who believes in god

[kazahana]

Look, I told you I'm done with this. I'm not going to explain to you that I BELIEVE what my senses tell me. It is my belief and I'm sure as hell not going to PROVE (a piece of information which shows that something exists or is true - my BELIEFS (that which is accepted to be true) to you any more than a THEIST would have to.

No, it's not a case of not going to, it's a case of you can't. Nor could a theist. That's my point.

oh wait, you claim that senses are faulty so that information must be faulty so it must be impossible to PROVE PROOF!!)

That's what I've been getting at since my first post! You can't prove anything. That's all I ever wanted to establish. I don't want you to prove it, I want you to admit it's impossible. Then we can (at last) move on.

I've been more than accomodating in attempting to explain my beliefs for you even when you demand "prove that reality is real." Play this game with someone who believes in God and see how quickly they tell you to "piss off."

You're the one who made an issue out of this in the first place! It's pretty obvious that you can't prove reality is real, which is what I asserted at the outset and you disputed, insisiting that you can be sure that what your senses show you is true.

You haven't been accommodating - by saying your senses and logic were absolutely true, you claimed to prove the impossible. You say you are logical, and do not take things on faith - i.e. you require a proof in order to accept something- but you cannot prove your senses' accuracy or why logic is fundamentally correct.
Therefore, since you still believe in your senses and logic, but have no evidence to explain why, you are taking them ON FAITH, whether you like it or not.

I've been trying to make you aware of that for the duration. It's not a game - it's a fundamental issue in a much more interesting argument.

 

[Fossil Records]

No, it's not a case of not going to, it's a case of you can't. Nor could a theist. That's my point.

Wow, you really are a self absorbed twit. Try to get this through your thick little skull. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THAT IS THE WAY IT IS! Just like it's your BELIEF that it isn't.

That's what I've been getting at since my first post! You can't prove anything. That's all I ever wanted to establish. I don't want you to prove it, I want you to admit it's impossible. Then we can (at last) move on.

Fine, you're right. I (and much of the world) is completely wrong! You are the all-powerful Oz. We've been living in a delusional world where the sky is blue, the grass is green, and things happen in a cause-and-effect relationship. Thank the gods that you have come to make us all see the error of our ways!

You're the one who made an issue out of this in the first place! It's pretty obvious that you can't prove reality is real, which is what I asserted at the outset and you disputed, insisiting that you can be sure that what your senses show you is true.

No, you're the one telling me how my beliefs are wrong (and that the definitions accepted around the world that are applied to language and phenomena are wrong). If you go back to the beginning of this little shindig, all I did was provide definitions. Of course, those definitions only exist in this universe - obviously not the one you're from.

You haven't been accommodating - by saying your senses and logic were absolutely true, you claimed to prove the impossible

I've been trying to make you aware of that for the duration. It's not a game - it's a fundamental issue in a much more interesting argument.

You're right, I haven't been accomodating in accepting YOUR beliefs as my own. Oh, I am so sorry. I claimed that it is my BELIEF (hello??????) that senses and logic not only were true, but HAD to be true. I never claimed to PROVE the impossible. You keep insisting that I prove YOUR beliefs.

And I said I had been accomodating in attempting to explain my beliefs. Again, you're twisting words. Which has been your whole modus operandi in this exchange.

It would be a more interesting argument if it had been a "what if" instead of a "your beliefs are wrong, sit down" conversation.

Jesus, move on. I cannot accept your beliefs as my own. Find someone else to convert.

 

[Fossil Records]

Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn that carries your soul over the rainbow when you die?

Absolutely, and I can prove it.

 

[jaimek]

Kazahana: so the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist? Do you actively deny that your soul does not pass over the rainbow when you die? How do you know? Do you have evidence to explain why, or do you have FAITH that there is no such thing?

...or is it just completely irrelevant to you and your life?

 

[kazahana]

I wish people would read the entire argument.

Kazahana: so the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist? Do you actively deny that your soul does not pass over the rainbow when you die? How do you know? Do you have evidence to explain why, or do you have FAITH that there is no such thing?

...or is it just completely irrelevant to you and your life?

I talk about probabilities. I was born with senses and logic. I can't prove they show me reality, but they're the best I've got. What I see and derive using these is the best approximation at reality I can give and so concepts I derive from these i.e. scientific concepts, are likely according to the assumption that my senses and logic are accurate.

I have explained time after time that there is probably no invisible pink unicorn, but as I take my innate senses and logic on faith I cannot rule out the possibility. From experience, my senses say it does not exist, but logically it can, since it can't be disproved.

You're right - it is irrelevant but just because an approximation is tiny, that doesn't make it a truth.

And Fossil Records I'm not converting you - you belief is just illogical. You say you adhere to logic, but either that's a lie or you take those things on faith.

Here it is spelt out once again:

1. I believe my senses show me reality.
2. I believe my logic accurately applies to reality.
3. I cannot prove my senses show me reality, nor that logic accurately applies to reality.
4. Faith is believing in something without proof.
5. I have no proof that 1 or 2 is true.
6. Therefore I believe in my senses and logic without proof.
7. Therefore I have faith in my senses and logic.

On the strength of that, if you believe in logic, you must accept that you believe in it on faith. If you are not logical, then great, but don't say you are.

That's the final time I'm spelling it out. There is no argument - you can shout as much as you want that they are your beliefs and inherently true, but the above stands logically. This isn't the same as an atheist trying to convert a theist or vice versa - this is a logical argument which has a provable outcome. You say you are logical, but you clearly aren't.



Actually, forget it. I can't be bothered with this any more - but I don't retract anything I have said. Takes too much time

Thank you everyone for the interesting debates, especially you Fossil Records and I mean that genuinely. It's a shame we couldn't see eye to eye

 

[Jax]

Alrighty then, I think this has degraded quite enough..thanks to everyone who played nice, I'm amazed it stayed civil as long as it did.