461 replies to this topic

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 07 December 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Now that has got to be one of the most idiotic arguments you've presented.

Why?

The only things we know are truth are those things which are impossible to doubt. It isnt impossible to doubt an evil genius who is pulling the wool over your eyes with a virtual life simulator. Therefore you cant assume its false.

Engaging in self-delusion instead of searching for truth is idotic.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 07 December 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Why?

Work it out. You've just presented an convoluted and completely unverifiable argument.

Quote

The only things we know are truth are those things which are impossible to doubt. It isnt impossible to doubt an evil genius who is pulling the wool over your eyes with a virtual life simulator. Therefore you cant assume its false.

Your half-assed logic is no reason to assume it is true either.
The premise is unsupported, may as well be arguing your brain is in a jar of human waste.

Quote

Engaging in self-delusion instead of searching for truth is idotic.

You're not searching for truth when you're pullng it out of your ass.

Edited by Rlyeh, 07 December 2012 - 01:49 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 07 December 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Work it out. You've just presented an convoluted and completely unverifiable argument.

Your half-assed logic is no reason to assume it is true either.
The premise is unsupported, may as well be arguing your brain is in a jar of human waste.

You're not searching for truth when you're pullng it out of your ass.

What is being pointed out to you is that your assumptions are flawed.

What is claimed as evidence in the above replies is not evidence at all. In the same way that my yard being covered in concrete is not evidence that grass doesnt exist your arguments are not proof that theres no God.

You are unable to contribute sound logical arguments for the non-existance of God. Why? Because there arent any. To arrive at the conclusion that God isnt real requires me to be negative. to distort, to self-delude and to rely on the same kind of flawed logic as you are doing. It isnt going to happen.

I seek the truth and I have no issues clouding my judgement unlike some.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 07 December 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

C235, on 07 December 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

Refer to the story of "Tower of Babel"

I see bible stories as works of fiction and I do not see how this answers my questions in ref to science today and in the future proving god I'll re-post them again --  You were the one who suggested that hopefully one day science will prove gods existence, so why are you  back tracking ?   ALSO  - How do you expect science to prove god ( like you one day hope ) and not observe it ?   Can you give any answers to these  that only relates to science and proof  of god ?

Quote

History has shown no progress   

Really?  Explain how? From early man  right up yo present day, please explain how you feel there has been no progress ?

Quote

In my theory science will stop not us!   

Not sure what you are saying here.. can you give a bit more on this?

Quote

  in your theory you can go as far as you please.   

TIME - Can tell us how far we can go.. It has done so far, it can continue

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 07 December 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[C235]

Beckys_Mom, on 07 December 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

You were the one who suggested that hopefully one day science will prove gods existence, so why are you  back tracking ?   ALSO  - How do you expect science to prove god ( like you one day hope ) and not observe it ?   Can you give any answers to these  that only relates to science and proof  of god ?

I have already answered these questions. Unless you want me to actually prove God exist through science.

If you can't understand what i'm saying simply leave it. I have no obligation to make you understand

Edited by C235, 07 December 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Etu Malku]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Do you honestly expect a reply?

I expect nothing

Quote

I am not someone with an IQ of 50 and most people arent. Cows not being able to jump over a building is not evidence that something doesnt exist. Its like me claiming grass doesnt exist because my yard is covered in concrete. Both are logically flawed arguments.

It certainly shows that cows can't jump over a building . . . though I'm missing your point here?
It is a sound and accepted philosophy that you cannot prove a negative. Therefore without there ever proof, there can never be any conclusion. Therefore this god can exist eternally in everyone's hopes and dreams.

Quote

For some reason (which I dont want to know) you are determined to see negative when it comes to religion and this is obvious in your post. You have distorted away, illogically rationalised and engaged in self delusion to convince yourself God isnt real (without evidence). How do you expect the same bull to wash on me?

I see the truth in religion and it is there where you will find your lack of logic, distortion of truths, delusions of the Self. I am agnostic, I admit I don't know whether a god exists or not, but based on rational thinking and the lack of evidences throughout history, I can't see there existing any such thing as a god.

As for the Bull Wash . . . he he he, I'm already getting inside your head as you read.

[Mr Right Wing]

Etu Malku, on 07 December 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

1. I expect nothing
2. It certainly shows that cows can't jump over a building . . . though I'm missing your point here?
3. It is a sound and accepted philosophy that you cannot prove a negative.
4. Therefore without there ever proof, there can never be any conclusion.
5. I see the truth in religion and it is there where you will find your lack of logic, distortion of truths, delusions of the Self.
6. I am agnostic, I admit I don't know whether a god exists or not, but based on rational thinking and the lack of evidences throughout history, I can't see there existing any such thing as a god.
7. As for the Bull Wash . . . he he he, I'm already getting inside your head as you read.

1. The reply wasnt aimed at you but thats okay lol.
2. The point is it only shows cows cant jump over buildings.
3. The argument 'I dont believe something until I've seen evidence' does not mean that something doesnt exist.
4. We can talk about the possibility of God being real and as things stand it is possible he is real.
5. Thats an assumption about me which is false. I have not arrived at the possibility of God by flawed logic, self-delusion or distortions of the true. I have arrived at the possibility of God because I'm free from such biased thinking.
6. I'm a non-dualist so my concept of God is different from yours. Maybe thats why I assert there is evidence but you think there isnt. Two different ideas over what God is.
7. I won the debate pages back but woooosh, its over your head.

[Beckys_Mom]

C235, on 07 December 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

I have already answered these questions. Unless you want me to actually prove God exist through science.

I asked, how do you expect science to prove a god and not observe it?   You cannot explain it

Quote

If you can't understand what i'm saying simply leave it. I have no obligation to make you understand   

You make offbeat statements about science stopping and not progressing, and you cannot back that up with a reason why you think so?..  I asked you to explain more, because statements like that make no sense...  I guess there is no point in you trying to talk about science and development  if you know so little and fail to explain,your previous posts show

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 07 December 2012 - 03:00 PM.

[Etu Malku]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

1. The reply wasnt aimed at you but thats okay lol.

Obviously one of us is raving mad . . . http://www.unexplain...00#entry4568806

Quote

2. The point is it only shows cows cant jump over buildings.

Then this doesn't really help your side of the discussion does it?

Quote

3. The argument 'I dont believe something until I've seen evidence' does not mean that something doesnt exist.

Agreed

Quote

4. We can talk about the possibility of God being real and as things stand it is possible he is real.

There is an overwhelming lack of rationale and logic behind the possibility of His existence

Quote

5. Thats an assumption about me which is false. I have not arrived at the possibility of God by flawed logic, self-delusion or distortions of the true. I have arrived at the possibility of God because I'm free from such biased thinking.

Ok

Quote

6. I'm a non-dualist so my concept of God is different from yours. Maybe thats why I assert there is evidence but you think there isnt. Two different ideas over what God is.

Could you elaborate on this non-dualism, because this is a dualistic universe and we ALL exist in this universe . . . probably even you! Also, please show me any of this "evidence" you keep talking about?

Quote

7. I won the debate pages back but woooosh, its over your head.

I think not . . . on both accounts.

Edited by Etu Malku, 07 December 2012 - 03:07 PM.

[C235]

Beckys_Mom, on 07 December 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

I asked, how do you expect science to prove a god and not observe it?   You cannot explain it


You make offbeat statements about science stopping and not progressing, and you cannot back that up with a reason why you think so?..  I asked you to explain more, because statements like that make no sense...  I guess there is no point in you trying to talk about science and development  if you know so little and fail to explain,your previous posts show

You ask me to Over-explain therefore I'm not interested cause this discussion is boring enough with you full of predictability & lack of understanding.

Edited by C235, 07 December 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

What is being pointed out to you is that your assumptions are flawed.

All you've shown is you can make unfalsifiable arguments, such philosophical m********ion yields nothing of substance.

Quote

What is claimed as evidence in the above replies is not evidence at all. In the same way that my yard being covered in concrete is not evidence that grass doesnt exist your arguments are not proof that theres no God.

Even your analogies are asinine.
Evidence shows the Biblical god didn't do what the authors credited him with, or gave fictional scenarios.

Edited by Rlyeh, 07 December 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Etu Malku, on 07 December 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

1. Then this doesn't really help your side of the discussion does it?
2. There is an overwhelming lack of rationale and logic behind the possibility of His existence
3. Could you elaborate on this non-dualism, because this is a dualistic universe and we ALL exist in this universe . . . probably even you! 4. Also, please show me any of this "evidence" you keep talking about?
5. I think not . . . on both accounts.

1. Except for the first comment that shows it does. Nice how you left that out.
2. Please, I could invent 101 distortions about you but that doesnt count as overwhelming evidence. It doesnt count as any evidence.
3. Neither science nor philosophy asserts the universe is dualistic.
4. Non-dualism is proven in Quantum Mechanics. Its called the wavefunction.
5. When a blind man wants to believe he has two legs he wont listen to anyone tell him any different.

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 07 December 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

All you've shown is you can make unfalsifiable arguments, such philosophical m********ion yields nothing of substance.

Even your analogies are asinine.
Evidence shows the Biblical god didn't do what the authors credited him with, or gave fictional scenarios.

You do know that in one of the books in the Bible they tell you how reality works. Would you like me to tell you about it?

[Mac E]

This is where my signature after my posts comes in handy.

[Etu Malku]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

1. Except for the first comment that shows it does. Nice how you left that out.
2. Please, I could invent 101 distortions about you but that doesnt count as overwhelming evidence. It doesnt count as any evidence.
3. Neither science nor philosophy asserts the universe is dualistic.
4. Non-dualism is proven in Quantum Mechanics. Its called the wavefunction.
5. When a blind man wants to believe he has two legs he wont listen to anyone tell him any different.

Oy Vey
Your numbering system leaves much to be desired as it isn't synced up with the original questions & answers . . . but I'll take it from here.

What are you talking about with the 101 distortions not counting as evidence?
I am simply stating that you cannot prove something does not exist because you cannot prove a negative. If god existed then it would be possible to prove He does. If he doesn't it is impossible to prove that. Understand?
Philosophy certainly does assert we are in a dualistic universe, and much of science as well. Everything has it's "anti" so to speak.
Some religious philosophy explains us coming from a Monad (non-duality) and upon reflecting upon the Self a descent into dualism and eventual material form is set into motion.
THe Hermetic axiom "As Above, So Below" has been a staple in most religious philosophy for centuries and describes our dualistic existence.

"The blind see what they want to see" Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code