25 Nov 05
Originally posted by DarfiusDoes that mean that you will now be able to give me proof of gods existence as you once stated you could, before then changing your mind ?
Studying and debating elsewhere.
I came here as a Christian babe and was often getting frustrated and being made to doubt because I had no answers at times.
That's all changed.
Thanks for asking.
25 Nov 05
Originally posted by vistesdYou seem to be implying that I advocate a cold, sterile, remorseless type of austere logic and intellect, devoid of any emotion or passion. This is far from the truth. There is plenty of room for passion, aesthetics, metaphor and mythmaking without having to resort to the supernatural. There are many myths that societies indulge in that are not in any way religious in nature. In the U.S. there is a certain mythology surrounding the founding fathers, for example. It becomes very difficult at times to penetrate that mythology and discern what the truth actually is. All cultures partake in this sort of mythmaking and I do not necessarily begrudge them that habit. What I do object to is weaving supernatural explanations into this process and using it to explain unknown phenomena. They always raise at least as many questions as they answer. One should never cease to engage in speculation, but one should be very wary in thinking they've found the answer. i would have no problem with people engaging in religious speculation as long as they always kept in mind that it was nothing more than speculation and not the absoute truth.
I think the theistic (as well as the non-theistic/monistic) religions have given us some deeply-wrought and aesthetically rich insights into the human condition in some of their myths and metaphors. I tend to think that human beings make meaning for their lives at least as much as they discover meaning for their lives, and that such ventures of meani ...[text shortened]... esponse to the question posed at the beginning of the thread—I have to rec your post. Well put.
25 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThanks for the link; I was not aware of this scientific proof of Darfius' article.
Of course there are, as any knowledgable Scientologist will tell you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_thetans
In Scientology doctrine, body thetans or BTs are the ghosts of the victims of a genocide perpetrated 75 million years ago by Xenu. Having lost their individual identities, BTs are believed to attach themselves to and identify with humans, becoming part of their "reactive minds".
Is this what you were referring to, Darfius?
25 Nov 05
Originally posted by Jay PeateaProof is subjective outside of mathematics. I did and still can (though it is much more refined) give ample evidence of God's existence.
Does that mean that you will now be able to give me proof of gods existence as you once stated you could, before then changing your mind ?
25 Nov 05
Originally posted by rwingettHe's got you pegged; you're a cold fish, remorseless and pitiless.
You seem to be implying that I advocate a cold, sterile, remorseless type of austere logic and intellect, devoid of any emotion or passion. This is far from the truth. There is plenty of room for passion, aesthetics, metaphor and mythmaking without having to resort to the supernatural. There are many myths that societies indulge in that are not in any way r ...[text shortened]... as they always kept in mind that it was nothing more than speculation and not the absoute truth.
26 Nov 05
Originally posted by DarfiusNo, it's not. If the evidence is such as to make some proposition 99% probable, then it is an objective matter that the proposition is very likely to be true. What is subjective is the extent to which the evidence for a proposition is persuasive to an audience, but just because the evidence for a proposition cannot establish the certainty of that proposition, it does not follow that the evidence itself, or the extent to which it makes likely a proposition, is subjective.
Proof is subjective outside of mathematics.
26 Nov 05
2 edits
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. ( proof at dictionary.com )
"Very likely to be true" is not the same as "is true". Proof is the state of being compelled to believe something "is true". Hence proof is subjective. If we both see a dead body with a gun next to it, that may be proof enough to someone that the person killed himself. To another, it may not be.