admice

I think part of this is basis of belief. Most here (certainly me anyway) value logic, reason, empirical evidence and the scientific method and that is what we try to use to determine what we believe. Your brother and others don't use or agree with that criteria. That is their right.

I hope you'll stick around and get some more exposure to our criteria.

sir drinks-a-lot

Ah, I have a friend who try this same tactic. Human reasoning is not worth anything, logic is not worth anything, and language does not mean anything.

The only thing we can be sure of is that "God exists." Of course, the phrase "God exists" is a logical statement, made in a language that is the host of human reasoning. Without a logical framework, the statement "god exists" has no meaning or signifigance. If human reason is so problematic, why is he reasoning with you?

These kinds of arguments are, to me, a sign of desperation. If human reasoning is worthless, etc. why is he even bothering to speak? It is a self-refuting argument.

Perhaps I have misrepresented his views, or assumed they were the same as those of my friend. You should encourage him to start a thread here.

Biff the unclean

When did stupidity become a right?

admice

Good reply sir drinks a lot

Biff-they have a right to choose (at least in this country, for now)as do we. And I know I've been capable of some rather stupid things some times, haven't you? If not, come manage my life for me, would you?

beyelzu

I have little time for people who are going to argue that logic and reason are meaningless. Then they say god is the answer. Its the worst kind of theist if you ask me.

Koyaanisqatsi

Cult indoctrination is insidious.

luvluv

I think I won the pool!

Who else had 5 months?

Welcome back, Koy.

Sabine Grant

Hi Biff! Can you see the infinitly small or infinitly big? can you describe it? or is the human mind limited to describe only what it can percieve? You can certainly approach the concept of what is infinitly small.... but you will have a hard time describing it or even proving that it exists by physical evidence.

My point? that it is prudent to recognize that our minds are not equipped to describe the abstract . We can only assume and theorize on the abstract.

As we rely on our senses to establish a physical identity to what surrounds us, IMO one cannot expect the human mind to grasp any description of the physical identity and manifestation of any god. So asking for physical evidence may be senseless. Asking " how do you believe that there is a god interacting with you?"may be more productive. But of course that is only my opinion.

Oxymoron

On the contrary, we are fantastic at representing and manipulating the abstract. Do you understand the concept of "furniture" or "animal"? Have you ever seen a furniture, though?

Yes, I can describe both mathematically. Whether I can see them or not is irrelevant.

Shadowy Man

I'll further what Oxymoron says and say that if an electron is infinitely small, to which the evidence seems to point, then yes, I can both see and describe the infinitely small, because it has clear effects on me and the world around me.

At what point do we just give up on worrying about something that can't be seen or described? If it can't be sensed or even intellectually comprehended, then we'd be very hard-pressed to make the claim that it has any impact on our lives at all.