Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me.
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 6 of 94 (459013)
03-03-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
03-03-2008 8:49 AM


iano writes:
God exists for me just like everything else exists for me:
Is that not the real issue here? You appear to be saying that you believe in your god because the evidence you have been exposed to satisfies your criteria of acceptance of your god.
Who could argue with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 03-03-2008 8:49 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by iano, posted 03-03-2008 10:56 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 9 of 94 (459020)
03-03-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by iano
03-03-2008 10:56 AM


All you seem to be saying is that you are really sure that your god exists. This surety you lable 'knowing'. All well and good.
The problem I and maybe a few others have is that you cannot demonstrate what leads you to accept the evidence of reality as an indication that your god is real.
As the title of this thread indicates; the buck stops with your appraisal of evidence and your appraisal is that your god is real.
Now, for you this appraisal is appropriate (we could go into why but lets not do that). This differs with my own appraisal of evidence (again suffice it to say we apprais differently) for your god so we must conclude that we interpret the meaning of the evidence of reality differently.
I guess the only real difference is that my appraisals of reality are more likely to conform to a materialistic reality because I cannot conclude otherwise (based on me being me) and you conclude the opposite because you cannot conclude other wise (based on you being you.
As I said. Who would argue with that?
If you want to duke out whos appraisal is more accurate surley that's a different issue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by iano, posted 03-03-2008 10:56 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by iano, posted 03-03-2008 12:16 PM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024