The gig is up.

i did. i have proof. it's for me. get your own if you want it, but some human being isn't going to hand it to you. it's not ours to give.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What total bullshit. I don't give my mother a gift on mothers day because I know beyond all doubt that she is my biological mother. I give her a gift because she has performed that role for as long as I can remember.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What! I call upon my knowledge and the knowledge I can access, to say religion brings no proof to the discussion.
Do you even know the difference between belief and knowledge.

Belief : confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
Knowledge : acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.

With religious beliefs you can not possibly have any knowledge to confirm your beliefs, it is merely wishful thinking. But the question is why!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you are not making sense.
A discussion (of sorts ... even if its just a mad stampede to some sort of conclusion in the complete absence of coherent thinking) of philosophy has well and truly already begun before one begins a discussion on what has (or hasn't) a solid basis.

No you don't understand.

If you don't have a framework for "reality (aka philosophy) there is no question of proof or truth

Probably because your beliefs on what constitutes truth and proof (like say a heavy bias in empiricism within reductionist disciplines) inhibit your comprehension

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Did you make a typo there or did you actually mean to say one can't use philosophy to ascertain a truth?

 

Individualistic, solipsistic, claptrap delusion. Case in point.

You belief is not within the sphere of science, so why argue or seek to prove its relevance on a science forum?

 

and there you have it son

the only way you can say that one can not possibly have any knowledge to back up religious claims is if you are deeply dyed by belief.

IOW you have a slanted view of what constitutes "rigorous proof" and simply let whatever stands outside your aperture (or probably more accurately, apathy) of perception fall by the way side.

 

tsk tsk
Such is the misfortune of people willing to attribute roles to others without a core of scientific evidence to back up their claims

 

Physics is the non-delusionals' framework for reality. Philosophy is just the exploration of ideas, and the presentation of said ideas within debate/theory. For a philosophical idea to be accepted into the proven framework of reality it needs to be proved.

I repeat: If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
(No one has the balls or brains to take this on? Present your proof, individualistic or otherwise).

 

Up for review by who?
Janitors?

 

Rav doesn't need to offer proof. He could get a genetic test to silence you. He could post images of his childhood from birth. He could offer testimony of his Father and other loved ones to back up his claim. But the fact is he can offer this proof. You offer nothing.

However his mother is not the subject of this thread. Your unfounded belief is. PROVE IT.

 

Trolling and seeking to derail the thread. Answer the OP:

If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

 

the more you try to justify your perspective, the more it becomes apparent you are airing your beliefs

You are simply uninformed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics

If you take "proof" as synonymous with the language of quarks, neutrinos and electrons, you haven't even got proof that the woman who claims to be your mother is making a claim that is not delusional.

IOW your prerequisites for proof are so absurdly small and narrow that you have already painted yourself in a corner of delusion.
:shrug:

 

I take it you are a bit worried that specialized claims are reviewed by specialized persons, yes?

 

Stop screwing around lightgigantic. Would you not give your mother a gift on mothers day (if that was your tradition) even in the absence of scientific evidence that she was in fact your mother, simply because she had done all the things for you that a mother typically does for a child? The gift is supposed to be a recognition of her contribution to your development, not a prize for being who she claims to be.

 

Thats the point though isn't it.

he hasn't.

Yet he is satisfied to be deluded

Typical of the deluded to be satisfied with anecdotal evidence

Hmmpphh.

Appeal to authority ... another key sign of the weakness of the deluded

the fact is that he offers nothing in the language of quarks and electrons, so according to your standard of physics being the language of reality, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

the point is that if we universally apply your (completely arbitrary) requirements for proof we are left with an idiotic world view

 

If you are not worried about assigning roles to others in the complete absence of the language of physics it simply proves that you have a wider array of ontological tools than what Universal distress is advocating.

In fact I think persons who don't have such skills are prime candidates for the loony bin.
Would you agree?

 

You said:

This is all I am responding to.

I said:

Are you not going to answer the question?

 

i'm not arguing or seeking to prove it's relevance on a forum. you asked a question and i answered it.

listen, there is no "sphere of science" ok? there's stuff that's happening, and there's a bunch of scientists who can't keep up with it all. that's it.

i don't need a fucking scientist to tell me what's happened to me, and i think it's kind of pathetic that you do. this isn't an experiment ok? this is my life. and there hasn't been a scientist following me around since the day i was born examining me and all i go through, but i've been there, and i know. and if you don't know, then too fucking bad. you're not looking in the right place. :shrug:

 

UD,

What exactly do you want proof of?

What do you want proof of?

Proof of what?
God?
If I could give to myself and others, God, I wouldn't be theist.
So again, proof of what exactly?

I don't need to justify my belief, neither do you, unless actions by me, which affect you in a
negative way, are based totally, on what I believe.
You really should ask people who affect you in this way, for justification. Not people who don't.

What does science have to do with God?
How thousands of years ago people knew the earth was a sphere, and that it was part of solar system within a giant body called the universe.
Isn't that discovery far more interesting.
Who knows, you may be able to understand belief in God, a little better.
But of course your enquirey would have to be genuine, not just trying to catch people out, or back them up into a corner because you
are only interested in your rules of the game of acquiring knowledge.

So again I ask. What exactly do you want me to prove to you?
I can't show God to you, so let's rule that one out.
Simple question, please offer an answer.　

jan.

 

And I answered it by suggesting it all depends whether one has recourse to tools other than the language of physics in order to define "reality".
And I further suggested that persons who don't have such a wide array tend to be in loony bins or socially retarded.

I also asked which side of the fence do you sit on.