Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Think of it this way. Say you are on a jury in a trial of a person accused of murder. During the trial, evidence is brought to bare on the subject's guilt. But despite the fact that 30 cameras caught the defendent in the act from 30 different camera angles, that all the forensic evidence points to his guilt, that 50,000 people at the stadium saw the murder occur on the large screen monitor, and the defendent admits to his guilt, you are the one hold out in finding him guilty because you believe that the infinitely small probability that he may be found innocent by some unknown evidence discovered at a later date is enough to reserve judgement.
In the exact same way, the probability, based on existing evidence, that there is some intelligence guiding our every move, governing all that exists is equallly infintesimally small, and yet you hold out hope that one day some evidence will be found to confirm your unsupported suspicion to the contrary.
You wouldn't do this in any other aspect of your life, so why do it in this one instance? It simply makes no rational sense.
Of course, but it simply foolish as well as illogical, to take a particular one of a million unproven possible speculations and say that particular speculation is something we should all take seriously. This is actually the illogic based on Faith. Unfortunately it too often passes for 'common sense' thinking.
If and when something supernatural is proven to everyone's satisfaction, then I shall happily place an informed 'faith' in it. Until then, I don't, and it is logically correct that I shouldn't.
With all good conscience, I can't take any of this seriously. I wouldn't rule anything out that is beyond my limited knowledge and experience nor would I preach on something that is not my first hand experience. But I will always keep an open and objective mind, and not dwell on it either, I'm too busy for that.
We both know that nothing will ever be proved to everyone's satisfaction, that's just human nature as God intended it to be. OOOPS I probably shouldn't have said that - now noone will take me seriously. Good thing that God has a sense of humour.
No, because experience has shown me that there are better ways of making my money work for me than betting on long odds - of course its tempting to think 'I might just be lucky. the Billion to one odds might just be me.' Then I think 'billion to one', and forget it.
But even then, we know that the money is there. It is true and can be won. Even though the possibility of it coming up is millions against we have overwhelming evidence that it is a REAL possibility.
God - claims not only don't have even that same sort of reality as the million to one lottery chance, but they have a good deal of evidence that the money and the chance to win it is really not there and the whole God - claim is about as true as the Nigerian bank -details scam.
Suit yourself. Claiming logic for the illogical simply makes you appear ignorant and uneducated. If you believe you have some logic syllogism that supports your view just present it.
Please prove that it's only reasonable to believe in claims with valid logical syllogisms supporting them.
For people who live in the real world, overwhelming evidence is usually enough. But go ahead, show us that we're all wrong and we need to throw out thousands of years of scientific progress.
But logically it is trivial to show that in a conscious universe we have consciousness.
Yes, if you assume your conclusions you get to believe whatever you want. But just making stuff up like this isn't a good way to learn about reality, as others are seeing from your example.
First all of our investigations operate on less than 5% of the universe. The remaining 95+% is beyond our science. To make ANY conclusions on the basis of the less than 5% is to reverse the concept of statistical probabilities on its head.
Unless, of course, the conclusion is "it's obvious that god exists and is a universal consciousness field of dark matter and energy which created itself before it existed". Then it's sheer lunacy to even question the conclusion.
With all good conscience, I can't take any of this seriously. I wouldn't rule anything out that is beyond my limited knowledge and experience nor would I preach on something that is not my first hand experience. But I will always keep an open and objective mind, and not dwell on it either, I'm too busy for that.
We both know that nothing will ever be proved to everyone's satisfaction, that's just human nature as God intended it to be. OOOPS I probably shouldn't have said that - now noone will take me seriously. Good thing that God has a sense of humour.
BTW AREQUIPA, I do enjoy your posts
Thank you, I appreciate the comment. I try to entertain at least, where i can stop myself rambling on and boring everyone's nadgers off.
I wouldn't argue much with what you've said above except that I translate 'God' as 'the way we have evolved'.
Please prove that it's only reasonable to believe in claims with valid logical syllogisms supporting them.
For people who live in the real world, overwhelming evidence is usually enough. But go ahead, show us that we're all wrong and we need to throw out thousands of years of scientific progress.
Indeed, I really would like to see this theory of Mystic's evaluated by some real experts in the relative fields (physics and philosophy) and see whether they are stunned by the biggest breakthrough since relativity or pretty much come to the same conclusions as we have.
I don't believe in any form of religion but i accept that some people do. I don't believe in fate or luck but i do in chance and i appreciate on an intellectual level science but i acknowledge that there is a fallibility to it.
I don't think i believe in anything. It's not a matter of only following lines of logic but i don't think i can accept anything that doesn't convince me that it has a sound basis in provable fact.
The idea that if you don't believe you can't love is rubbish (not seen this on these forums especially but it is an argument that i've heard before on this subject). I'm married with children and i love them, it's a fact, not a belief. I'm aware of the feelings i have and i'm aware that the way i feel towards them has a name. I also know with a certainty that i don't hold feelings like that towards anything that could be deemed as a religion.
Never believed in the idea of a greater existential being or beings and think i'm unlikely to start now.
But I have to tell you that in all of those discoveries, nothing has ever been unambiguously demonstrated that suggests that there is anything remotely resembling paranormality or the supernatural, despite what the Sy Fy channel may advertize to the contrary.
It may not (yet) rise to the level of unambiguous, but there are a number of interesting things that suggest that our reality is simulated. These include, but are not limited to:
Wave/Particle Duality
The experimental results of the double slit experiment
Relativity
The fact that light has a "speed limit"
Quantum Tunneling
And more. And if this "reality" is in fact simulated, it means that our consciousness exist outside of it. Whether or not you want to label that "supernatural" I shall leave to your discretion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
