The Great Faith Debate

[NBVegita]

I do have to weigh in on some of this.

 

For Tigron's interpretation of:

 

Infinity is a mathematical concept but also a metaphysical one (if that's the right word). Many people believe that space and time are infinite, and that infinite power was required to produce the Big Bang. I for one don't think that the Big Bang required infinite energy, and therefore if there was a creator then he didn't need to be infinitely powerful. Thus infinity and God are not interchangeable.

 

Is correct.

 

You quantify his argument with a belief of yours that is not proven. You state that because you do not believe the Big Bang to require infinite energy, that God and infinity are not interchangeable? How does that prove or disprove any statement? All that does is state that in your opinion you do not believe God to be infinite.

 

Seek it yes. Deny it... how? I put it to you, how can someone ever know what the truth is? There is a great quote by a man named Xenophanes. He lived in Ancient Greece two and a half millenia ago, he said: "No human being will ever know the truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even know they had done so."

 

I do agree.

 

I agree with Tigron on the fact that it is not a belief in God that would deny science, but a manipulation of faith in religion that would do so. Isaac Newton is a great example of this.

 

Ultimately you guys are arguing the age old argument. Tigron cannot finitely prove that there is a God, but he can use many statements and situations to support it (Big Bang, Miracles, ect.). Sever cannot finitely refute the existence of God, but he can also use many statements, mainly science to support his theory.

 

With no means available today, perhaps ever, will you ever be able to prove or disprove the argument. I know that the basis of this argument is whether God is infinite or not, which no matter how you dress the pig, is the same old argument. As if God was finite, by the very definition you would be able to prove God's existence, or lack there of.

[SeVeR]

I don't need a semantic argument here because it's all interpretation. A logical one will suffice:

 

The Christian God is defined by the Church. The Bible is interpreted as God's word by the Church. Thus the Church has used God's word to hinder science. Another interpretation might have yielded results more favourable to science, but that wasn't the case. Thus, for not using an interpretation that could be properly understood by the Church, the Christian God has hindered science. If his greatest followers cannot interpret his words correctly then this is God's fault, it's especially God's fault when you realise that an omnipotent being would know the future (which he is by the Christian definition of God being infinitely powerful, and so my argument is irrefutable given your criteria and the Christian definition for an infinite God).

 

On the infinity argument you were so vague that i decided to just go on what i thought you were saying. Please tell us what you meant when you said: "And if you want me to prove to you the existence of such a being, then I ask you to first prove infinity."

 

Existence isn't finite?? Be less vague and explain what you mean.

 

That's just by definition. "God" is a title given to an almighty' date=' eternal being. Eternal is synonymous with infinite. Almight is synonymous with infinite-power.

 

If you disagree to that, then you have your own definition of "God."

 

Now, I've presented mine. You should present yours.[/quote'] You are very critical of me when you think i'm "defining God" and yet here you are doing just that. I have not defined God because a God could fit almost any criteria. However, in the first line of my first post replying to you i said: "A God is nearly always described as a being with great power and knowledge, and is usually attributed with creating the universe.".

 

Notice i use words like "nearly always" and "usually". I use these words because no one type of God is certain to exist. We go merely by what the cultures of the world have told us. This is why i define the Christian God by how Christians interpret him to be, and it would be the same for any other God.

 

It's nice to see that you think God must be eternal. What about a God means he has to be eternal? The Gods of ancient Greece died sometimes. Other Gods have died. If a God created the universe then he might have ceased to exist, or the act of creation might have destroyed him. Christians call their God eternal, so are you confusing a general definition with a cultural definition? If that's the case then why can't you grasp that the Christian God hindered the advancement of science?

 

My argument about the Big Bang was such: God doesn't need to be infinitely powerful if he hasn't demonstrated infinite acts of power in any of the claims of religion. So this "almighty and eternal" definition is not necessary for a God.

 

You're right. Truth is something that cannot be possessed. However, an understanding of the truth is attainable, and that's the point.

 

"I seek knowledge but the only knowledge i claim to possess is that gaining any more knowledge is impossible."

 

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly... Are you claiming that you're all knowing?

 

I find that knowledge has a lot more to do with awareness than it does belief. I would say "theory" is defined as justified true belief. I'd have to look into this further. I may not have fully grasped what you're saying.

An understanding of the truth is not knowledge, but like you say (and i would agree), it is wisdom to possess a great number of logical deductions from your seeking of the truth. Knowledge really is defined as justified true belief, which is why i can't claim to have any knowledge. Perhaps what i said in the last post was slightly wrong. Let me rephrase what you quoted me as saying to: I seek knowledge and the closest I've come to knowing something, from the total regression of all the unproven justifications for the beliefs i hold, is that it is impossible to know anything.

 

So this isn't something i hold to be true. Its just the closest i can get to truth in my opinion.

 

To believe that possessing knowledge is impossible is therefore the closest thing to knowledge i possess because it relies on the most observations. So i am not all-knowing. I guess you could say that i have a logical outlook on most things as a result though.

Edited February 10, 2009 by SeVeR

[»Lynx]

You've done nothing but put words in my mouth and argue a point I've never made.

 

And it wasn't a question, but a challenge of equal magnitude so that people could realize the futility of requesting for proof of God.

 

The impossibility of proving infinity isn't a matter of perspective or knowledge; it is a matter of reality. It is impossible to prove infinity by definition. It is a concept that is widely accepted in the math community without question. It is used in calculus and transfinite arithmitic. Google "Georg Cantor" and you will come across set theory which is a theory that leads to the concept of infinity of infinities! Yet, there is no proof that infinity even exists. It is simply accepted by faith. In fact, Cantor even equated the Absolute Infinite with God. And that is coming from someone who is well versed in the concept of infinity.

 

Firstly, I am not arguing any point what-so-ever. I'm simply stating that faith derives from impossibilities, and the sheer unknown. Also, that faith, and your question will present an answer that is nothing more than something which is philosophical in nature. Therefore, from that I summarised the futility of both your question, and the answers which it will receive.

 

I also don't see how I've put words in your mouth, if anything you've put words into the mouths of others. I also find your reference of Cantor equating the Absolute Infinite with God to be very manipulative to this argument. Just because his belief of the Absolute Infinite is God, doesn't make your theory any more compelling. Somebody who has studied infinity all their lives are still just as useless to this argument, as infinity has no end in any case.

 

What = Infinity

 

How = Theory of Infinity

 

Why = Philosophy to drive proof form that theory = impossibility.

 

-L

[Tigron-X]

You've done nothing but put words in my mouth and argue a point I've never made.

 

And it wasn't a question, but a challenge of equal magnitude so that people could realize the futility of requesting for proof of God.

 

The impossibility of proving infinity isn't a matter of perspective or knowledge; it is a matter of reality. It is impossible to prove infinity by definition. It is a concept that is widely accepted in the math community without question. It is used in calculus and transfinite arithmitic. Google "Georg Cantor" and you will come across set theory which is a theory that leads to the concept of infinity of infinities! Yet, there is no proof that infinity even exists. It is simply accepted by faith. In fact, Cantor even equated the Absolute Infinite with God. And that is coming from someone who is well versed in the concept of infinity.

 

Firstly, I am not arguing any point what-so-ever. I'm simply stating that faith derives from impossibilities, and the sheer unknown. Also, that faith, and your question will present an answer that is nothing more than something which is philosophical in nature. Therefore, from that I summarised the futility of both your question, and the answers which it will receive.

 

I also don't see how I've put words in your mouth, if anything you've put words into the mouths of others. I also find your reference of Cantor equating the Absolute Infinite with God to be very manipulative to this argument. Just because his belief of the Absolute Infinite is God, doesn't make your theory any more compelling. Somebody who has studied infinity all their lives are still just as useless to this argument, as infinity has no end in any case.

 

What = Infinity

 

How = Theory of Infinity

 

Why = Philosophy to drive proof form that theory = impossibility.

 

-L

 

What question did I pose? There's no question mark in my initial post. I posed a challenge.

 

Let me rephrase it for you: I conditionally accept to prove God to you upon you showing the mathematical proof for infinity.

 

I'm not saying or implying: if you can't prove infiinity, God exists. I'm not making any conclusions or arguments. I am posing a challenge.

 

You say, "First, I'm not arguing any point what-so-ever." Then you say, "I also find your reference of Cantor equating the Absolute Infinite with God to be very manipulative to this argument."

 

You're in an argument, yet you're not arguing any point what-so-over? So what are you doing?

 

Instead of accepting the challenge or not saying anything at all, you've posed an objection (which is an argument) to my challenge. And you have changed the subject matter to 'faith.' Now, why would I discuss faith with you when you haven't seriously committed to my challenge?

[NBVegita]

Actually using math you can prove the mathematical concept of infinity.

 

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

 

1. The quality or condition of being infinite.

2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.

3. An indefinitely large number or amount.

4. Mathematics The limit that a function ƒ is said to approach at x = a when ƒ(x) is larger than any preassigned number for all x sufficiently near a.

 

In fact the very concept of infinity (as we know it) is derived from math itself.

 

An asymptote an exact example of mathematical infinity.

 

In a basic Asymptote you are assuming if you take the limit of X->inf for F(x)=A that F(x), no matter how large you make the number, or small inversely, can never possibly be equal to the number A.

 

On a basic level if you start counting from 1, you never find a number you cannot count to. Thus the concept of an indefinitely large number, or quantity, or simply infinity.

[Stibbymicto]

I am Atheist.

 

 

EDIT:: lol I think this is a bad time to jump in. ^^

 

i believe in the great webgoat

All praise the webgoat.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Stibbymicto

[Bak]

Yeah veg for the win

 

I conditionally accept to prove God to you upon you showing the mathematical proof for infinity.

lim x->0 |1/x| = infinity

 

your turn!

[Stibbymicto]

Yeah veg for the win

 

I conditionally accept to prove God to you upon you showing the mathematical proof for infinity.

lim x->0 |1/x| = infinity

 

your turn!

 

 

Insert some un-provable answer from the following...

 

( A ) he is everywhere and therefore can be proved by looking around

( B ) he talks to me.

( C ) the bible says so

( D ) all of the above

 

Edited March 20, 2009 by Stibbymicto

[Bak]

I didn't really provide a proof, since I'm sure what you mean by prove infinity (what does it mean to prove a number, do you have a proof for 3?) However, I did provide a definition. Define what you mean by God.

[Tigron-X]

[Tigron-X]

I didn't really provide a proof, since I'm sure what you mean by prove infinity (what does it mean to prove a number, do you have a proof for 3?) However, I did provide a definition. Define what you mean by God.

 

 

Singularities can be found throughout nature.

 

Examples:

 

Snowflakes

Finger prints

DNA

 

I don't need to prove three; I just need to prove one.

 

 

As one cannot actually "define" God, I can only give my understanding:

 

Life, love, justice, truth...

 

Almighty, all knowing, and eternal

 

I believe the proper name is Jehova.

[Bak]

1/1 = 1

 

Try again

 

You were supposed to prove God, not 1!

 

It's impossible for me to prove a negative.

have you never done any formal proofs? You're leaning on the edge of trolling at the level of ignorance you're displaying.

 

As one cannot actually "define" God, I can only give my understanding:

 

Life, love, justice, truth...

 

Almighty, all knowing, and eternal

I believe in the first three, although I question where you get the almighty all knowing, and eternal from?

[Tigron-X]

1/1 = 1

 

Try again

 

You were supposed to prove God, not 1!

 

No sir, you were suppose to show me infinity. Then I am to show you God.

 

 

It's impossible for me to prove a negative.

have you never done any formal proofs? You're leaning on the edge of trolling at the level of ignorance you're displaying.

 

Or, I've come to the realization that I can only prove what something is, not what something is not. Simple example: Imagine a stage, and someone walks out with a lamp. He says, "This is not a squirrel." And then he goes on to point out the light bulb and how it plugs into the wall and how it emits light, etc, etc, Did he prove that it's not a squirrel? NO! He proved it to be a lamp by pointing out charcteristics that are indicative of a lamp, thus negating all other possibilities such as a squirrel. It's basic logic, not trolling.

 

I'm not required to prove a negative; I'm required to prove a positive.

 

As one cannot actually "define" God, I can only give my understanding:

 

Life, love, justice, truth...

 

Almighty, all knowing, and eternal

I believe in the first three, although I question where you get the almighty all knowing, and eternal from?

 

The Bible.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Tigron-X

[Bak]

No sir, you were suppose to show me infinity. Then I am to show you God.

What's wrong with the limit equation I had for infinity?

 

 

Did he prove that it's not a squirrel? NO! He proved it to be a lamp by pointing out charcteristics that are indicative of a lamp, thus negating all other possibilities such as a squirrel.

By "negating all other possibilities" he is proving it's not a squirrel. What do you mean when you say prove a negative?

 

 

Life, love, justice, truth...

...

The Bible.

What makes you think the Bible is true and not made up?

[SeVeR]

The paradox of placing blame on a being you don't even believe in aside...

A paradox? I'm blaming the Christian belief in God, not my belief. As an agnostic, if the Christian God exists then he is to blame for hindering scientific progress because he is defined by Christians.

 

No, the Church does not define God; scripture does.

And who wrote the scripture? Church founders perhaps? :roll:

 

The Church has manipulated society, nations, and political affairs for its own gain for centuries. In fact, it's even questionable as to who their "God" is because of their involvment in politics -- for example, the Third Reich -- not to mention all the astrological symbols throughout their dogma and churches.

The Church does this in the name of God. The Christian God in his absence is defined by the Church, and either he is to blame for the actions of his followers, or he isn't the Christian God at all.

 

You assume the Church's desire to keep people ignorant of the texts is God's desire, but you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. The Church you refer to is corrupt, and it is a political state that purports to be holy and altruistic and divine. But, it is the Harlet that is referenced in Revelations.

OK, so we are talking about different Gods here. I am talking about the Christian God and you are talking about some entity that doesn't represent Christians.

 

You have no idea who the true followers are. It's expressed in the Bible how to identify them. And it most definitely isn't by the Church. All in all, you have no idea what the Bible says.

The Bible is interpreted by every society differently. You sound like a Christian when you talk about true followers.

 

Existence isn't finite?? Be less vague and explain what you mean.

 

It's impossible for me to prove a negative.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

 

There's no reason for us to continue this conversation if we're going to talk about 2 different things.

[NBVegita]

I conditionally accept to prove God to you upon you showing the mathematical proof for infinity.

Great answer, but we both know that definition isn't absolute.

 

I very implicitly posted the absolute mathematical proof of infinity.

 

Ok, if you challenge my response, similar to those who have challenged yours, I give you the condition to prove that my mathematical definition is not absolute. Its basic logic, all you have to do is show me one case where my definition has a false conclusion.

 

He says, "This is not a squirrel." And then he goes on to point out the light bulb and how it plugs into the wall and how it emits light, etc, etc, Did he prove that it's not a squirrel? NO! He proved it to be a lamp by pointing out characteristics that are indicative of a lamp, thus negating all other possibilities such as a squirrel.

 

Actually in order for that to be true, he would have to state with/after each characteristic that those characteristic are that of a lamp, narrowing further you have to list characteristics that are singularly associated with a lamp (i.e. "All lamps have light bulbs). To do that honestly is illogical. It is much easier to simply present one case invalidating than dozens, or hundreds trying to validate.

 

In a logic proof if you were to simply state, the quotes being my statements:

 

This device is not a squirrel.

This device has a light bulb. "My generator has a light bulb"

This device plugs into a wall. "My generator plugs into a wall"

This device emits light. "My generator emits light"

Therefore: This device is my generator

 

It doesn't prove that you have a lamp. In fact it was quite simply to invalidate. I mean you can keep going with your "ect." part and listing dozens of quantifiers until you can pretty much narrow it down, assuming nothing is that singularly similar to a lamp as we know it, but that is painful. To disprove it being a squirrel simply state:

 

This device has a light bulb.

No squirrels have light bulbs.

Therefore: This device is not a squirrel.

 

That is impossible to invalidate and much more simplistic.

 

And logically it is not impossible to prove a negative.

[Tigron-X]

The paradox of placing blame on a being you don't even believe in aside...

A paradox? I'm blaming the Christian belief in God, not my belief. As an agnostic, if the Christian God exists then he is to blame for hindering scientific progress because he is defined by Christians.

 

*slaps forehead* Someone running around claiming to be Christian, i.e. Christ-like, is most likely a false prophet.

 

Luke 21:8 (New International Version)

 

He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

 

And out of the book that is recognized as the best translation:

 

Luke 21:8 (New World Translation)

He said: "Look out that you are not mislead; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, 'I am he,' and, 'The due time has approached.' Do not go after them.

 

No, the Church does not define God; scripture does.

And who wrote the scripture? Church founders perhaps? :roll:

 

Roll your eyes all you like, but try getting your facts straight before you go running your fingers across the keyboard. Because, neither the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures weren't written by "Church" founders, nor were the Christian Greek scriptures.

 

 

The Church has manipulated society, nations, and political affairs for its own gain for centuries. In fact, it's even questionable as to who their "God" is because of their involvment in politics -- for example, the Third Reich -- not to mention all the astrological symbols throughout their dogma and churches.

The Church does this in the name of God. The Christian God in his absence is defined by the Church, and either he is to blame for the actions of his followers, or he isn't the Christian God at all.

 

The so called "Church" has removed God's name from their texts. So, how could they possibly be doing anything in the name of God?

 

Whatever "God" they worship, it most certainly is not the Christian God; whose name is Jehova in English dialect. The Vatican and all its followers are Babylon the Great.

 

You assume the Church's desire to keep people ignorant of the texts is God's desire, but you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. The Church you refer to is corrupt, and it is a political state that purports to be holy and altruistic and divine. But, it is the Harlet that is referenced in Revelations.

OK, so we are talking about different Gods here. I am talking about the Christian God and you are talking about some entity that doesn't represent Christians.

 

You're definitely talking about something. And it most definitely isn't the Christian God as you have no idea who that is.

 

You have no idea who the true followers are. It's expressed in the Bible how to identify them. And it most definitely isn't by the Church. All in all, you have no idea what the Bible says.

The Bible is interpreted by every society differently. You sound like a Christian when you talk about true followers.

 

No it isn't. It's clear in what it says. That's not to say that you don't need to understand the past cultures to understand certain metaphors, but it's very clear in its message. Furthermore, Martin Luther inadvertently started the Protest-ant movement when the Church was manipulating the masses for its own gain. This is just one count of how all these different sects that you falsely claim to be Christian came about. A better label would be Christendom as it seems most are still subject to the Church, or its members follow blindly. However, the Church isn't the authority on anything, unless you give it consent. The Church kept the Bible in Latin for decades to keep the truth from people. Thanks to Martin Luther the Bible was translated into the German vernacular.

 

All in all, the truth is there for those who seek it.

 

And, for the record, I'm not Christian. I am just a simple man that has given the Bible a close look, and continue to do so.

 

And, of all the various churches and religious folk I've encountered, whom I've discussed the Bible with, of those people, Jehova's Witnesses are the only one's I've found who have given the Bible it's due diligence, and continue to do so.

[Tigron-X]

I conditionally accept to prove God to you upon you showing the mathematical proof for infinity.

Great answer, but we both know that definition isn't absolute.

 

I very implicitly posted the absolute mathematical proof of infinity.

 

Ok, if you challenge my response, similar to those who have challenged yours, I give you the condition to prove that my mathematical definition is not absolute. Its basic logic, all you have to do is show me one case where my definition has a false conclusion.

 

He says, "This is not a squirrel." And then he goes on to point out the light bulb and how it plugs into the wall and how it emits light, etc, etc, Did he prove that it's not a squirrel? NO! He proved it to be a lamp by pointing out characteristics that are indicative of a lamp, thus negating all other possibilities such as a squirrel.

 

Actually in order for that to be true, he would have to state with/after each characteristic that those characteristic are that of a lamp, narrowing further you have to list characteristics that are singularly associated with a lamp (i.e. "All lamps have light bulbs). To do that honestly is illogical. It is much easier to simply present one case invalidating than dozens, or hundreds trying to validate.

 

In a logic proof if you were to simply state, the quotes being my statements:

 

This device is not a squirrel.

This device has a light bulb. "My generator has a light bulb"

This device plugs into a wall. "My generator plugs into a wall"

This device emits light. "My generator emits light"

Therefore: This device is my generator

 

It doesn't prove that you have a lamp. In fact it was quite simply to invalidate. I mean you can keep going with your "ect." part and listing dozens of quantifiers until you can pretty much narrow it down, assuming nothing is that singularly similar to a lamp as we know it, but that is painful. To disprove it being a squirrel simply state:

 

This device has a light bulb.

No squirrels have light bulbs.

Therefore: This device is not a squirrel.

 

That is impossible to invalidate and much more simplistic.

 

And logically it is not impossible to prove a negative.

 

 

Actually, you've proven it to be a device. Thus proving a positive, and not a negative.

 

In other words, it's not a squirrel because!!! it is a device.

 

We can go at this all day. You'll constantly prove a positive.

[Tigron-X]

No sir, you were suppose to show me infinity. Then I am to show you God.

What's wrong with the limit equation I had for infinity?

 

If x =1 then 1/1 = 1; thus no infinity.

 

 

Did he prove that it's not a squirrel? NO! He proved it to be a lamp by pointing out charcteristics that are indicative of a lamp, thus negating all other possibilities such as a squirrel.

By "negating all other possibilities" he is proving it's not a squirrel. What do you mean when you say prove a negative?

 

I really don't know how to answer that question. I've sat here for a good 10 mins trying to find a way to answer that question. And all I keep thinking of is the scene from Pinnapple Express, "What do yo mean the battery is dead?"

 

All in all, why isn't it a squirrel? It's not a squirrel because such and such.

 

By no means am I stating that negative statements can't hold true. The truth of a statement is found by proving a positive.

 

 

Life, love, justice, truth...

...

The Bible.

What makes you think the Bible is true and not made up?

 

Because I haven't seen any evidence showing that the principals expressed in the Bible are false.

 

And if I take the metaphors or symbolism expressed in the Bible literally, then I'm being a fool.

[SeVeR]

So you're telling me that most Christians don't actually worship the Christian God?

[Tigron-X]

So you're telling me that most Christians don't actually worship the Christian God?

 

more or less...

 

But I'm saying more than that too. Most who claim to be Christian are actually false prophets. You arbitrarily claiming these people to be Christian as well.

 

Consider how many know the name of the Christian God.

Consider how many will name Jesus as Almighty God.

Consider how many claim to believe Jesus died for their sins, yet excercise no faith whatsoever.

Consider how many believe sinners will go to hell, and good-doers will go to heaven; or consider how many believe that non-believers will go to hell, and believers will go to heaven.

Consider how many believe in the "Holy Trinity" concept.

Consider how many believe the soul is some metaphysical thing that is immortal instead of the body you have.

Consider how many believe that when you die you go to some after life, or that you will go to purgatory.

 

And the list goes on.

 

All in all , it's the same as one buying pillsbury cake mixes and then claiming he/she is a baker. And you're buying into it.

[SeVeR]

No, God is an idea, and he is defined by whatever the current interpretation of the scripture is. Christians define their God, not scripture, because the interpretation of scripture will always change. If most Christians define their God as a spaghetti monster from Mars then they'll find a way to interpret the scripture into saying that. More realistically, the interpretation of scripture is influenced almost entirely by whatever domineering culture holds sway over the religion. In our age of Western equality we are finding the Bible interpreted to meaniing women are allowed to preach and homosexuals are allowed to live normal lives. Christians define God.

[Bak]

you were suppose to show me infinity. Then I am to show you God.

What's wrong with the limit equation I had for infinity?

If x =1 then 1/1 = 1; thus no infinity.

 

You misunderstood the equation, it was "lim x->0 |1/x| = infinity", which you interpreted as meaning "for all x, 1/x = infinity", which as you pointed out is clearly wrong. Is there a problem with the limit version in terms of defining infinity?

 

What makes you think the Bible is true and not made up?

Because I haven't seen any evidence showing that the principals expressed in the Bible are false.

For you, what would be "sufficient evidence showing that the principals expressed in the Bible are false"? What sort of evidence should I try to find in order for you to conclude the Bible isn't entirely true?

 

Additionally, this form of reasoning leads to problems, in that it would appear that you believe anything that isn't proven false. If I asked you if a teapot was orbiting Saturn, and you applied the same reasoning, you would believe it's true (assuming you don't have a powerful telescope and the time to disprove it).

 

The other point is that the larger the claim I'm making, the more evidence you should demand before you believe it. If I tell you I have $10 on my desk, you might take my word for it and believe it. If I said I have $1000 on my desk you'll probably be skeptical although if I show you a webcam feed of my desk with $1000 on it, and Vegita comes over and confirms that it's $1000 you may come to believe it. If I say that I have $1,000,000 on my desk, you'll likely require even more significant evidence before you believe it. Along the same lines, an all-knowing, all-powerful being is quite a miraculous claim, and you should demand very significant evidence before adding it to your belief set.

[»doc flabby]

i have no views on religion per say only that I hate organised religion of any kind.

 

Religion should be a personal matter.

 

You are free to believe what you want..for it is your lifes journy

 

Once you see the need to impose/inflict your views on others and to do so in an organised way...that path can only lead to conflict and suffering...

Edited March 26, 2009 by doc flabby

[Bak]

but doc, what you believe has an effect on your actions, which in turn affects other people