Why does God allow...

[DemZad]

Quote from Free Thinker:

bs

"There is no reason to examine the question of whether there's a god or not until there's a reason to postulate one." - dloubet

And yet police departments in America and all over the world routinely consult psychics:

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/01/illinois_police_consult_with_p.php

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7847202.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...-police-admit-they-are-consulting-psychics.do

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553119/Portuguese-police-consult-clairvoyants.html

There must be something to it. My advice would be to keep an open mind...free thinker.

Also, the reason one might postulate the existence of God is to know what happens after mortal death. You never responded to my take on the law of conservation of energy so let me postulate again that it proves existence beyond death. Your argument against?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

substitute "feelings" for faith.


If “faith” is a prerequisite in a belief in order to see the truth of the belief, being if there were evidence there would be no need for “faith” in any particular belief.
All supernatural beliefs require “faith” in its truth, being there is no evidence proving any particular belief.
So it must be the “faith” itself that dictates what is true.
Therefore every one of the worlds religions are true, being they all rely on the “faith” of the believer to see its truth. -Unknown

This is good, but still relies on your definitions of "truth" and "evidence". I still say those concepts are arbitrary.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Ricter:

"Nothing more than", you understand where you get that attitude, right? It comes from your feeling that you already know what can be true, ie. you've made up your mind in advance.

you seem to think that feelings are a reliable substitute for evidence based science.
punch in alternative cancer cure in google. you will get over 2.5 million hits. somebody "feels" that every quack cure is real. we know that virtually all are worthless. how do you propose we separate the incorrect "feelings" for the onces that may have merit? do we come up with a "feelings" test?

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from DAS Trader:

And yet police departments in America and all over the world routinely consult psychics:

Also, the reason one might postulate the existence of God is to know what happens after mortal death. You never responded to my take on the law of conservation of energy so let me postulate again that it proves existence beyond death. Your argument against?

come on. get real. every psychic has been debunked under examination.


i dont have a problem with the concept of existence beyond death. but it has nothing to do with anything supernatural.


One of the most rudimentary laws of physics is that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. Since we're all composed of matter and energy, would that scientific principle lend credibility to a belief in eternal life? In an extremely esoteric sense, yes it does; but not in the Christian sense that your "soul" will live forever in Heaven or Hell. It's quite accurate to say that the atoms composing your body will survive your death and may someday be incorporated into other lifeforms or inanimate objects. In THAT sense, you might live forever. But when most people use the phrase 'eternal life, " they generally mean "eternal consciousness" - i.e., that your current 'self' or 'ego' or "soul" will exist forever intact and will be conscious of its existence. Such a belief is in no way bolstered by the law of conservation of mass-energy.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

you seem to think that feelings are a reliable

"Reliable" is a related word for true, or evidence.

Edit: the rest of your thought goes back to what I've been saying all along, the scientific worldview can only claim to be the most practical (we get to define that too, by the way, so watch out, it's not settled yet), not the most true.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from Free Thinker:

come on. get real. every psychic has been debunked under examination.

You can prove this?

Quote from Free Thinker:

i dont have a problem with the concept of existence beyond death. but it has nothing to do with anything supernatural.

So you believe there is potentially existence beyond death. That is a very curious stand for an avowed atheist (unless I misunderstand your leanings).

Quote from Free Thinker:

One of the most rudimentary laws of physics is that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. Since we're all composed of matter and energy, would that scientific principle lend credibility to a belief in eternal life? In an extremely esoteric sense, yes it does; but not in the Christian sense that your "soul" will live forever in Heaven or Hell. It's quite accurate to say that the atoms composing your body will survive your death and may someday be incorporated into other lifeforms or inanimate objects. In THAT sense, you might live forever. But when most people use the phrase 'eternal life, " they generally mean "eternal consciousness" - i.e., that your current 'self' or 'ego' or "soul" will exist forever intact and will be conscious of its existence. Such a belief is in no way bolstered by the law of conservation of mass-energy.

I do not consider myself a "Christian", nor do I believe in heaven or hell. Now, let's explore consciousness shall we, where is the human consciousness located?

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from DAS Trader:

You can prove this?




So you believe there is potentially existence beyond death. That is a very curious stand for an avowed atheist (unless I misunderstand your leanings).




I do not consider myself a "Christian", as you may have noticed. Now, let's explore consciousness shall we, where is the human consciousness located?

do we have to go over the same old pratts?

 

[DemZad]

Quote from Free Thinker:

do we have to go over the same old pratts?

Have you and I already had this conversation?

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Ricter:

"Reliable" is a related word for true, or evidence.

Edit: the rest of your thought goes back to what I've been saying all along, the scientific worldview can only claim to be the most practical (we get to define that too, by the way, so watch out, it's not settled yet), not the most true.

science cant concern itself with the millions of superstious feelings in the world. it is only concerned with using reason to determine truth.
if i gave you an assignment to determine which" feeling" is true how would you do it?

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from DAS Trader:

Have you and I already had this conversation?

you are digging up crap that most creationists have long since abandoned. at least come up with something original. come up with something more that "pratts". POINTS REFUTED A THOUSAND TIMES.