you can be objectively sure, so you have witnessed the non-existence of god? how did you observe the non existence of god? no further consideration necessary then. i tend to disagree but i cant imagine an example that will confirm this right now. by what means can you be objectively sure? what evidence is blatantly obvious? i asked something in a previous post that you have overlooked it is quite important as it is related to your basic mode of reasoning, why do you get reality and imagination confused and why are you so preoccupied with your imagination? i havent got to the point of ignoring you yet. i do recall from previous discussions with you that interactions become monotonously repetative extremely quickly. i was tired and i did sleep. although that was not what i meant. good mornig by the way!
of my imagination confirming the truth. on friday of last week i received a phone call from my cousin. she was travelling by train to the place where she will be studying next term. she is not used to the train journey and was concerned not to miss her stop. she told me she was at Prescot train station and she wanted to know, which station she should get off and how many stops that would be. at the time i was on the motorway half way though 40 mile journey. as she asked me this question, i see myself standing on the station platform in Prescot, i board the train and travel the journey at a far greater speed than is physically possible. along my imaginary journey i count of all the stops and even enjoy some of the scenery. this takes place in a matter of fractions of seconds. and i am returned to my actual journey and my phone call. "you have three stops, the third is St Helens, you will remember it when you see it........." this is my imagination confirming the truth. the above reccount of this tale is also my imagination confirming a truth; that is the imagination does confirm the truth. imagination and truth can confirm each other.
ellion: I've never witnessed it ever existing, it only take one single moment of a thing for to show it exists, and as there, has'nt been a moment, which is blatently obvious, plus all religion is based on faith not fact, so I can be objective sure it does'nt exist. I have never got reality and imagination confused, I'm quite adamant, that they are opposites, it's the religious who are preoccupied with imagination, I dont think like you, reality is objective where as imagination is subjective, you seem to be under the impression there one and the same. it would be a boring would'nt it, if we all thought the same, I believe me and you are complete opposites, when it come's to the mind, and reality.
no thats your memory and past experience of traveling that train journey, now if you had related, the journey and station, without ever reading about the trip or studying a train time table or map, or ever seeing anything regarding that journey, then that would have been your imagination, and what a feat of the fantastic that would have been.
it was not my memory, i have never travelled the journey at that speed. my imagination was aided by my previous journeys but it was an original imaginary journey if i travel it again now, with an image of audible the blue face dude, on the seat in front of me and i point out to him and converse with him about the stations and the scenery is that a memeory. i have just done exactly that, a number of times, while simultaneously writing this, now there is no actual blue faced audible dude, so my imagination is not my memory? beside, i dont need any help from you guys in organising or understanding my psychological constitution.
i feel i should reinforce my position on this becasue i am certain that you guys think you know me better than i know me and you are going to try to argue that i dont know me. so i am going to reinforce a little more how much i actually do know me and you have no idea about me or how i think. i am sat at the desk and typing i stand, mentally stand and walk down the stairs. i take my keys from the hook at the side of the front door and leave. i walk to the train station and find ten pounds i pick up the ten pounds and look at the picture of queen elizabeth. i stand at the station waitng for the train. on the platform opposite me is a notice board with timetables of the buses in the area and times of the trains between liverpool and manchester. where has the above journey taken place? physical reality? no i am still typing? in my memory? no i have never found ten pound on the way to the station. in my imagination? yes, i created the joureny, and everything i seen along that journey can be verified.
have you ever witnessed it not existing? how so? by what means are you objective sure? saying "because i have never witnessed it" doesnt demonstrate anything objective at all. correct me if i am wrong but you did bring imagination up, and it is you that keeps saying things are fantasized. i have never questioned or raised the issue of anything to be imagined or fantasized except as rhetoric to your own arguments.
I dont know you, but I know off you from your writings, regardless of you going at light speed on this train journey in your head, it was still feedback from you memory, and of course it can be verified to an extent, I'll explain, yes you can add things to a memory, Ie change the colour of something pick up a tenner that was'nt there, but it still boils down to your memory, you cant travel through your memories in real time, now can you. you'd be standing motionless while you remembered, this is why you zip through them at light speed. the above trip you went on, was imagination including your experianced memory but your memory is the bulk of the information, if you did'nt have experianced memory, your imagination, would be extremely poor. so remember if you've experianced it before, your just going through the motions again in your mind ( at hypaspeed) this is "you/your/yours" as in the general sense of the word.
that would be futile,you cant proof non-existence it obvious, as was said earlier. we are going around in circles, see above reply, it has never effected mine or anybody else senses, that how. yes possibly to correct an erroneous statement of yours.
how is it obvious? all you said was you have not witnessed it, how is that in any way objective? you haven't seen it so it does not exist? right okay! this is why we are going round in cricles because you are not forthcoming with answers. geeser, will deal with you soon, sir! good night!
Who can say? There was a time when we said lightning was God's finger, then science explained the event for us. Does that mean that the lightning is not at the command of God? Hypothetically, if science explained all the secrets of the universe. Does that mean God did not make the rules, and what we would explain in one way with great effort, God will call it child's play and show what is really going on in terms, methods, and algorithms that we do not have? (A different perspective). From our perspective, Science will be the utter destruction of the supernatural because that is its nature. To discover what was unexplained by observing it. However, this is only from our perspective. As we know, truth is a matter of perspective. A ball dropped off of a moving train moves in a parabolic fashion to the observer of the train, and a straight line from the train's perspective. Which is the truth? There is where science fails.
Religion is fabricated, science is not. There are many types of religion, there is only one method of science. Religion is a guideline, science is a rule. Thats what I call realism. Religion can co-exist with science, it already does. Just remember to be good because the devil believes in you, God doesn't. cheers
Religion in the East never tampered with science (they were the samething). Why no absolute truths? Hey, if you're thinking that God is some guy in the sky, commanding the universe, then yeah I agree with you, that God is a fantasy. However, if you believe that, your conception is muddled. No religion says that. Judeo-Christianity says that God is a "holy spirit", Hinduism has vasts explanations for what "God" is like the impersonal and personal natures (both however are unmanifest, and immaterial), Buddhists and Taoists indirectly worship God in his impersonal nature. If God is the source of creation and existence, like the scriptures say. Then that would be mean that God comes before material existence....thus God cannot be seen, because the material world eminates from God him/itself. God is pre-physical, and all-pervading. Science knows that this is VERY possible. Lots of Quantum Physicists do now. You want to see God? That's akin to a man born blind trying to imagine what color is like. The scripture isn't recent. It's sources originate from 2,000 BCE or earlier. Ofcourse men's intelligence has been DIVERTED to atheism. It's just a fact. It's funny looking at things now, because man cannot understand the philosophical scripture, he condemns them to be false, just like how Catholics could not understand some scientists, so they condemned them. According to scripture, by the end of Kali Age, over 75% of the population will be athiestic or non-religious in nature. You seem so angry.......getting insecure??? Religion is "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader" .....I could easily say science is a religion, with it's spiritual leaders being scientists...but you're right though, it's not a religion. I was wrong for saying that. I should've said the true way of life, or a way of life based on the truth. Lots of religions have truths in them. Lots of truths, in fact innumerable amount of truths.
I will answer this first and I'll get back to you on the rest , just to clarify I'm an atheist, I look forward with relish to the day religion is irradicated from the planet, man can then live in peace. and no not angry far from it, no not insecure, I am totally sure in myself and my convictions.
I strongly doubt religion can be erradicated. IMO, it would be far more sensible to substitute it with a common vision that people can relate to emotionally that isn't a blatant fantasy.
sorry I cannot agree with that, science and religion are separates, the two together would be an oxymoron. until humankind has the knowledge of everything,(and that will be never,) there can be no absolutes. well we are agreed on one thing thus far. if my conception was muddled , I dont think we would be discuss this, but then again I'll take another look in the mirror you may be right. their entitled to worship anything they wish, but none are real. all scriptures from all holy books are written by men, so hold no validity. firstly could you post up references to that statement thank you. (ie where quantum physicists have said there must be a god.) no impossible, no gods/god exist, I will never see a god in my lifetime and nor will you apart from what you dream about. but it does'nt make it relevant, could you show the source please. but not diverted, ENLIGHTENED. anything that relies on faith, has to be erroneous. this is what make it erroneous and irrational. show me one instant of this/theses truths.
ellion you said I replied you then replied with so I again replied and yet another silly question and I said (see bolded statements) and you ask the same silly question again the same question why? is reading not one of your strong points, do you find it hard to comprehend, we are going round in circles because you cant stop asking the same type of question, my answers only going to change if I have a brain injury. incidently nobody has seen it, not objectively.
