else could test it and see it isnt soy sauce at all.
exactly right, fearless_fx. you answer my point, instead of mikey, but that's okay. anyways, can we simply define the absense of my "soy sauce" to be fake unto the whole premise of classifing the totality of the substance, "Soy Sauce", to be non-existent? obviously no. therefore, to claim non-existence on mere negative foundings of any object/person/being to be the bases of its subsistence - is a faulty ground to stand. <<< fyi: the bases for the philosophy of science and historical scientific progression.
thats just a lame claim. im not talking about God either. im saying, you are claiming something like if you cant prove a criminal's innocence, then he is guilty. and yet again the converse, if you cant prove hes guilty, then he is innocent. just because you cant prove that he is guilty, DOES NOT MEAN he is innocent. conversely, just because you cant prove that he is innocent DOES NOT MEAN he is guilty. and yet again in science, just because you cant show that anti matter and matter reaction can be used does not mean it cannot be used. therefore, just because you cant prove something is real DOES NOT MEAN they are fake. sorry, but your assumption is just not a consistent one, nor is it a reliable one. and on my views about God, i have mixed feelings, so im neutral in either believing or not believing in God. sorry, but what do you mean you've found God? if you mean you've met him face to face then its gonna be hard trying to show everyone that you two met. else if you mean you found your inner self, in which people refer to as the God within you, then thats a different story.. on the OTHER hand, i can pull my matrix + philosophy hand and ask you "whats real and whats not; what exists and what doesnt" lmao
If Any of U Read Einstein's Philosophies u'll discover that his ideas or Religion - Science Co-exist together.. There is no need to make things complicated.. "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941) ch. 13 "I maintain that cosmic religiousness is the strongest and most noble driving force of scientific research." "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941) ch. 13 I Believe in an Ultimate-Creator of the Universe which is currently known and regarded as the Mother of All Nature from the emptiness of the Space Vacuum to the Living Organism on ThE Earth..Christians believe God Created the Earth in 7 days..but who created the Universe.. God or rather a Character of an Ultimate-Being we manifested or created in our minds because of our incomprehensibility of understanding the truth, it is as though as u're making an excuse just to make ppl feel better...as the Ultimate-Creator of this universe might not be even in a form of a man or any form...God might Just be There In Every Molecules and Atoms of Matter...Everything is built out of perceptions / fantasies/ illusions of the minds of Flesh and Blood... P.s. Pls Don't mind my simple broken english...
to "have found something" is to know full-well of its validity of its existence. when i state i've found God - I KNOW that God exists. just like I know that the sun exists, the moon exists, and the trees outside my bedroom exists. but unlike the sun, the moon, and the trees -- I cannot "see" God. but the very nature of God is absolute. therefore, the presence of God is accessible. what i mean by "accessible" is that i can feel the presence of God. like I can feel the presence of the wind, love, heat, and etc. now, one can still claim that whether this feeling is legitimately God. to me, it is the consistence of His characteristics that persuaded me so. (i've made a thread about God's characteristics in the past; its probably gone by now -.-“ ) every solution, every event, every possibility given and perceived from "this God of the Bible" has been an accordance to His will and His unfailing love. some will still claim coincidence and luck - but the sheer possibility of everything i've placed into God's hand to be answered by God is no luck or coincidence to me. absolutity of knowing that God existence is very much like Platonian doctrine/analogy, The Cave. if you wish to seek God and search Him - then you will find Him. and when He is found - it is a shock to your system. For His presence and existence, then becomes reality and you will realize atm the absolute nature of God and therefore questioning His existence would be childish (just like questioning whether the sun exists, your parents exists, or the existence of the wind).
why? simply b/c we know that there is a God. God does not tell me to kill others that do not believe Him. God does not tell me to place hatred upon those who wishes to belittle and throw hateful blasphemies at Him. God does not tell me to curse or maim those who insult my religion and my belief of His love & existence. no where in my belief is it justified to use harm or violence to prove the existence of God and His will. but, i could just be confused on why you "dislike us"? care to explain?
(the following explication is taken from a neutral stance. do not take things personal, if you might feel that way) k, from this, i know that in your reality/perception/you and solely you, you believe in God. there is a saying, if one truly believes, one will see it. you are member of numerous other people who believe the same. but let me emphasize on "if one truly believes, then one will see it". it is just like an optical illusion, if you truly focus on the puzzle, you will see the illusion. on the other hand, have you read a book, which i believe is either brave new world or 1984? in one of those books, the protagonist is subjected to torture when asked whether there are 4 or 5 lights. in reality, there are 5 lights, but the torture forces him to believe that there are 4. never mind the torture part. emphasize on the protagonist's belief. if he truly believes there are 4 lights when there are actually 5, no matter what methods have made him believe, the end result is that his reality is completely different than the actual reality. now i am not rejecting the potential existence of God, i am merely saying that, could it be possible that as you believe something so much, you see a different reality over the actual one? in your reality, you believe that there is a God. but what if the actual reality does not have a God? do not take this as an offense, merely an investigation. the same can be said to atheists. in their reality, there are no God. but what if the actual reality does indeed have a God? we can not know which is right, which is false. but i just want to share the concept that perhaps, realities can be deceitful. philosophers who also believe in an omnipotent being (a god basically), have also said that it is unreliable to trust our perception of reality, as it may be false. now remember, these are philosophers who believe in a god. so my point is, you may believe 300% that there is God, but i do not believe it is wise to trust one's own reality, as there MAY be a chance that it can be deceitful. just my two cents from philosophy.
I agree with you based on the grounds of possibility. But if we base the argument purely on actual evidence or proof (In other words scientifically testable.) then what is the empirical proof that a certain thing doesn't exist? The lack there of. So the lack of proof is in itself proof of nonexistence. I think that's where Mikey was coming from. It's like when religious people (no offence) rebut with, "Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence." Yes it is, scientifically. No wonder I'm an agnostic...
i think theres two ways we can tackle this debate... one could go purely scientific and shove proofs one after the other, or one could go the philosophical way, exploring the idea that the proofs we come up with can be false in itself, which pleads to the perception of realities as i wrote above.
@dann (#429) don't worry, dann - i won't take it personal, as long as we treat each other with respect and politiness. i do not defend that point of view. i do not believe that once you believe in God - you will "see" God. if you do, Great; however, the physical presence of God (without going into too much Christian theology) is not completely attainable by our human abilities (sight). but, like I stated in the reponse you quoted from ... the belief of the existence of God is the realization of God and affirmation by the "consistence of His characteristics." lets take something that is not so opinionated. Love. can you see love? no. you can only feel the absolutity of love by the presence of its characteristics when displayed by yourself or by another. like the belief in God -- there are some that goes through life without ever knowing its [Love] presence. and they can state love does not exist for them? but do they have the authority to state that love does not exist at all? but by your explanation, dann. how do we even known this presence is "Love"? when someone tells another, "i'm in love". what does it mean? by your standard - this can be simply a manipulation of the reality to his/her own fantasy. but i highly doubt any of us would react in such a view, when someone we know proclaims that they are "in love". therefore, love has characteristics that demostrated and instituted its foundations and essence assoicated to all people. the means of Love can be subjective - but the ends of Love are not. likewise for God. His characteristics are the bases of the foundation in the existence of God. firstly, the acknowledgement of a diety. then, the question of who is this God? by using the characteristics of God with the paralleling into one's own life - it will become obvious the identity of God. such questions, reminds me of the quote -- @zero_c (#430) how are they to be, zero_c? @p3ps1c0la (#431) that is not correct. the premise of "lack of proof" in the scientific sense - can be simply the inability of the scientific progression at that current time. lets say the proof of the "theory of elements within an atom". with the lack of scientific equipments; scientists are not able to proof the theory - therefore with a lack of proof for the theory. is the "neutrons, protons, electrons, and nucleus of an atom" to be nonexistent? no. so, there is no proof for non-existence, only for existence.
dont worry, i do believe in something a bit similar, altho not exactly God per se. so i do believe that our sight cannot capture everything. i do believe what you are trying to say goes back to (as mentioned before) "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." although i agree that those who have never felt love have no right to say love does not exist, i am merely pointing out that whether it is love or not, we can never be certain of something. what i mean is, according to philosophers, what IF love did not exist? what IF love is merely an illusion? from our point of view (me included, but i will take a neutral stand), we would think that it is all rubbish, and that it is not possible that love cannot exist. from our realities, we believe love exists. yes, we can see evidence of love everywhere, but what if it is just an illusion created by, and i quote from Renee DesCartes, "an Evil Genius" out there? i know this may sound completely insane to those who did not take philosophy, but we cannot rule out anything. my point is, there is always a possibility that something in which we believe 100% to be true, is false. hell, for all we know, 2 + 2 = 5, if our realities were false according to Renee DesCartes' theory. just on a side note, these are not by my standards. these are the standards of philosophers, whom i am merely borrowing knowledge. if i understand correctly, do you mean that the characteristics of love is basically inscribed into all people? if so i would call that biologically programmed (sociology term). anyways, i apologize for continuing to use DesCartes' theories, but they apply so much in this debate. before continuing, let me use an example to explain a concept. assuming that each of us have our own realities, what makes it possible that you and i see the Sun for example? according to DesCartes, there is some sort of reality outside of our own, in which a being (most would call God, DesCartes calls an Evil Genius) controls all of our realities, and shows that we see the same Sun. It is also this same being who may have shown us the same idea of Love. yet this being, how do we know it is God (Good, Almighty, and Omnipotent), what i'm trying to get to is, how do we know that it is the God that we know, and not some evil being whom is depicting a representation of a God, and thus there are no Gods? so once again, how do you know that your experiences might not be a fake representation of God? i do not mean to bash on other people's belief (i really hate to do that), but i just want to give a fair debate on both sides.. and i apologize if the concepts i used are EXTREMELY confusing.. i have tried to simplify this as much as i can, but its tough lol omg! not this! i had to write a whole essay on this............... anyways, it does speak the truth. you gain all if true, you lose nothing if false. just one thing, since this logic includes an "if then" statement, this is proof enough that there is a potential (no matter how small) possibility that something is not absolute.
Hey friend you need to research a bit more on this topic . These proofs are not of a high quality or just answerable . Its not child's play . Give some authentic proofs and we will surely discuss them here on this forum .
The absense of proof or evidence to suggest existence is proof that a certain thing don't exist untill either evidence suggests otherwise or proof proves otherwise. The theory that atoms are composed of elements was just a theory untill it was proven. Untill something is proven one can only point at the possibilities and probabilities. But the lack of evidence ultimately points towards the nonexistence.
arent you the bright one. of course this isnt child's play. all my facts are taken from university lectures, and whats more high quality than university research? <_<
@dann (#435) sorry, dann. but i'm not going to debate about Descartes with you. since, i'm not too familiar with his philosophical works and plus, i am mainly comfortable with the ancient founders of western philosophy (ie. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.) Also, having the pleasure of starting off as a mathematics major - descartes was a man who tortured me countlessly with his relentless conversions of Cartesian plots/graphs/equations. however, i do like to expand my "horizons". and upon my studies i've noticed - Descartes has proven the existence of God. from your post (no offense, dann), i was persuaded that descrates was trying to disprove the existence/idea of God. but in his own works (eg. Mediations III) he supports and rationally proves the existence of God not only being real; but necessary. @p3ps1c0la (#437) true, a theory is just a theory until it has been proven. however, we are not debating about that. it is the mere fact of whether that object (proposed by the theory) exist even if it cannot be proven yet. from our timeline of research - until the object is found, it is presumed only by theory. however, in the timeline of the object - if it does exist; it is always in existence - whether we presume it to be in theory or not. so, the only methodology in science for proof of non-existence is the counter-proof of existence. if you can proof that the theory is wrong - then you have proven that it does/can not exist. however, "lack of" (within the realm of science) does not conjecture the bases of non-existence, simply it is assume that the "lack of" proof for the theory is becuase of the "lack of" scientific instruments and progression; therefore in time can be found and discovered.
lol i actually knew that a while ago.. i knew that descartes descartes believed in some omnipotent being, but the point i was trying to make, while using descartes theory of realities, is that there is a margin of which something unexpected can occur. if you play with words, descartes says it is necessary for God to exist. but necessary does not mean absolute. its like saying its necessary for you to eat healthy, but it does not mean that you will eat healthy. therefore the existence of God is not absolute. so if something is not absolute, then there is a margin of non-absoluteness, in which something unexpected can happen. nevermind God, all i am trying to say is that nothing can be one hundred percent absolute. so i hope you see that what im trying to say goes beyond the original topic of God, and that you understand that since nothing can be absolute, there is a possibility, no matter how small, that God either does or does not exist. so it is unwise to say that God does exist for sure for sure. by all means this isnt something that should make you stop believing in God, do continue. but i just want to say that it is not right to claim that God exists for sure. i am most likely not gonna continue on any further if there arent any progress in this thread.. i know that you will probably still think that the existence of God is absolute no matter what i say, and i know that i will always thing that nothing can be absolute. so we have come to a stalemate.
