Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think your misreading Dan.

I think he is just basically saying that the only proof
that matters is proof that is available to everyone,
not to only one person internally.

peace


axeman



Originally posted by darkhorse



oh wait, one last thing i forgot to ask:

Dan if proof is always 'for all' or 'not at all', please explain how this situation can exist:

Two hedge fund managers of roughly equal skill, with the same basic methodogies, access to the same information sources and the same data sets, come to directly opposite conclusions regarding variable XYZ of the macroeconomic outlook.

This happens all the time.

If proof for one is proof for all as you say, how is that possible?

Why should truth be dependent on consensus? Is not truth wholly INdependent of consensus? Hmmm.

You like smart economic guys like Sowell, what say you of Sowell's mentor Milton Friedman's take:

"One man and the truth is a majority."
-Milton Friedman

p.s. lovely pictures Gekko, maybe you could get a draw program going and put a mustache and glasses on the pope, that would take your line of reasoning to the next level brudda
 



oh wait, one last thing i forgot to ask:

Dan if proof is always 'for all' or 'not at all', please explain how this situation can exist:

Two hedge fund managers of roughly equal skill, with the same basic methodogies, access to the same information sources and the same data sets, come to directly opposite conclusions regarding variable XYZ of the macroeconomic outlook.

This happens all the time.

If proof for one is proof for all as you say, how is that possible?


then it's not PROOF is it!!

both managers have EVIDENCE for their views...evidence which has to weighed and a judgement reached (or not)...but the final result very well may not constitute PROOF........it will be OPINION.

SIMPLE!

Why should truth be dependent on consensus? Is not truth wholly INdependent of consensus? Hmmm.

of course truth is not dependant on consensus...
as i said, proof is proof for all or it's not proof at all..

of course, that means there are VERY FEW instances of PROOF...but very many instances of OPINION!

that in no way helps the theist....it is still your duty to provide EVIDENCE...which we will CONSIDER....and form a JUDGEMENT (OPINION)..

if you came up with something like a mathematical formula that could be PROVEN...then it would be PROOF!



You like smart economic guys like Sowell, what say you of Sowell's mentor Milton Friedman's take:
"One man and the truth is a majority."
-Milton Friedman


if such a man has the "truth" then he needs to prove it...if he wants others to accept it as truth...

like i said, there are very few absolute truths in the world...and they are only absolutely true for as long as no contradicting evidence is put forth..

the point is..humans don't need conclusive proof to successfully operate in the world..but we do need to reach sound, logical, rational judgements...these require evidence...it is a very simple process, i'm not sure why it is lost on you..
 
Coming from someone who has failed miserably
in trying to defend his position, that is pretty funny.

Hacks? What a hypocrite. We are still waiting
for one teeny weeny shred of a defense
out of you.

You have delivered nothing but excuses. That is clear.
If anyone deserves the title of hack, it most
certainly is you.


Be like Einstein and PUBLISH your brilliant proof of god
for review.


peace


axeman



Originally posted by darkhorse



man please, i'm just tired of arguin' with hacks

I gots a serious case of the giggles if that's what u mean

faster u crack me up....guitar solo...u gotta fight....

yer pops caught you skippin' church he said no way...

that hypocrite skips every sun-day.....

LOL
 
Originally posted by daniel_m
it is a very simple process, i'm not sure why it is lost on you..


What you said is not lost on me at all, mainly because what you just said is basically tangential to what I asked you....the amazing thing is you really, truly don't get what I'm saying. Just like you completely missed Milton Friedman's deeper point.

It's not just that you disagree with me as much as you are literally not understanding me correctly.

fight....for yer right....
 
Originally posted by daniel_m


Nitro,

that was my post you were replying to, not axe's.

I'm not sure exactly what point you were trying to make with the above post. I agree with most of what you said, there is just one little thing I'd like to point out.

This "GOD" you believe in...you are agreeing that you cannot define him? You say that the only reason you believe that some kind of god exists is because you "marvel at the unbelievable beauty and subtlety of the universe"?

firstly, is the majesty of the universe sufficient reason for us to assume that there is some kind of god out there? I don't think so.

Secondly, if you agree that you cannot define your god, then don't you understand that you are maintaining a completely irrational position? To believe in something you can't define is akin to believing in nothing in particular..

This isn't really meant to be an attack, nitro, i just want to point out to you the nature of your beliefs.
I do not think that it is a good "reason" for anything for you to believe one thing or another - it is a personal belief and I do not impose it on anyone.

Maintaining an irrational decision? I did not DECIDE it - it is simply the way I _FEEL_. However, that feeling was arrived at by completely rational means. If tomorrow someone comes along and shows how all these "things" fit together and how one follows the other, etc., I will be the first one cheering - and at the same time, I will realize that there may be less room in my being for GOD. I have no problem with that.

That said, if we achive that kind of understanding in 1,000,000 years from now, I will be astonished.

nitro
 
Well, actually i don't even agree with what Friedman said in that case. There's not even a deeper point there...it's just dumb.
If a man can't prove what he believes...or at the VERY LEAST offer evidence for it...then it doesn't qualify as truth.

Just because i'm a Sowell/Friedman/Chicago School fan, doesn't mean I agree with everything they say. Don't try appeals to authority with me dude.

I think your life would be made a whole simpler if you lived by these words of George Santayana:

"Believe, certainly; we cannot help believing; but believe rationally, holding what seems certain for certain, what seems probable for probable, what seems desirable for desirable, and what seems false for false."

To that I would add "holding what seems like evasive darkhorse bs for evasive darkhorse bs".

Come on dark, ante up. Do what axe is asking. Submit your evidence for the existance of god for honest peer review and we'll tell you what we think. Doesn't get any easier than that.
 
Originally posted by FasterPussycat
DARK WHY CAN'T YOU FACE IT.....

DEATH MEANS 1 THING AND 1 THING ONLY........

DARK-NESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




i respect your posts faster, at least you aren't demanding enlightenment for 5 cents. maybe i will publish my thoughts in book form guys, but i might need a few years first is that ok? einstein had a little time if i recall.

u know the ironic thing is faster ol' pal, that darkness thing will probably end up being on the money....except you'll be awake. if there's a party, it will be a party of one. darkness and Loneliness.

hell is basically the answer to a request. all his life man says 'hey God leave me alone!' at the end of his life God says 'u got it pal.'

no hot pokers, no demons, no chicks- just kicking back with your righteous self, no form, nothing but your thoughts- and the 'darkness' you so look forward to.

and now i have gone waaay over my allotted time.

arrivederci
 
Originally posted by nitro



Maintaining an irrational decision? I did not DECIDE it - it is simply the way I _FEEL_. However, that feeling was arrived at by completely rational means.

So in other words you based your belief on your emotions (on how YOU FEEL). That is precisely the definition of irrational - based not on reason, but on feelings.

Fine, it's your life. If you have no problem being irrational it's fine with me. As long as you understand it.
 
Originally posted by daniel_m
Well, actually i don't even agree with what Friedman said in that case. There's not even a deeper point there...it's just dumb.
If a man can't prove what he believes...or at the VERY LEAST offer evidence for it...then it doesn't qualify as truth.



LOL

You...are...still....missing....the....point!

You...are...not...even...addressing...the....idea...he...was...trying...to...convey!

Can...I...speak...any...more....slowly!

You don't know why he said it, and you are filling in all kinds of false assumptions of the very kind I spoke of as being dangerous in the 'nonsense post' that started this off this afternoon! Garbage in, garbage out!

Nanu nanu pal

\ over and out
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top