Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:But atheists lack belief, do they not?

Seriously?

You can do better than that.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote: Free will

Of course!

Humm.... This turned out to be a lot easier than I thought.

There is no defeating you Kenny.

What self-proclaimed skeptics don't really seem to understand, is a healthy skepticism also involves being skeptic of one's skepticism. That's all I'll say. If you want to knock my questions up to "making some point" then so be it.

Self -proclaimed believers dont realize that believing also involves believing one's belief

A delusion person believes they lack a belief in something they lack a belief in.

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:But atheists lack belief, do they not?

Seriously?

You can do better than that.

I consider myself a pure skeptic of anything that has profound implications, especially things claimed to be true, but are dubious, unsubstantiated, or not obvious. So, as I'm skeptical about things that aren't obvious, my skepticism typically leads me to rigorous research into what can be known about that I am skeptical about. If my son tells me he will be home by a certain time - well, I can't tell the future, but...

There are, however, some things that one will never have all of the information available or attainable to absolutely prove something, but that the evidence of that something that IS available, which implies it is true, is nonetheless so abundant, and so comprehensively re-inforced by lots of other data, that although I may not have 100% data to prove it, and even though of the supporting data that I AM able to find out and confirm isn't perfect, what IS known and can be confirmed about it may well make that tiny percentage of unavailable data basically unreasonable to ever assume it would change what strongly appears to be true about it. And this is true of whomever a person is, of whatever they believe, because complex or difficult things do not typically allow or provide 100% data to one contemplating it. And so people believe X, Y or Z based on what they CAN know, and they typically only reserve total skepticism for things that provide such little data to examine that it is unreasonable to conclude one way or another about it. And, of course, there's always the universal battles over what is factual evidence, what is not, and what any of it means, and can anyone really know.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Of course!

Humm.... This turned out to be a lot easier than I thought.

There is no defeating you Kenny.

What self-proclaimed skeptics don't really seem to understand, is a healthy skepticism also involves being skeptic of one's skepticism. That's all I'll say. If you want to knock my questions up to "making some point" then so be it.

Self -proclaimed believers dont realize that believing also involves believing one's belief

A delusion person believes they lack a belief in something they lack a belief in.

Similar to the delusion of believing in the external existence of something
that exists only as a belief in your own head?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote: Humm.... This turned out to be a lot easier than I thought.

There is no defeating you Kenny.

What self-proclaimed skeptics don't really seem to understand, is a healthy skepticism also involves being skeptic of one's skepticism. That's all I'll say. If you want to knock my questions up to "making some point" then so be it.

Self -proclaimed believers dont realize that believing also involves believing one's belief

A delusion person believes they lack a belief in something they lack a belief in.

Similar to the delusion of believing in the external existence of something
that exists only as a belief in your own head?

Who's on first?

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: There is no defeating you Kenny.

What self-proclaimed skeptics don't really seem to understand, is a healthy skepticism also involves being skeptic of one's skepticism. That's all I'll say. If you want to knock my questions up to "making some point" then so be it.

Self -proclaimed believers dont realize that believing also involves believing one's belief

A delusion person believes they lack a belief in something they lack a belief in.

Similar to the delusion of believing in the external existence of something
that exists only as a belief in your own head?

Who's on first?

So I guess it is all settled, actions are determined, or else they are not, or some of the time partially.

Yes, Audie -- That sounds very concise.

Reminds me of this:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 57#p194157

All are free to choose from the choice they have.

crochet1949 wrote:Yes, Audie -- That sounds very concise.

It sums up all that is in the thread in a whole lot less words.

Now for something 'meaty' to discuss.

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Yes, Audie -- That sounds very concise.

It sums up all that is in the thread in a whole lot less words.

Perhaps you feel the way you do about much of the threads here, because you prefer the security of being taught what to believe Audie, that if the fuller body in society believes it you are more secure grounds. Questions like the one this thread poses, and much in philosophy, one must think through and people come to different conclusions normally based upon the philosophies they've adopted in their life. That is scary to those who like firm answers given to them.

I find it interesting, or sad, that others who like to think for themselves about questions in life, that you write such off as worthless philosophizophers or what-ever word you'd like to coin, and that is too your intellectual detriment.

Then again, Asian students often learn being told what to believe rather than thinking. I read something about China trying to change that in its education system to inspire more independent free thinking students, rather than just accepting what they're told in education as has been the trend to date. You're just meant to sit and learn whatever is dished to you without question.

In Asian culture, generally it is often not even a possibility that one question the teacher or think about other possibilities, based upon what I've read of Asians kids in Western countries with their parents. Second best is just as much losing as first, and to be first, well, you've got to learn the ropes and accept all what your taught by your teachers. This I understood from reading Amy Chua and her The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.

Now such may often lead to very bright and educated people, but sadly, one-dimensional people who don't think much for themselves except at being seen as #1 in whatever they put their minds to, such is better for some borg-like communism than some free-thinking rationally independent person the Western ideal craves.

If you're feeling here I'm poking a stick at you, then yes I am because I felt, always feel you poking yours around us who you seem to deem as some lower rung of intellectual people. Don't like it, don't start. Want to continue with gloves on, then I'll spar with you back.

I just go with the Buddhist Zen philosophy of being content with never understanding. It's the same as the chicken or the egg argument. Which is it? Who knows? Only one Being does, but he won't tell

In other words, it's sort of like that "if a tree falls in the forest" logic puzzle. It's unsolvable, but it's fun to try anyway. And yes I realize approaching philosophical discussion with my hands held high in surrender is a poor position, but I'm playing my cards right, since I don't have any high cards lol

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Yes, Audie -- That sounds very concise.

It sums up all that is in the thread in a whole lot less words.

Perhaps you feel the way you do about much of the threads here, because you prefer the security of being taught what to believe Audie, that if the fuller body in society believes it you are more secure grounds. Questions like the one this thread poses, and much in philosophy, one must think through and people come to different conclusions normally based upon the philosophies they've adopted in their life. That is scary to those who like firm answers given to them.

I find it interesting, or sad, that others who like to think for themselves about questions in life, that you write such off as worthless philosophizophers or what-ever word you'd like to coin, and that is too your intellectual detriment.

Then again, Asian students often learn being told what to believe rather than thinking. I read something about China trying to change that in its education system to inspire more independent free thinking students, rather than just accepting what they're told in education as has been the trend to date. You're just meant to sit and learn whatever is dished to you without question.

In Asian culture, generally it is often not even a possibility that one question the teacher or think about other possibilities, based upon what I've read of Asians kids in Western countries with their parents. Second best is just as much losing as first, and to be first, well, you've got to learn the ropes and accept all what your taught by your teachers. This I understood from reading Amy Chua and her The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.

Now such may often lead to very bright and educated people, but sadly, one-dimensional people who don't think much for themselves except at being seen as #1 in whatever they put their minds to, such is better for some borg-like communism than some free-thinking rationally independent person the Western ideal craves.

If you're feeling here I'm poking a stick at you, then yes I am because I felt, always feel you poking yours around us who you seem to deem as some lower rung of intellectual people. Don't like it, don't start. Want to continue with gloves on, then I'll spar with you back.

You is just pokin' a stick in your own eye, ya yabbie, getting all heavy duty psychobabblealytical
over casual kidding around. Others doing likewise await analysis.