I Believe God Exists

[Bibliofagus]

Agnostisim, Deism, Whatever OP is on about-ism.
It all comes down to solipsism.

Maybe I'm actually fucking 20 hot women instead of typing this. WHO KNOWS>?>>##>$E$>>??????!!!!1!!
I mean RIGHTY?!!?!!?!1!

Good luck with your immensely usefull worldview.
I'm off spending imaginary money now.

[josephpalazzo]

I do not doubt your capacity for cognitive dissonance and selective memory.

Coming from someone who can't distinguish the difference between a conclusion and an assumption that is rich. You're either a fucking moron or a troll.

[wolf39us]

Here's the problem. Any proof we can offer, you will see as invalid because there is an off chance that reality isn't real. Any evidence we show you would be therefor useless to you. You seem to wish us to prove the existance of the actual world by finding a spot 'outside' of it and from there prove it exists because only that way you can get a 'actual proof' of that reality. But to go outside reality to prove reality is just something that isn't possible if all there is, is actual, tangeable and materialist reality.
This is not a new thought in philosophy. What is actualy reality? Am I truly typing on a laptop?
OR
Am I dreaming that I'm typing on a laptop? Am I hallucinating this? Am I sure of anything but my own existance (i think therefore I am)? Am I just a computerprogram? ...
But here's the thing. To see the universe as a measurable and material place is the only position backed up by any kind of evidence. And it's a position of not claiming anything you can't proof to be true within that framework.
The immaterialist universe assumption is not equally valid because there is not even proof for it within it's own framework. And it's not the only other option out there. You've named a few, for all I know I'm a mind being tested on by aliens to see if I accept reality. For all I care I'm scientist who'se created a matrix and is now doing a test-run and has created something we can accept as a lifetime of reality but I'll wake up as the real me only a second older. Perhaps we are all reborn with our souls in another plain of existance. Perhaps the there is only a mind-hive of God.
There is no telling what you may think viable if you abbandon reason and the limited proof we have. And none of the above are philosophically speaking impossible. They just do not add to a workeable and useable understanding of reality nor are they in any way likely. Definitely not more than the one stance we have this 'limited'  proof for.

Yep, it doesn't matter what you say.  This is the argument that reality isn't real crap. 

It doesn't matter what you argue or how you say it, the conversation will always end up in "well how do YOU know that what you see / hear is real??"


Truly a wasteful conversation.

[aitm]

No doubt the pot is much better than it was 20 years ago.....the arguments it tends to produce....not so much.

[Moralnihilist]

Can we fire up the old infinite improbability drive and get the op back to his shack with the lord?
Im sure he missis him....
At least that is what my mind thinks

[the_antithesis]

Goo

Sooo....

I believe God exists.

That's nice.

[stromboli]

And as I said before, every method of quantifying and measuring reality you merely say is invalid. Fair enough. Show us a way to measure reality that isn't invalid.

You've argued and rejected arguments but you still haven't shown anything like proof to back your statements.

[aitm]

Perhaps when one fails in the real world they fancy the imaginative as a hopeful second chance.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Did the Toothfairanism debate start yet? I'm in on that!

[stromboli]

Another question: how can you prove that god exists if you can't define, identify or describe him?

[Casparov]

But here's the thing. To see the universe as a measurable and material place is the only position backed up by any kind of evidence. And it's a position of not claiming anything you can't proof to be true within that framework.

What is that evidence exactly?? If you are claiming that Materialism is true, and also admitting that proof is an impossibility, what are you actually saying? It sounds like you are saying that you are claiming something to be true even though you can't prove it to be true.

And none of the above are philosophically speaking impossible. They just do not add to a workeable and useable understanding of reality nor are they in any way likely. Definitely not more than the one stance we have this 'limited'  proof for.

In what way is the Materialism assumption in any way more likely than any of the other options available. What is this "limited proof" you speak of?

As a skeptic I am asking for at least some kind of attempt at justification. Even "limited proof" would be better than nothing at all....

[Solitary]

Go play in traffic and see if the world is material or not!  Solitary

[Casparov]

Coming from someone who can't distinguish the difference between a conclusion and an assumption that is rich. You're either a fucking moron or a troll.

Kind sir,

You have just called me a "fucking moron or a troll" on the grounds that I "can't distinguish the difference between a conclusion and an assumption." Now then, following your logic, if it turns out that you are in fact the one who has gotten the two mixed up, would that then in all fairness make you the "fucking moron or a troll"?

A conclusion is something one arrives at after having discovered evidence that a given claim is true. For instance: That time slows down at very high velocities is a conclusion, because we have observed clocks tick more slowly when in planes traveling at several times the speed of sound compared to clocks that are stationary. There exists evidence, and therefore we have a conclusion.

An assumption is something that is not based on evidence but is merely "assumed" without evidence. It is something simply "taken for granted". For instance: That we live in a Geocentric Universe was an assumption that was held by the world's scientists for over 2000 years. It was simply "taken for granted", though still entirely accepted as Truth by the Scientific Community. It was an assumption.

There is no scientific experiment that "concluded" that Materialism is True. It doesn't exist. There is no "proof" which has lead us to "conclude" that Materialism is true. It is quite simply, an assumption. Materialism is assumed to be the case, taken for granted as true, without proof, by the Scientific Community, and you.

You seem to argue that Materialism is a "conclusion", and if this indeed so, I am simply asking for the experiment, the evidence, the proof, that has lead to this "conclusion."

If you should discover that there is no evidence, no proof, no scientific experiment that has lead us to "conclude" that materialism, is true... It would then seem logical to admit the obvious, that Materialism is simply an assumption.

And I will accept your apology at that time for calling me names on a false accusation. An accusation you are ironically guilty of after closer examination.

[Casparov]

Yep, it doesn't matter what you say.  This is the argument that reality isn't real crap. 

It doesn't matter what you argue or how you say it, the conversation will always end up in "well how do YOU know that what you see / hear is real??"


Truly a wasteful conversation.

I am not arguing whether or not what you see/hear is "real". Of course it is. I am asking that the positive claim that we exist in a Material Objective Reality be backed with some hard evidence rather than just taking your word for it.

"every body else believes it" and "nobody else questions it" are not valid arguments. I would at the very least like to hear one of you admit that your world view rests upon an unsupported assumption. But i'd much rather like to hear one of you actually present some proof.

[PickelledEggs]

I have definitive proof that god doesn't exist, but I won't show you.