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.
Except Thrill has explained why he believes God does not care. He may be wrong, but has reasons. It is the theists who make claims about God, but can not explain how they can know. Is God really immaterial? How do they know? God is objectively good. Again, how can they know this?
Except Thrill has explained why he believes God does not care. He may be wrong, but has reasons. It is the theists who make claims about God, but can not explain how they can know. Is God really immaterial? How do they know? God is objectively good. Again, how can they know this?
Except that's NOT what Thrill's doing. He's not explaining why HE doesn't think GOD cares; He's trying to explain that God doesn't care about ANYONE, and that if ANYONE believes He does, is either delusional and/or, lying...
...all because HE hasn't experienced what others have.
Except that's NOT what Thrill's doing. He's not explaining why HE doesn't think GOD cares; He's trying to explain that God doesn't care about ANYONE, and that if ANYONE believes He does, is either delusional and/or, lying...
...all because HE hasn't experienced what others have.
Not cool. Not cool at all...
because he hasn't experienced what others think they've experienced
Except that's NOT what Thrill's doing. He's not explaining why HE doesn't think GOD cares; He's trying to explain that God doesn't care about ANYONE, and that if ANYONE believes He does, is either delusional and/or, lying...
...all because HE hasn't experienced what others have.
Not cool. Not cool at all...
Except we have evidence about false experiences. We have no evidence immaterial intelligent beings existing is even possible.
That is the difference. Theists have to assert some things to escape problem with their arguments, because when we use some theists arguments on their god hypothesis, their god hypothesis also has the same problem.
So? That doesn't mean that EVERYONE who reports having an experience is reporting a false experience.
Quote:
We have no evidence immaterial intelligent beings existing is even possible.
How would one 'measure' the existence of an immaterial intelligent being in the first place?
Quote:
That is the difference. Theists have to assert some things to escape problem with their arguments, because when we use some theists arguments on their god hypothesis, their god hypothesis also has the same problem.
If it stands to reason that some people lie about their experiences, it also stands to reason that some others don't. But it doesn't necessarily mean that those who don't must succumb to some 'measurable scientific' explanation about the experience. The attempts to define the experience are often speculation rather than fact...or rather, truth.
Quote:
Irrelevant, my post was about what we have evidence for.
But in *your* case it isn't about 'having evidence'. It's about lack of 'evidence' for you that causes you to draw your conclusion(s).
Some 'neanderthal' might have looked at the moon oh...about 100,000 years ago and thought, "Man oh man, it would be so cool to go there some day!" There was no 'evidence' back then to even suggest it was a possibility of going there. His neanderthal friend might have thought he was crazy for thinking such a 'foolish' thought...even denying it would ever happen.
It's one thing to be skeptical about something. It's another matter to flat out deny, without having ALL of the facts.
And we certainly don't have ALL of the facts about God.
Quote:
List one.
YOU brought it up. YOU first...
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.