Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Reasons for God's existence
53 Answers
In another discussion on this site keyplus90 claimed that...
Logically there are more reasons to believe that [God] exists than otherwise.
I'd be genuinely interested to learn from keyplus or anyone else what those reasons are.
To save time and space I'd be grateful if we could stick to reasons and not mere beliefs.
Logically there are more reasons to believe that [God] exists than otherwise.
I'd be genuinely interested to learn from keyplus or anyone else what those reasons are.
To save time and space I'd be grateful if we could stick to reasons and not mere beliefs.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Octavius, But you haven't quoted me, have you. You've simply copied something I said and spun it to suit your purpose. All I can say is if you run out of ideas again, you're welcome to pinch anything of mine at any time. I don't get paid for the stuff I write on AB, so under those circumstances plagiarism is quite acceptable to me. In fact it's quite a compliment. Thank you.
And what's 'Oh miaaaaow!'? I always thought you were a bloke, Octavius. Am I mistaken?
And what's 'Oh miaaaaow!'? I always thought you were a bloke, Octavius. Am I mistaken?
keyplus</b. you are confused and therefore confusing.
Of course ultrasonic vibrations existed before men could detect them; they are produced in nature in many ways, by bats, for example. And humans can detect them by heterodyning them with other frequencies.
But all of that is beside the point.
In a previous post I let you off the hook by assuming that you didn't mean 'logically', yet here you are impaling yourself again! 'Logically there are more reasons....' you originally said yet you have not produced a single one of them.
In fact, you now seem to be dismissing logic as being irrelevant, so why offer it in the first place?
And what on earth can you mean by saying that your logic is somehow different from the norm?
Logic is a rational thought-process by which the mind works from initial facts and evidence to a rational conclusion.
I won't challenge you again, keyplus, to justify your original claim. That you cannot is plain, and not a point to be laboured any more.
Pleased to hear about your wife.
Of course ultrasonic vibrations existed before men could detect them; they are produced in nature in many ways, by bats, for example. And humans can detect them by heterodyning them with other frequencies.
But all of that is beside the point.
In a previous post I let you off the hook by assuming that you didn't mean 'logically', yet here you are impaling yourself again! 'Logically there are more reasons....' you originally said yet you have not produced a single one of them.
In fact, you now seem to be dismissing logic as being irrelevant, so why offer it in the first place?
And what on earth can you mean by saying that your logic is somehow different from the norm?
Logic is a rational thought-process by which the mind works from initial facts and evidence to a rational conclusion.
I won't challenge you again, keyplus, to justify your original claim. That you cannot is plain, and not a point to be laboured any more.
Pleased to hear about your wife.
That isn't the question, Keyplus, and if you want an answer to that, perhaps you should post a separate question. Chakka's question relates to your claim that logically there are more reasons to believe that God exists than otherwise - and you still haven't qualified that claim. A question doesn't answer a question.
(By the way, I hope your wife is ok. Is the baby born?).
(By the way, I hope your wife is ok. Is the baby born?).
Question can raise another question. Posting another thread is a waste of time. My logic might not be your and vise versa. So that is the reason I want to see what logic Chakka has. Although I know what he would say.
Thanks for that, wife is better now, baby is not born yet, she is almost one week over, if nothing in next few days then she is going in again on 4th and then they will induce her, woman stuff.
Thanks for that, wife is better now, baby is not born yet, she is almost one week over, if nothing in next few days then she is going in again on 4th and then they will induce her, woman stuff.
It's true that a question can raise another question, but questions ought to be answered rather than ignored, otherwise they're pointless. You've made a claim, which you have yet to qualify, and until you qualify it, you can hardly expect an answer to your question. It has to work both ways.
(I hope all goes well with your wife and your little girl - I'm sure it will. Let us know, won't you?).
(I hope all goes well with your wife and your little girl - I'm sure it will. Let us know, won't you?).
Otherwise Chakka has answered my question himself. When he talks about bats and ultrasonic. Could human hear ultrasonic sound from bats? No
until few scientists did some research.
So go before that research and ultrasonic sound of the bats did not exist for human, but does that mean it was not there?
I think a year one student can understand that logic.
But again it is true when human start believing that they are so clever that they know every thing. Then most of the times they end up in mental hospitals. If you do not trust me (as I know you do not) then visit one and see for yourself.
until few scientists did some research.
So go before that research and ultrasonic sound of the bats did not exist for human, but does that mean it was not there?
I think a year one student can understand that logic.
But again it is true when human start believing that they are so clever that they know every thing. Then most of the times they end up in mental hospitals. If you do not trust me (as I know you do not) then visit one and see for yourself.
I can't honestly see what you're getting at with your bats. You could say that practically anything, from making fire to defining the substance we breathe, wasn't known to man at one time. What does any of that have to do with logical reasons for God's existence?
Chakka has defined logic, but as he says, you appear to maintain that your logic is different from the norm - and that certainly seems to be so. Personally, I'd find that quite worrying.
Keyplus, I've visited mental hospitals - and your reference is neither clever, or appreciated.
Chakka has defined logic, but as he says, you appear to maintain that your logic is different from the norm - and that certainly seems to be so. Personally, I'd find that quite worrying.
Keyplus, I've visited mental hospitals - and your reference is neither clever, or appreciated.
Thank you for all that, naomi. First-class.
This is the second time in the last few minutes that I have been fulsome about some posts of yours (also, as it happens, on another thread concerning keyplus). I'd better be careful; people will talk.
It is obvious that keyplus cannot justify his original claim, otherwise he would have done so by now. He used the wrong words and that's that.
I'm sorry if what follows sounds patronising, keyplus, but it is meant as very genuine advice:
While you stay within your faith you are impregnable, fireproof, waterproof, bulletproof, totally safe. What you choose to believe is entirely your own affair. You don't have to explain yourself to me or to anyone else.
But when you come out from behind that faith and start using words like 'logically' in connection with words like 'reasons' then you are entering the world of .. well, logic and reason! So you must expect to be challenged on rational grounds, and it is only fair to expect you to respond in similar fashion. This you have not done on this occasion and your obvious evasiveness does not show you in a good light.
End of impertinent, but well-meant, lecture.
This is the second time in the last few minutes that I have been fulsome about some posts of yours (also, as it happens, on another thread concerning keyplus). I'd better be careful; people will talk.
It is obvious that keyplus cannot justify his original claim, otherwise he would have done so by now. He used the wrong words and that's that.
I'm sorry if what follows sounds patronising, keyplus, but it is meant as very genuine advice:
While you stay within your faith you are impregnable, fireproof, waterproof, bulletproof, totally safe. What you choose to believe is entirely your own affair. You don't have to explain yourself to me or to anyone else.
But when you come out from behind that faith and start using words like 'logically' in connection with words like 'reasons' then you are entering the world of .. well, logic and reason! So you must expect to be challenged on rational grounds, and it is only fair to expect you to respond in similar fashion. This you have not done on this occasion and your obvious evasiveness does not show you in a good light.
End of impertinent, but well-meant, lecture.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.