Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
67 online now:
caffeine, frako, kjsimons, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 62 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,211 Year: 22,247/19,786 Month: 810/1,834 Week: 310/500 Day: 9/64 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
Huntard
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 106 of 271 (569689)
07-23-2010 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by riVeRraT
07-23-2010 8:09 AM


Re: Name these things please
riVeRraT writes:

we all look through a telescope at M101, but is it really there? Can you prove to me that we are not in the Matrix or something?


No. Howeverm that is irrelevant. Even if we are inside the matrix, that's still the reality we know, and we still ahve to use our sense to make sense of it. Whether this is ultimately "real" or an illusion is completely irrelevant. Unless of course it can be shown to be an illusion.

Also I've been taught in these forums (don't know if it is true) that if someone theorizes something, it is not up to us to prove him wrong, it is up to him to prove himself right. (which is weird, because nothing is ever proven??)

Well, not entirely. He is asked to supply supporting evidence.

So trying to prove God doesn't exist is fruitless.

Not to mention completely impossible. Which is why I always ask to supply evidence for the existence of god.

But that is not the point. The statement implies to us, that just because something is not measurable, means it does not exist, and not part of our world. Which is an erroneous statement.

Well, how would we detect it if it leaves absolutely no indication of interaction with the world around us behind?

That is not how you prove something doesn't exist.

Well, with god it's rather impossible to prove he doesn't exist. But until an inkling of evidence can be given of his existence, I view him in the same regard as say, bigfoot or Santa Clause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 8:09 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:02 PM Huntard has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1293 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 107 of 271 (569750)
07-23-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by riVeRraT
07-22-2010 8:51 AM


Re: Name these things please
It is visible, but does it really exist?

Lets no go down the philosophical rabbit hole; the universe exists, we are in it. This is, for all intents and purposes, reality.

Other dimensions may well in fact be a super natural realm.

Not at all, never ever. You're thinking of dimensions in science fiction. In physics, extra dimensions would just mean more than the ones we currently experience. They are all around you right now.

Of course there is no starting point. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. He is everything, and in everything.

If he is everything and in everything, then he is also nothing. If everthing is god then nothing is god. It would be pointless.

Yes you have to apply faith, but God gave us the Holy Spirit which some people, including myself, claim to feel.

Well then that settles that; if you have to apply your own intuitive faith, then nothing about god is ever going to be factual.

It will be as it is now, people using words like god, supernatural, holy spirit, spiritual realms, etc., as linguistic place fillers describing absolutely nothing other than their own faith-based concepts of the god they happen to have been born into.

So if something is supernatural, and we can not currently measure it, does that mean we won't be able to one day?

The problem is, what is supernatural? As I see it used, and as humanity has used it historically, it was always just a linguistic place filler for the unknown. A solar eclipse was supernatural, volcano eruptions were supernatural, diseases were caused by supernatural forces... we could go on.

These days, none of that is considered supernatural. What's left to be considered supernatural? Two things, and coincidentally its the two areas of science that are fairly new and much work still needs to be done: origin of the first life and origin of the cosmos. But that's it, nothing else. Planets form naturally, solar systems, naturally; galaxies, naturally; all the elements, naturally; animals and plant life, naturally. People of faith simply move the goal post every time something is figured out by science, but until when? And why do that?

Or if not, like on this site, they just refuse to believe what the entire educated world understands, that we evolved and that the universe originated at the Big Bang. You've read it here, flat out, baseless denial of empirical evidence, which is sad.

To answer your question, if it is currently considered supernatural, eventually, as history has shown us, it will be explained by natural means.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by riVeRraT, posted 07-22-2010 8:51 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-23-2010 5:03 PM onifre has responded
 Message 112 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:29 PM onifre has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 108 of 271 (569751)
07-23-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by onifre
07-23-2010 4:56 PM


Re: Name these things please
RiverRat writes:

he is everything and in everything, then he is also nothing. If everthing is god then nothing is god. It would be pointless.

Furthermore if everything is God and God is omniscient, than free-will does not exist and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was correct in saying that humans would be like God (or more accurately we would be Gods).


"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 07-23-2010 4:56 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by onifre, posted 07-23-2010 5:42 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1293 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 109 of 271 (569759)
07-23-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by DevilsAdvocate
07-23-2010 5:03 PM


Re: Name these things please
Furthermore if everything is God and God is omniscient, than free-will does not exist and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was correct in saying that humans would be like God (or more accurately we would be Gods).

I've argued here before that free-will is just an illusion, so that's where my opinion lies on that. And since humans created god, we created him in our own image, and thus he is us and we are him, IMHO.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-23-2010 5:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17673
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 110 of 271 (569769)
07-23-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by riVeRraT
07-23-2010 8:09 AM


riVeRraT writes:

My argument about it all is that nothing is ever objective. It is only universally subjective. They say nothing is ever ultimately proven in science, so then how can anything ever be ultimately objective?


Objectivity isn't about ultimate proof or perfect answers. It's about looking at the object itself and trying to make observations that aren't clouded by your own subjective assumptions. Comparing your observations with other people's observations tends to cancel out the subjectivity. It comes down to:
  • "Did you see that?"
  • "Yup."
  • "Okay then."
or
  • "Did you see that?"
  • "Nope."
  • "Hmmm...."
The guy who thinks he's Napoleon might be right but chances are that isn't going to help him function in what the rest of us think is the real world.

riVeRraT writes:

The bible tells us how we should seek for God, and it is a subjective method. Also God's way of letting us test Him, is subjective also.


For what it's worth, I think "seeking God" means seeking Him in the real world, seeking ways to improve the real world and improve your interaction with the real world. I think of seeking His Almighty Spookiness in the woo-woo world as escapism.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 8:09 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:38 PM ringo has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 111 of 271 (569832)
07-23-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Huntard
07-23-2010 8:31 AM


Re: Name these things please
"Huntard" writes:


Well, how would we detect it if it leaves absolutely no indication of interaction with the world around us behind?

But it does, it is just subjective.

Also, this is another erroneous statement, because you assume we have made every type of detection equipment that we will ever make. so much for making a bigger collider, we don't need it anymore, we can detect everything that is out there already.

Thirdly, the God of the bible, says He is everything. So everything we test is God, therefor part of this world. If He exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 07-23-2010 8:31 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 5:24 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 112 of 271 (569838)
07-23-2010 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by onifre
07-23-2010 4:56 PM


Re: Name these things please
"onifire" writes:

Lets no go down the philosophical rabbit hole; the universe exists, we are in it. This is, for all intents and purposes, reality.

I don't agree oni. What is beyond our universe? We are expanding according to the science of the hour, and just what is it that we are expanding into? We can't detect it, does it exist? Does it only exist once we get there?

I sometimes even think that it is still possible we are in fact the center of the universe. Just like the science of yesteryear couldn't see that we orbit around the sun, maybe we can't see the our movement is way more complicated than first imagined, and in some kind of crazy way, everything is orbiting around us. There is no way of proving, what is our point of reference? The unknown black emptiness outside our "known universe"? I mean if space can be a curve, then why not a Spirograph? The pen is us. But instead of the pen pushing the spirograph around, the pen stays in one spot, and everything else goes around us?

Not at all, never ever. You're thinking of dimensions in science fiction. In physics, extra dimensions would just mean more than the ones we currently experience. They are all around you right now.

Then lets go to the 5th dimension.

Probably real stupid, but I once heard on a creation science program that God could exist in the 29th dimension. Don't know how they came up with that one though.

I think when we die, we go to the 4th or 5th dimension, and there is not time, or time as we know it. We can see all of time, like a line from point A to point B.

If he is everything and in everything, then he is also nothing. If everthing is god then nothing is god. It would be pointless.

Is nothing truly nothing? Or are there something smaller than quantum particles there?

Well then that settles that; if you have to apply your own intuitive faith, then nothing about god is ever going to be factual.

Yea, that's pretty much how I see it. There are miracles though, but even those, people make up other explanations, or other possibilities. It would seem that there is no objective evidence, and I think God wants it that way, since we are supposed to believe by faith. How much faith would it take to believe in God if a wall of fire came down and toasted our asses, and told us it was God? It would be a whole lot less than the way it is currently set up now.

But it still doesn't mean God doesn't exist. People die, and we don't really know if there is a spirit, or is it continues. Ghost hunters try to see ghosts, and use all sorts of equipment, but I just kind of laugh at that. It's like me using a fishing pole to see what is on mars.

You are arguing another point really, and I agree with that point. I still say the original op was an erroneous statement. If he would have said there is no objective evidence of God, I would have agreed with him.

These days, none of that is considered supernatural. What's left to be considered supernatural? Two things, and coincidentally its the two areas of science that are fairly new and much work still needs to be done: origin of the first life and origin of the cosmos. But that's it, nothing else. Planets form naturally, solar systems, naturally; galaxies, naturally; all the elements, naturally; animals and plant life, naturally. People of faith simply move the goal post every time something is figured out by science, but until when? And why do that?

People of faith should not have these goal posts. The only goal post they should have is trying to love others, because God loves them. If they are truly feeling something from God, like I think I do, then they know a greater love than they previously knew. Knowing that causes you to love more. And that is how you spread the word, and that is your only goal post as a believer. Everything else is just man being man.

Love is subjective, and not easily, or accurately tested, but we know it exists.

To answer your question, if it is currently considered supernatural, eventually, as history has shown us, it will be explained by natural means.

I'm waiting for that day. As I wait, I see a lot of mistakes along the way. And as I said, there are somethings, due to the limitations of our known world, we may never know. It may be entirely possible, that even if we live for another billion years, that we will never make it to another galaxy.

In the mean time, I don't really care how or what science thinks of it all, even though I enjoy science thoroughly. I am just so amazed by life, the universe, and everything. I always ask myself why, why did it all come about? What is the reason? Why the hell am I even thinking of that question, and how come this tree next to me isn't? Or maybe it is, who the hell knows.

But then I think to myself, if God created it all, where the hell did He come from and why? But still I feel something inside. I did not feel it always, and I used to make fun of people that claimed they did. Now I just laugh at myself. I must have conjured up a pretty complicated scenario in my head. Oh well, I don't care, I enjoy it. I play music for God, and help others, and I believe it has changed me all for the better (funny cause I didn't think I needed any serious change).

Talking with people like you, helps put what I am believing into a perspective, and has helped me define my faith over the years into what is really important. I think God sent the atheists to clear up all the BS going on round here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 07-23-2010 4:56 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by onifre, posted 07-25-2010 12:52 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 113 of 271 (569841)
07-23-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ringo
07-23-2010 6:10 PM


"Ringo" writes:

Objectivity isn't about ultimate proof or perfect answers. It's about looking at the object itself and trying to make observations that aren't clouded by your own subjective assumptions. Comparing your observations with other people's observations tends to cancel out the subjectivity.

Everyone went to a magic show. They all saw the subway car disappear right before their eyes. They all saw it, so it must have disappeared? Or did it? This is the universal subjectivity I am talking about.

I've been in a room where everybody in it felt the same thing from God. Was it objective? No.

I've done my own double blind tests (so to speak) about what people fell from God, and there is more to it, than just woo-woo.

For what it's worth, I think "seeking God" means seeking Him in the real world, seeking ways to improve the real world and improve your interaction with the real world.

I agree, sort of. For me, seeking God is trying to learn from Him, so that I can go into the real world and make it better, with the right tools. Knowing God, and asking him when I should, and when I shouldn't interfere with stuff. I fail a lot. But many times I don't, and it is just magical. To me, nothing beats getting blessed by God with something, and then using that something to help others.

This right here, is church to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ringo, posted 07-23-2010 6:10 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ringo, posted 07-24-2010 12:28 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 115 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 10:05 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17673
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 114 of 271 (569845)
07-24-2010 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by riVeRraT
07-23-2010 11:38 PM


riVeRraT writes:

Everyone went to a magic show. They all saw the subway car disappear right before their eyes. They all saw it, so it must have disappeared? Or did it? This is the universal subjectivity I am talking about.


No, that's objectivity. Nobody guaranteed that objectivity would give you the right answer. You still have to work at it to understand how that subway car disappeared.

riVeRraT writes:

I've been in a room where everybody in it felt the same thing from God. Was it objective? No.


It wasn't objective because there was no object. You can only be objective when there's something tangible to be objective about.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:38 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by riVeRraT, posted 07-27-2010 9:38 AM ringo has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31776
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 115 of 271 (569862)
07-24-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by riVeRraT
07-23-2010 11:38 PM


How do you know it was from God?
riVeRraT writes:

I've been in a room where everybody in it felt the same thing from God.

How did you test that it was from God?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:38 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1293 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 116 of 271 (570080)
07-25-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by riVeRraT
07-23-2010 11:29 PM


Re: Name these things please
What is beyond our universe?

We can all postulate questions that, while they may seem logical to ask with our limited knowledge on the subject, are completely nonsensical to ask. Humans have only experienced earth, to ask a question like, "What is beyond our universe?" is to go beyond what anyone in existence has even known about reality.

Its fun to do, but we can't take ourselves too serious when we ask these questions.

I sometimes even think that it is still possible we are in fact the center of the universe. Just like the science of yesteryear couldn't see that we orbit around the sun, maybe we can't see the our movement is way more complicated than first imagined, and in some kind of crazy way, everything is orbiting around us. There is no way of proving, what is our point of reference? The unknown black emptiness outside our "known universe"? I mean if space can be a curve, then why not a Spirograph? The pen is us. But instead of the pen pushing the spirograph around, the pen stays in one spot, and everything else goes around us?

Sure, but you and I are not in the field of cosmology, so our layman opinions are totally irrelevant. If the people in the field of study aren't asking these questions, and they know what the fuck they're talking about, why on earth would people who have absolutely no knowledge on the subject feel they can assess any of this stuff?

I can imagine all kinds of amazing things about the universe, but none of it is relevant to the actual subject of cosmology, because, I have no clue what I'm talking about. And I have no problem admitting that I know very little on the subject as compared to an actual working physicist. I am humbled by their knowledge on the subject, and await their assessment of the facts, as they, with their extensive education, see it.

Probably real stupid, but I once heard on a creation science program that God could exist in the 29th dimension. Don't know how they came up with that one though.

I think when we die, we go to the 4th or 5th dimension, and there is not time, or time as we know it. We can see all of time, like a line from point A to point B.

Sometimes we use words that we think mean something, when in fact they mean nothing.

Again, in physics and in cosmology, dimensions ONLY refer to the space in an area. Up, down, left, right...these are all dimensions expressed in geometry and used in physics. When string theorist talk about 11 dimensions they simply mean something more than the left, right, up, down dimension. Nothing like what you're thinking about. You are taking the science fiction definition of "dimension." But that's what happens sometimes, people without any understand or education on the subject come in and try to use the same lingo that scientist do, in hopes that they can sound educated (I'm not saying you're doing this, but some so called Christian scientist do). But in reality, it just makes them look like they're trying too hard to sell their nonsense to people who, sadly, don't know any better.

If he would have said there is no objective evidence of God, I would have agreed with him.

Fair enough.

Talking with people like you, helps put what I am believing into a perspective, and has helped me define my faith over the years into what is really important. I think God sent the atheists to clear up all the BS going on round here.

Lol, well you're welcome bro. I don't see anything I disagree with in what you're saying. Well, except of course for the belief in god and what you experience, but that's only cause I've never experienced it and have no belief in anything that can be described as a god. And if I did experience something, I wouldn't even know which god to attribute it to. To me, this whole business of god is just a human concept of a celestial mother-figure (even though man eventually changed the concept to a man) that cares for us and is concerned for us and our well being. It gives humans a sense that someone is there looking out for them, because life is often very hard to experience alone. I get that. I can understand that need for a mother figure who loves us and will be with us in the end. Its just to me, I don't like to fill my head with cultural myths about gods because I see no need to introduce something that I can't even understand to solve an issue that I have mentally created.

But I get why people seek god in their lives. I just don't happen to need it.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:29 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by riVeRraT, posted 07-27-2010 9:54 AM onifre has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 117 of 271 (570338)
07-27-2010 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by riVeRraT
07-23-2010 11:02 PM


Re: Name these things please
riVeRraT writes:

But it does, it is just subjective.


So, no claim of truth can ever be made about it, since truth is objective, not subjective.

Also, this is another erroneous statement, because you assume we have made every type of detection equipment that we will ever make. so much for making a bigger collider, we don't need it anymore, we can detect everything that is out there already.

Until we detect something, there is no reason to think that it's there (no, I'm not talking about physics and complicated math equations that potentially show things to be there). Do you think bigfoot exists? We never detected that either. How about pixies? Leprechauns? Why should I entertain the thought that they exist, if nothing has ever shown they do?

Thirdly, the God of the bible, says He is everything. So everything we test is God, therefor part of this world. If He exists.

Then he is also nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:02 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by riVeRraT, posted 07-27-2010 9:59 AM Huntard has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 118 of 271 (570383)
07-27-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ringo
07-24-2010 12:28 AM


"Ringo" writes:

It wasn't objective because there was no object. You can only be objective when there's something tangible to be objective about.

Tangible meaning something you can measure. So how to you measure a chill, or a feeling of love? These things exist and are not really measurable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ringo, posted 07-24-2010 12:28 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ringo, posted 07-27-2010 2:00 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 119 of 271 (570392)
07-27-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by onifre
07-25-2010 12:52 PM


Re: Name these things please
"onifire" writes:

We can all postulate questions that, while they may seem logical to ask with our limited knowledge on the subject, are completely nonsensical to ask. Humans have only experienced earth, to ask a question like, "What is beyond our universe?" is to go beyond what anyone in existence has even known about reality.

So in other words, something exists there, but we can't measure it.

Its fun to do, but we can't take ourselves too serious when we ask these questions.

true.

Sure, but you and I are not in the field of cosmology, so our layman opinions are totally irrelevant. If the people in the field of study aren't asking these questions, and they know what the fuck they're talking about, why on earth would people who have absolutely no knowledge on the subject feel they can assess any of this stuff?

Well I've been out of it for a while, and I had no formal training, I was into Amateur astronomy for years, and did help measure variable stars and such.
For years no one question if the earth went around the sun.

Again, in physics and in cosmology, dimensions ONLY refer to the space in an area. Up, down, left, right...these are all dimensions expressed in geometry and used in physics. When string theorist talk about 11 dimensions they simply mean something more than the left, right, up, down dimension. Nothing like what you're thinking about.

From wikipedia, the definition of dimension:
The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces occur in mathematics and the sciences for many reasons, frequently as configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in.

I was always under the impression that the 4th dimension involved time.

I can understand that need for a mother figure who loves us and will be with us in the end. Its just to me, I don't like to fill my head with cultural myths about gods because I see no need to introduce something that I can't even understand to solve an issue that I have mentally created.

I initially started to believe in God, because I like the words of Jesus in the bible. It made sense to me. Then I felt something more. It does give hope to think that there is more to life than just what we see. As the bible says to focus on the unseen, not the seen.

But ultimately it was more what I felt, and continue to feel to this day from what I believe to be God. It's way too many subjective evidences that give me faith. It's the miracles that I've experienced. That is what gives me a strong faith, stronger than before I felt it. It's either God, or I am crazy.

God is subjective, we all need something different from Him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by onifre, posted 07-25-2010 12:52 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 07-27-2010 1:09 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 120 of 271 (570394)
07-27-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Huntard
07-27-2010 5:24 AM


Re: Name these things please
"Huntard" writes:

So, no claim of truth can ever be made about it, since truth is objective, not subjective.

There is a subjective feeling associated with objective truth.

Do you think bigfoot exists?

I think there is a possibility, however small that is. I do not think something does not exist, just because there is no physical evidence of it. I think if you can imagine something, then the possibility of it existing.....exists.

Then he is also nothing.

Which by default, is still something.
He is not nothingness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 5:24 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 10:10 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019