show me some evidence, evidence, and evidence

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I believe you've entirely missed what my reply was saying, concerning ''arrogance''.

The type of arrogance I was asserting was actually directed at the atheists - accepting that there are things we are unable to comprehend.

Taking the example of infinity and nothingness. These concepts we know, but I doubt we're able to fully comprehend it.

Certain things are unable to be shown - they're just known. Infinity, for example.
You know what infinity is, but you're unable to see it, or witness it.
Same with nothingness - absence of time, space and mass is a concept we can try to imagine, but not the one we could ever see.

God, whatever it may be, would fall into this category.

It is one thing to reject religion, it's rules and preaching, but entirely another to reject the existence of something such as God.
Until people learn to differentiate between the two, we will not move a step closer to not only having a dialogue about this metaphysical concept, but also coming to vague findings in regards to the possibilities of God's existence.

I'm gonna save it because it's the best explanation I've seen.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I believe you've entirely missed what my reply was saying, concerning ''arrogance''.

The type of arrogance I was asserting was actually directed at the atheists - accepting that there are things we are unable to comprehend.

Taking the example of infinity and nothingness. These concepts we know, but I doubt we're able to fully comprehend it.

Certain things are unable to be shown - they're just known. Infinity, for example.
You know what infinity is, but you're unable to see it, or witness it.
Same with nothingness - absence of time, space and mass is a concept we can try to imagine, but not the one we could ever see.

God, whatever it may be, would fall into this category.

It is one thing to reject religion, it's rules and preaching, but entirely another to reject the existence of something such as God.
Until people learn to differentiate between the two, we will not move a step closer to not only having a dialogue about this metaphysical concept, but also coming to vague findings in regards to the possibilities of God's existence.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Certain things are unable to be shown - they're just known. Infinity, for example.
You know what infinity is, but you're unable to see it, or witness it.
Same with nothingness - absence of time, space and mass is a concept we can try to imagine, but not the one we could ever see.

God, whatever it may be, would fall into this category.

Just to start with both infinity and zero can be studied, they are well defined concepts. The word God doesn't even mean anything, it varies from person to person.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is one thing to reject religion, it's rules and preaching, but entirely another to reject the existence of something such as God.
Until people learn to differentiate between the two, we will not move a step closer to not only having a dialogue about this metaphysical concept, but also coming to vague findings in regards to the possibilities of God's existence.

Carl Sagan, I think, had a good explanation of my position on this.

Alice says she has a dragon in her garage and she wants to show it to Bob. He comes over and she opens up the door. Bob complains that there's nothing there. Alice says the dragon is invisible. So he tosses some just in the air so he can see the outline. Alice says the dragon is also intangible. So he walks into the room to see if he can feel its breath. Alice explains that its fire breath produces no heat. Finally Bob asks if the dragon can talk and Alice says that it can but no one can hear it.

Now Bob has to sum up his feeling about this dragon. Can he really be called "arrogant" to conclude that there's no dragon in there? Why isn't Alice arrogant for insisting that Bob believe in the dragon when there's no good reason to do so?

He could take the position that "anything is possible but the dragon is absurdly unlikely and I have no reason to think that it does exist at all so who cares?" for philosophical reasons but there's no meaningful difference between that and "there's no dragon".

I'll posit my own dragon: There's no reason to believe this at all but responding to my post could cause the whole universe to be destroyed in the most horrific manner you can imagine. That's an infinite about of suffering for 7 billion humans, hundreds of billions of animals and an unknown number of aliens. Will you behave as the agnostic and not gamble with so many lives or are you arrogant beyond measure?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'll posit my own dragon: There's no reason to believe this at all but responding to my post could cause the whole universe to be destroyed in the most horrific manner you can imagine. That's an infinite about of suffering for 7 billion humans, hundreds of billions of animals and an unknown number of aliens. Will you behave as the agnostic and not gamble with so many lives or are you arrogant beyond measure?

Just showing off my atheistic arrogance.

Times the universe has been destroyed = 0
Times a response has been made = 1

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'll posit my own dragon: There's no reason to believe this at all but responding to my post could cause the whole universe to be destroyed in the most horrific manner you can imagine. That's an infinite about of suffering for 7 billion humans, hundreds of billions of animals and an unknown number of aliens. Will you behave as the agnostic and not gamble with so many lives or are you arrogant beyond measure?

http://www.random.org/dice/

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
He is very much in amazing shape. You're missing the point.

to any normal person this guy is in shape... so how is it subjective?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
what point would that be? 😐

to any normal person this guy is in shape... so how is it subjective?

Originally posted by menokokoro
The fact that it was said that he was "perfect" is subjective. He is not perfect, he is incredible, but not perfect. There are people stronger than him, but they might not be as fast, there are people faster than him, but maybe not as strong, agile, dexterous, lower resting heart rate, etc. But the fact is, perfection, in regards to physical condition, is subjective.

Very well put. You're smart. Seriously, I'm not kissing your ass.

You managed to do in one paragraph what I could not really do in several posts.

That's +2 respect.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very well put. You're smart. Seriously, I'm not kissing your ass.

You managed to do in one paragraph what I could not really do in several posts.

That's +2 respect.

Originally posted by menokokoro
The fact that it was said that he was "perfect" is subjective. He is not perfect, he is incredible, but not perfect. There are people stronger than him, but they might not be as fast, there are people faster than him, but maybe not as strong, agile, dexterous, lower resting heart rate, etc. But the fact is, perfection, in regards to physical condition, is subjective.

you're just picking and out of my post of what you can start an argument over...

take a look at how many times i said "great shape" over the once i said perfection but couldnt erase it... now kindly shut up 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very well put. You're smart. Seriously, I'm not kissing your ass.

You managed to do in one paragraph what I could not really do in several posts.

That's +2 respect.

you're just picking and out of my post of what you can start an argument over...

take a look at how many times i said "great shape" over the once i said perfection but couldnt erase it... now kindly shut up 🙂 & welcome to my ignore troll

You never said you regretted saying perfect. You never implied you did not stand by it. You did not give anyone any reason to assume you did not still mean it 😕

And you made a thread about asking for proof for God. If anyone sought to start an argument over, it'd be you 😛

Your ignore list must be quite the collection.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
You never said you regretted saying perfect. You never implied you did not stand by it. You did not give anyone any reason to assume you did not still mean it 😕

And you made a thread about asking for proof for God. If anyone sought to start an argument over, it'd be you 😛

Your ignore list must be quite the collection.

i dont need to say i regret. i didnt say it again. & you welcome to my ignore...🙂

and no my ignore list is just 3 retards 😆

And you made a thread about asking for proof for God. If anyone sought to start an argument over, it'd be you 😛

smh phuckin retards LOL

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
i cannot prove lee was in amazing physical condition?

LMAO clearly a picture of an out of shape man

respond in the right thread plz thank you 🙂

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
so bruce lee is not in amazing shape?

hes just being a clown

him being in amazing shape isnt subjective when i posted a picture of the guy

ok if him being in good shape is subjective what would you guys say he is

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
so bruce lee is not in amazing shape?

hes just being a clown

him being in amazing shape isnt subjective when i posted a picture of the guy

ok if him being in good shape is subjective what would you guys say he is

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
no it wasn't bruce being in amazing shape is not subjective as we all know this to be true

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
you can clearly see hes in amazing shape 😬

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
so you saying hes not in amazing

well say it in the right dam threads 😠

😬 hell even told him to talk about this in the right thread and he refused

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
i also said great shape...more so even

you're just picking and out of my post of what you can start an argument over...

take a look at how many times i said "great shape" over the once i said perfection but couldnt erase it... now kindly shut up 🙂

Originally posted by Mindship
Common sense tells me many people are not that familiar with mystical literature, or are selective with what they believe.

I'm as mystic as they get and have read lots of books on mysticism it's like you're arguing because somebody said it in a book that means there must be a link.

Originally posted by Mindship

Not me. Consistent information garnered over thousands of years and across many cultures.

Yea and I'm sure you can find racism in a lot of cultural literature doesn't mean it makes sense.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'm as mystic as they get and have read lots of books on mysticism it's like you're arguing because somebody said it in a book that means there must be a link.

Yea and I'm sure you can find racism in a lot of cultural literature doesn't mean it makes sense.

You're reaching. Stay with the ESP research. Here you do seem better informed than I.

In any event, let me put it this way:
I've always seen atheism vs theism debates in broader terms: not just whether 'God' exists, but, rather reductive-materialism vs holistic-transcendence. Simply put: is there a transcendent dimension to reality or not? Is there some aspect which physics can't and never will be able to account for? Is fundamental reality matter or consciousness? If one accepts the latter, as in ESP, then why not God? The line's been crossed, so to speak.

Originally posted by Mindship
Suddenly you're as mystic as they get? Right. How come you never referenced mysticism before? Or meditation? By contrast, you can find such references in many of my posts.

I'm pretty sure I stated that I meditated on this forum, maybe you weren't there. I dunno maybe I don't like talking about it because people tend to get all testorene amped like you're doing now.

Originally posted by Mindship

Like that sentence, or how you think it relates to or refutes, again, reliable (and in some instances, empirically verified) information from various sources derived from the common, instructional tool of attention-training. If you truly were "as mystic as they get," you'd know this. Have you ever actually meditated? Never mind, I already know your answer.

I meditate every day and have done so for years. I'm not even sure what you're talking about now, what reliable evidence that meditation makes you telepathic?

Originally posted by Mindship

You're reaching. Stay with the ESP research. Here you do seem better informed than I.

In any event, let me put it this way:
I've always seen atheism vs theism debates in broader terms: not just whether 'God' exists, but, rather reductive-materialism vs holistic-transcendence. Simply put: is there a transcendent dimension to reality or not? Is there some aspect which physics can't and never will be able to account for? Is fundamental reality matter or consciousness? If one accepts the latter, as in ESP, then why not God? The line's been crossed, so to speak.

I still don't see why ESP has to have something to do with god.

0mega Spawn, turn down the offensive language and attitude. It's not appropriate.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
0mega Spawn, turn down the offensive language and attitude. It's not appropriate.