WJ

Ok Koy!

What are absolutes? Why are you asking me to choose between these two concepts of existence?

Walrus

snatchbalance

WJ,

While I can only speak for myself, I don't think that anyone would disagree with you that Humans have limited capabilities. All the tools we use, logic, mathematics, etc., are just tools.

If there is some type of special reasoning that can lead someone to god, I'd like to know what it is.

If you're relieing on personnal revelation for your knowlegde of god, why not just say so. Human, logic, resoning or investigative skills can't bring us this knowledge, at least not at this stage of the game.

SB

Samhain

Answering questions with questions again? Dammit man, just answer the question outright.

These two concepts of existence cannot co-exist; there is no compromise between the two. You allow the solipsist view when it proves your point, yet negate it when the question of god(s) are concerned. Entirely bad form. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept solipsism (and god(s) are not of any concern) or you accept that the Other exists, and with the existence of the Other, it entails that scientific method and research are valid and acceptable tools to apply when questioning the existence of god(s). In what way can these two be compromised? These two theories negate each other entirely, and thus you must accept either one or the other, for accepting both is contradictory and absurd. Utilizing certain theories which negate theories which you previously state in order to try and prove a point is fallicious. Choose one or the other. Don't make arguments to play both sides against the middle. Bad form.

Theli

WJ...

It's impossible to prove the existence of a "being" that exists independent of time.
It's futile to assume the existence of a such being aslo, since it's incapable of interacting with that wich exists dependent of time, by leaving traces (evidence).

If you apply attributes/properties to that being, it can only come from your own imagination. Wich makes the being itself imaginary.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

You have to choose a topic that can be debated before it can be debated, yes?

If you choose solipsism--as you have so far done--then the debate is over since that necessarily means that only you exist and nothing else, including a god.

If you choose, however, to grant that we exist outside of your head, then we can discuss the legitimacy of applying cognitive tools such as logic and the scientific method.

So, which will it be?

Choose.

WJ

Snatch!

Yes, thanks. I believe the concept of the existence of God, whoever invented it, or however it makes its way into our 'higher levels of consciousness' is quite comprehensive in nature. To that end, of course revelation is a key source. Phenomenology and induction another, just to name a few more.

Personnally, and perhaps this touches on Bri's question, I think my exposure in the technical vocation of engineering, managing professionals, all my sports hobbies-activist, and my part-time status as a musician just to name a few more, has reinforced my initial understanding [epistemy] of a Deity [the impacts of] from way back in 79ish.

Anyway, the irony to all this philosophy is that almost every area of same, from greek ethics to logic, to ontology, to epistemology, contemporary thought, metaphysics and so forth argues about the existence of a God. It probably deserves another thread, but these deeper issues about the meaning of existence won't go away.

I think that has been the source of much legitimate concern that atheist share about religious dogma, war, and so on throughout history as I completely understand via some of the posts. As I said, another thread perhaps...

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

As always, I reiterat:

You have to choose a topic that can be debated before it can be debated, yes?

If you choose solipsism--as you have so far done--then the debate is over since that necessarily means that only you exist and nothing else, including a god.

If you choose, however, to grant that we exist outside of your head, then we can discuss the legitimacy of applying cognitive tools such as logic and the scientific method.

So, which will it be?

Choose.

WJ

Koy/Sam!

I don't know that I'm a solipsist. Have I really implyied that? I think I understand Berkeley's approach/method which somehow justified the existence of God but let me go do some research tonight in order to see if that is how I want to approach this debate with you guys about existence. My gut is that I will choose another method or approach but let me see if I have anything to offer in my personal bag of tools/experience under solipsism.

Usually for one-on-one debates it's been my experience both parties have to agree on the parameters of the so-called approach. Initially, I was thinking you were an epistemic rationalist, so I would feel more equipped or comfortable arguing against you. But I see holes in Berkely's arguments..... nevertheless give me some time I'm not sure though. Not that I don't trust you It's late here on the east coast... .

Be patient.

Wally

Takato

Ok personaly athiesim is a totally BAD idea. I do not mean to offend u but where do u think people go when they die???? Does everything just end? Impossible i would like 1 person to tell me other wise.

Samhain

I know, I know, we shouldn't feed the trolls, but I just have to on this one guys

Takato:

Personally you mean? Well, if Atheism is a bad idea for you and you alone (which is what is implied when you say "personaly"), then why are you posting your nonsense here?

As Woody Allen would say, eternal nothingness is fine if you happened to be dressed for it.

Otherwise, right? Oh, never mind. Impossible, eh? Well, I'm telling you otherwise, happy now?
Why is it so impossible, anyway? What do you think happens to your dog or your cat when they die? Why are we "special" in the realm of death just because we are "conscious"?

Here's a revelation: you suck as a salesman; I'm not buying your bullshit.