It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Jarring
AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
Your decision to walk away and just forget everything I've written to you is your decision. I can't stop you. I'm just showing you how your basis in reasoning is flawed and how you might improve on your understanding and perhaps even find yourself in a better psychological position to appreciate the world.
forget? like i said before, I am no fool. And it is not my reasoning that is flawed. Just because you fail to understand me, does not prove I am wrong. YOU WOULD DO WELL NOT TO ATTACK ME.
I'm not attacking you. I'm demonstrating methods of establishing a more concrete basis for your position. Or a concrete basis for a more logically sound position. I'm apparently attacking you by suggesting that you test your god. You go so far out of the way to avoid putting your god on the spot. Why is that?
first of all, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
it's probably best if you avoid trying to prove God exists. Mainly because most people come to understand God personally through a series of culminating events and thoughts.
I think I can simply explain what I believe so you will understand. I can imagine ten billion scenarios where a "God" like entity is born. In all of these plausible sounding scenarios, I assume that there is at least one that has happened. If "God" can be born, then it should stand to reason that "God" must be born at some place and time in the probably infinite time and space of the universe. And basically that's the cornerstone of my faith. If it can happen, then it must have happened somewhere at sometime and it only takes One.
AfterInfinity
Jarring
AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
Your decision to walk away and just forget everything I've written to you is your decision. I can't stop you. I'm just showing you how your basis in reasoning is flawed and how you might improve on your understanding and perhaps even find yourself in a better psychological position to appreciate the world.
forget? like i said before, I am no fool. And it is not my reasoning that is flawed. Just because you fail to understand me, does not prove I am wrong. YOU WOULD DO WELL NOT TO ATTACK ME.
I'm not attacking you. I'm demonstrating methods of establishing a more concrete basis for your position. Or a concrete basis for a more logically sound position. I'm apparently attacking you by suggesting that you test your god. You go so far out of the way to avoid putting your god on the spot. Why is that?
AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
Your decision to walk away and just forget everything I've written to you is your decision. I can't stop you. I'm just showing you how your basis in reasoning is flawed and how you might improve on your understanding and perhaps even find yourself in a better psychological position to appreciate the world.
Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Jarring
first of all, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Well sure but you're not stating it as a possibility, you're stating it's objective truth. When you do that it becomes a matter of 'burden of proof', and that burden is on the one making the claim of 'truthiness'.
it's probably best if you avoid trying to prove God exists. Mainly because most people come to understand God personally through a series of culminating events and thoughts.
Let's cut to the chase.
People are either coming from a position of faith or claiming direct knowledge. So are you a prophet? Are you in direct communion with the Creator of everything?
If that's not your claim, and it's faith based, and since you don't believe 'testing god' is paramount, how would you know anything about the nature of that god? In other words, how would you know it's the God of the Christian Bible and not Shiva or Osiris? See it's never really just an argument of gods existence from the religious; so much more is being put forth as truth. You can't say 'well there is just one god and that's the god I am referring to'. You can't do that, again, unless you're claiming to be in direct communion. There is many religious gods touted as being real, and many books in their name. These religions are not just swapping the name of god, they are fundamentally in conflict. Even if your belief in god's existence is accurate how are you then discerning the correct faith. You're not….because it's faith. One might be using the Mormon faith to ultimately pay homage to Brahmā. Faith is dangerous. Beliefs should always be gripped by reason. So yes I also think you should test your faith. Not just in god's existence, but also this notion we have texts transcribing its thoughts. The later even more so since it's that aspect that is impacting our World so much…
Please note I am not attacking you any more than you were attacking me with your comment about atheists.
edit: i didn't state that it was objective truth. ie: one does not lead to the other. Most if not all people who believe in God cannot simply prove He exists. If it were that easy, it would have been settled by now, and everyone would know God.
AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
I'm attempting to analyze your stance and show you where I see flaws and you're busy screaming ''OPPRESSION!''
If being critiqued is not your cup of tea, then why exactly are you here in this thread? Are you defending the premise, arguing with it, playing referee? What's your position?
AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
edit: i didn't state that it was objective truth. ie: one does not lead to the other. Most if not all people who believe in God cannot simply prove He exists. If it were that easy, it would have been settled by now, and everyone would know God.
If it cannot be proven, why should it be worshiped?
AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
I've explained this to you. If you are unwilling to test your god, then you have nothing to go on but assumptions. You have no rational basis for your position. You have never tested him, and will never test him, which means you are just assigning value to your observations according to your own subjective understanding. It's a cycle of ignorance. I'm not attacking you, I'm explaining what I see here.
AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
When you worship, what exactly are you worshiping?