Axeman,
You realize, that since you have decided not back up
your assertions that you have conceded this debate.
I accept
Perhaps you skimmed over it the last time, but I will repeat it for you -- "These are personal beliefs." There is no need to assert my beliefs on you or anyone else. I am merely offering you, another human-being, my own perspective on life. It is up to you if you think my beliefs are noteworthy or not -- but it is not up to me to prove them to you.
Your argument basically boils down to:
I know there is a creator.
I have no way of proving this to you, but I just KNOW.
We will know who is right after were dead.
I know there is a creator because I am here right now -- and something created me. This should be obvious to anyone. If something exists, it was created -- whatever mechanisms and actions brought about that object's creation is the creation process, or the creator.
Please explain to me how something could exist without a creation process (thus a creator event).
Your position is irrational and you have no
way of defending it. You must also accept the fact
that no rational person should accept your claim.
You can not expect them to without proper evidence.
Defend it from what? Are you going to attack my mind with a mind-ray gun and attempt to extract all my beliefs and change the very essence of my belief structure? Are little green goblins going to come out of my closet tonight and try to suck my mind out, and thus I should be on the defensive?
You are making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that what I believe is rational. The standard accepted definition of "rational" is "consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior." In mathematics, rational means "capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers."
Since any superset of the universe would exist outside the local domain of logic, rationality does not apply. Proof does not exist. This is where "faith" comes into play. I know these things because I have "felt" them. I've been around people who have died and I have "felt" something indescribable. I have had my own unique experiences that have firmly rooted in my mind that there are more things to this universe than rational explanation can define. Kids are very good at understanding this because they have no preconceived notion of what is possible and impossible. As a collective society, we restrict ourselves to very tight and rigid absolutes that sometimes prevent us from acknowledging that some things happen without explanation.
Logic and empirical observation are a good advancement to increasing our state of technology and knowledge, but it is not a bridge to "ultimate knowledge." There are transitions of pattern and knowledge within each of our own lives that cannot be put into a rational environment.
Also....
I do not think, or assume, you have a need to prove your
beliefs to me. I simply observed an illogical argument
and pointed out the errors so that others are not mislead.
First, I have said before that logic is a step, but not an end, to total "truth." Just because it is illogical does not make it impossible or force that object's existence out of this universe. Humans are a perfect example. If we, based on never-changing principles of physics, are constructed of atoms and other physical things, we demonstrate just how easily it is to be illogical. Yet, emotions, which are often illogical, serve a very important purpose for certain events. Have you ever been so happy that you cried or so sad that you laughed? There is no logic in that, yet it happens.
I believe critical thinking skills would greatly improve
our society. I enjoy showing ( at least I attempt to)
proper critical review of statements made by others
ESPECIALLY when they are making grand claims.
Critical thinking makes for faster computers, clearer TV sets and more efficient production of products within company. Critical thinking is wonderful for the advancement of many things within our life. However, critical thinking will never leave one successful in a relationship because, as humans, we possess elements of things that hint at components beyond logic and of this local set within our universe.
Most importantly, its always OK to admit that you don't know.
I have no absolute knowledge of god, the after life or the purpose of existence. I have no rational belief structure that could explain the vast diversity and order within a chaotic and constantly changing system such as the universe. What I do have is a great appreciation for a system that is well outside by ability to completely define it.
I think it is human nature to want to break things down almost to a binary level. We do this because it is convenient and makes our world simpler to digest. If we didn't do this, the vast diversity and complexity of life would probably make us go mad, so we constantly "filter" our senses and absorb those things that confirm our biases and opinions and reject those which do not solidify our views.
"Right and wrong" are two things that show the binary nature of a lot of our present thinking. Knowledge, in the empirical sense, can be considered right or wrong with some things, but, as it has been said before, there is always more than one path through a forest.
Is there a right way to assemble a product in a factory? Yes, that method would be the one that is most efficient for that factory's output. However, what if the right way, mechanically speaking, was the wrong way for employee moral? What if employees were constantly sweating and getting injured because the highest mechanical efficient way to assemble the product was considered the "right" way? Obviously, "right and wrong" aren't always so clearly defined.
It is against the law to run a red-light. The reason this is so is because, if everyone ran a red-light, there would be no order to traffic patterns and more accidents would result. This rule is based exclusively for the protection and safe travel of people who travel from point A to point B.
So, it is wrong to run a red-light, because it is not efficient in the long-run. Sure, some people will get their faster, but some people will die doing so.
Likewise, if your wife was having a baby and you needed to get to the hospital as soon as possible, would it be wrong in your local domain to run a red light? Any "rational" person would say no, of course not -- you need to get there as fast as possible.
So here is an event that is still wrong when considered in the superset of society yet it is right in your local set -- your here and now.
So, if my beliefs are "right" for me, in my local set, they may not be "right" for you, in your set. Yet, that does not change the fact that there exists a superset that is independent of both our viewpoints of the world -- when both perspectives can still be "right."
