Again, that is arguing the invalidity of your opponent's claim. Saying 'unicorns do not exist' is its own claim - and it's indefensible - at least objectively. It's certainly a personal conviction you can hold.
You can also do basic philosophy. Here an example : Pascal's wager. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
Sure. I was just pointing out that this is an over-reach (more accurately, a conviction or belief). There's a qualitative difference between 'I don't grant the existence of X unless I see it' and 'There is no X.' 'Does the creator exist' is not a binary true/false question. The third (and only objective) answer is: 'there is not enough evidence to support the claim that there is, and no way to make a case that there (conclusively) isn't'. What we can make use of is the Null Hypothesis: 'There's no there there - until and unless there's a there there'. (Pretty sure that's paraphrased.)
Don't think you believe that, but that is reality Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, he does believe it. It is logically valid, without having to be true. 1. If there is a creator then reality (may) have a purpose. 2. If there is no creator then reality definitely does not have a purpose. He acknowledges that both statements 1 and 2 are logically valid, however he believes that the premise (the if) of statement 2 is false, therefore statement 2's conclusion is false.
Does not the bible give life the purpose To worship god so we finish up in heaven and can worship him forever? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
free will, creator, ... - - - basic concepts, definitions, axioms, ... /whatever, something like this, some order, ... / = = = Mathematicians argue and boil down to number and space. Philosophers argue and boil down to Language (definition (-s), ... ) and Human behaviour. - "grammar/math" and Eric Berne - - - - analyse/synthesise - free will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will - Hamlet Philosophy: what does 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead' say about Free Will? Hecatonicosachoron 7 years ago ... Bernard Brother 7 years ago ... = = = thing, connection
God created the world in six days. How long is a day? Inherit the Wind https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/
The Language of Logic tangible (adj.) https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=tangible intangible (adj.) https://www.etymonline.com/word/intangible#etymonline_v_9374
Do you have any evidence for this claim? A day is defined as the time it takes for on revolution of the earth.
Hi, The statement and the question were part of the debate that took place in the courtroom. Inherit the Wind (1960) Based on a real-life case in 1925, two great lawyers argue the case for and against a Tennessee science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution. IMDb
Hi, I like reading posts on that tread. I needed that film so I posted it. - - - “Better to have, and not need, than to need, and not have.” Franz Kafka " ... " (Kafka in another words) Clarence Worley (Christian Slater), True Romance, written by Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary (1993) - - - This forum helps me remember much.
That sounds a lot like non existence to me. To be honest, I couldn't imagine life without some struggle. As for purpose, well ... I'd suggest purpose is personal, but the eat, drink, and be happy thing does appeal to me. Payday Friday after working all week mindset - seems relevant to the ecclesiastical philosophy. I enjoy a well prepared meal and a nice tall glass of iced tea with lemon wedge. It doesn't hurt to add to that good company.
I doubt that there are many animals that can imagine any meaning or purpose to life other than survival. I doubt that ants in an ant-farm wonder about the meaning of their lives. They seem to do quite well when food is abundant. I think that concept holds for most species.
Being bound to the planet, which is abundant with food, resources, and life, we are those ants in that ant farm. Granted, people like to play God and perform studies, separating people from people, among other things, I guess as a behavior science study, but then the orchestrators of these studies are no less subject to the study than those they place in them. The programing we receive from tv, radio, news, education systems, etc are all part of the larger study. We don't like to see ourselves as guinea pigs or lab rats, but that doesn't negate the very real truth that we are, all if us and all across the globe, no matter our professions. So purpose is personal, an individualistic endeavor that is studied as a collective, we all have a watchful eye on each other, which can be a little unerving when you pay it much mind.
No purpose. The occurrence of life is governed by physics and the interactions physics allows between the substances Since life came into being on its own from non life substances Can you explain a purpose being present? Every single religion scenario has been made up to explain to people they, the maker uppers, are wise and you should give us money When God sees you giving his wise ones money he will take you to heaven It is called selling indulgences. Although today you don't get a scroll it's more implied Are you just doodling with your mind / circuits here? Close to moving into the matrix if you are Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#ObjePascWage That is a false argument. What choice and what reward comes from belief itself? What "current" effect does belief or non-belief in God produce? None! The reward comes after you die, regardless if you ever believed or not, no? If God exists, it makes no difference if you believe or not and the argument that you MUST believe in order to reap the reward of eternal life is a man-made assumption and is just another assumption on top of the man-made assumption that there "might" be a God who grants eternal life. And for good measure there is the argument that if god exists he can grant either eternal bliss or eternal suffering after you die. None of these possible outcomes after you die are dependent on your belief today while you are alive. Making a Pascal's wager is nothing more than a waste of time that could be spent listening to Ives "Unanswered question"
