No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:06 am

I think most here, atheists and theists alike, agree that you're delusional.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:38 am

Snark wrote:I think most here, atheists and theists alike, agree that you're delusional.
Seem like you are running out of arguments and resorting to Ad hominem.

Applying critical thinking note the meaning of delusional;

Delusional:
1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
2. - maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/delusional?s=t


I have proven yours is a 'false or unrealistic beliefs' and you keep on insisting despite confronted with sound arguments and you have no proofs to support your belief.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:07 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:I think most here, atheists and theists alike, agree that you're delusional.
Seem like you are running out of arguments and resorting to Ad hominem.

Applying critical thinking note the meaning of delusional;

Delusional:
1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
2. - maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/delusional?s=t


I have proven yours is a 'false or unrealistic beliefs' and you keep on insisting despite confronted with sound arguments and you have no proofs to support your belief.

Never said I needed them.

And you fit the definition perfectly.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:28 am

Snark wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:I think most here, atheists and theists alike, agree that you're delusional.
Seem like you are running out of arguments and resorting to Ad hominem.

Applying critical thinking note the meaning of delusional;

Delusional:
1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
2. - maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/delusional?s=t


I have proven yours is a 'false or unrealistic beliefs' and you keep on insisting despite confronted with sound arguments and you have no proofs to support your belief.

Never said I needed them.
You agreed with such a belief.

Snark wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Existence is that which has affect ("to affect" being "to cause change"). If God has affect, then by definition, God exists.

Makes sense to me.
viewtopic.php?p=2687337#p2687337


And you fit the definition perfectly.

You are simply babbling and making accusations without justifiable supporting points.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Arminius » Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:36 pm

@ Prismatic 567. Stop using a strawman again.

Snark wrote:I think most here, atheists and theists alike, agree that you're delusional.

Yes, both atheist and theists. They all agree that Prismatic 567 is delusional and stubbornly ignorant, has a geat problem with logic, does not understand Kant and Hume.

They all have proven him wrong, and he is still stubbornly ignoring this fact, unsuccessfully searching for arguments, remaining unable to find any, not knowing what he is talking about.

Snark wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:I think most here, atheists and theists alike, agree that you're delusional.
....
Delusional:
1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
2. - maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/delusional?s=t
....

And you fit the definition perfectly.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Silhouette » Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:17 pm

Snark, did you mean to not address my below questions?

Silhouette wrote:"Evidence of experience" though... I guess it would have to be his own experience since plenty of people do not find any evidence in their experience - unless they're at fault in some way in identifying what constitutes evidence of experience. Either that or evidence is only provided to the experience of some and not others - like a kind of "chosen people".

So is this evidence repeatable and verifiable to others/open to peer review? Or is it not supposed to be?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:17 pm

Silhouette wrote:Snark, did you mean to not address my below questions?

Silhouette wrote:"Evidence of experience" though... I guess it would have to be his own experience since plenty of people do not find any evidence in their experience - unless they're at fault in some way in identifying what constitutes evidence of experience. Either that or evidence is only provided to the experience of some and not others - like a kind of "chosen people".

So is this evidence repeatable and verifiable to others/open to peer review? Or is it not supposed to be?
Sorry. There's a lot going on.

Repeatable and verifiable correlations can be made with FMRI scans, but correlation is not verification. It could be that some people don't live in their heads so much and are therefore more aware of what's going on in their lives.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:21 pm

Such scans can show that there is greater awareness in specific areas of the brains of theists
Which simply means they believe in God or attribute certain inexplicable experiences to God
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:45 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Such scans can show that there is greater awareness in specific areas of the brains of theists
Which simply means they believe in God or attribute certain inexplicable experiences to God

Right. That’s why I said correlation is not verification.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Silhouette » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:20 am

Snark wrote:Sorry. There's a lot going on.

Repeatable and verifiable correlations can be made with FMRI scans, but correlation is not verification. It could be that some people don't live in their heads so much and are therefore more aware of what's going on in their lives.

It's no problem at all. I'm just interested to get to the bottom of why anybody would have no right not to believe in a loving God.

So correlation isn't verification - what is verification that assures you so much that you have no right not to believe in a loving God of all possible things? If it's not correlation then there must be some superior "evidence of experience" that doesn't require correlation that you are going by in order to arrive at verification, no?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:45 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Such scans can show that there is greater awareness in specific areas of the brains of theists
Which simply means they believe in God or attribute certain inexplicable experiences to God
I have been following the research of the very famous Andrew Newberg,

Dr. Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist who studies the relationship between brain function and various mental states. He is a pioneer in the neurological study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field known as “neurotheology.” His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes.
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/


His views on God and 'spiritual' experiences;

Our research indicates that our only way of comprehending God, asking questions about God, and experiencing God is through the brain.
But whether or not God exists “out there” is something that neuroscience cannot answer.
For example, if we take a brain image of a person when she is looking at a picture, we will see various parts of the brain being activated, such as the visual cortex. But the brain image cannot tell us whether or not there actually is a picture “out there” or whether the person is creating the picture in her own mind. To a certain degree, we all create our own sense of reality. Getting at what is really real is the tricky part.



In his latest Book,
'How Enlightenment Changes Your Brain'

In this original and groundbreaking book, Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman turn their attention to the pinnacle of the human experience: enlightenment. Through his brain- scan studies on Brazilian psychic mediums, Sufi mystics, Buddhist meditators, Franciscan nuns, Pentecostals, and participants in secular spirituality rituals, Newberg has discovered the specific neurological mechanisms associated with the enlightenment experience—and how we might activate those circuits in our own brains.

In his survey of more than one thousand people who have experienced enlightenment, Newberg has also discovered that in the aftermath they have had profound, positive life changes. Enlightenment offers us the possibility to become permanently less stress-prone, to break bad habits, to improve our collaboration and creativity skills, and to lead happier, more satisfying lives. Relaying the story of his own transformational experience as well as including the stories of others who try to describe an event that is truly indescribable, Newberg brings us a new paradigm for deep and lasting change.


The concept of 'enlightenment' as per Newberg has positive potentials for humanity but theism per se is not an effective tool for 'enlightenment' in comparison to non-theistic spiritualities.
Theism is a double-edged sword, while at present there is a net-pros from theism due to the current psychological state of the majority theists, the trend towards the future is the cons of theism are outweighing its pros.

Newberg's research links spiritual experiences to positive effects and behavior but does not answer WHY theists believe in a God with its positive & critical negative baggage?
My hypothesis of this 'WHY' solely in the direction of psychology [neuro-psychology] and we can get a better understanding from multi-disciplinary approach to the question.

Science by default cannot be multi-disciplinary beyond its Scientific Framework and System, thus what we need is philosophy-proper which is like a 'symphony conductor' getting all individual instruments to perform as a whole.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:50 am

Silhouette wrote:
Snark wrote:Sorry. There's a lot going on.

Repeatable and verifiable correlations can be made with FMRI scans, but correlation is not verification. It could be that some people don't live in their heads so much and are therefore more aware of what's going on in their lives.

It's no problem at all. I'm just interested to get to the bottom of why anybody would have no right not to believe in a loving God.

So correlation isn't verification - what is verification that assures you so much that you have no right not to believe in a loving God of all possible things? If it's not correlation then there must be some superior "evidence of experience" that doesn't require correlation that you are going by in order to arrive at verification, no?
Yes, but there is nothing overt about it. it is, in fact, very subtle, very personal. It's in the little things, like something greater than myself guiding events in such a way that they naturally unfold in a way that got me to where I am today.

I want to emphasize the subtle of it. I'm sure you've seen videos of people falling into fountains or bumping into walls because they were distracted by their cell phones. Primitive man had brains very much like our own but didn't have all the distractions we have today. Accordingly, it seems quite natural that people today are generally unaware of the subtleties that lead to the belief in God.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:13 am

Silhouette wrote:It's no problem at all. I'm just interested to get to the bottom of why anybody would have no right not to believe in a loving God.

So correlation isn't verification - what is verification that assures you so much that you have no right not to believe in a loving God of all possible things? If it's not correlation then there must be some superior "evidence of experience" that doesn't require correlation that you are going by in order to arrive at verification, no?
God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
Anyone can believe all they want regardless of whether it is possible or impossible.

At present, given the current psychological state of the majority of humanity, there are no more-efficient and optimal ideology than theism in dealing with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis within the human psyche. So at present theism is a net-pro [positive] for humanity, else there will be terrible mental angst within the majority. Thus theists need to continue to believe in a God and adopt theistic religion and spiritualities to avoid psychological torments.

But the empirical evidence of current facts [terrible terror, evils and violence] from theism [especially Islam] is trending towards a net-con [negative] for humanity.
Note, this evil for example, i.e. statistics of deadly attacks
[there are other types of evils from this theistic religion and other theistic religions].

32,210 Islamic terror attacks involving deaths.
Image
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

The main purpose of theism is to deal with a psychological existential crisis.
From the above, the trend is the cons of theism-in-general is outweighing its pros and thus humanity must take steps to find fool proof alternatives to replace theism to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

So the 'bottom' is not why anybody would have no right not to believe in a loving God.
The 'bottom' is, due to the potential threats, it is optimal for humanity to replace theism with fool proof alternatives in the FUTURE not now.

I understand such a topic is very disturbing and uncomfortable to many theists at present.
But we need to discuss and take this issue now to develop effective strategies for the future.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:19 am

Prismatic567 wrote:God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

You have yet to demonstrate that.

And the field of psychology has nothing at all credible to say about God or God believers.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:44 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

You have yet to demonstrate that.

This is like a squared-circle is impossible within an empirical-rational reality.
Do you want me to demonstrate that impossibility empirically?

The proposition 'God is a possibility' in purely by thoughts alone i.e. emerged from primal pure reason driven by psychological factors within the human pscyhe.
Thus the most effective approach as done here is to use higher cortical reasoning to kill lower [theistic] reasoning.

Since God is purely non-empirical, i.e. purely thought-based and I have proven God is an impossibility, God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
One cannot conflate the non-empirical with the empirical at all.

And the field of psychology has nothing at all credible to say about God or God believers.
There are tons of materials on this issue.
Have you ever try to do a literature review and exhaust this topic?
This is how I know you are very empty inside from the posts you have posted so far.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:37 am

Prismatic567 wrote:There are tons of materials on this issue.
Yes, there are. And your certainty is unwarranted. You have a severe case of confirmation bias.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:59 am

Snark wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:There are tons of materials on this issue.
Yes, there are. And your certainty is unwarranted. You have a severe case of confirmation bias.
What do you mean confirmation bias? I am sure this is on you

"And your certainty is unwarranted. You have a severe case of confirmation bias."
because you are merely making an opinion without knowing my actual position.

It is not an opinion nor a guess, I have done the actual research and read loads [tons] of materials in reference to that topic.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:06 am

Prism wrote:
God is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality

Pantheists see God as nature so to them he is empirical reality just by a different name. That is not to be confused with the theist view of nature as evidence of Gods existence which is something entirely different. So it all depends on how one is actually defining God. If I think God is the Universe then he obviously exists. The devil
is therefore in the detail although most interpretations reference some meta physical or non physical capabilities which for me automatically invalidates his existence
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:11 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:There are tons of materials on this issue.
Yes, there are. And your certainty is unwarranted. You have a severe case of confirmation bias.
What do you mean confirmation bias? I am sure this is on you

"And your certainty is unwarranted. You have a severe case of confirmation bias."
because you are merely making an opinion without knowing my actual position.

It is not an opinion nor a guess, I have done the actual research and read loads [tons] of materials in reference to that topic.

Sorry, Spectrum. You're irrational and irrelevant.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:21 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Prism wrote:God is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality

Pantheists see God as nature so to them he is empirical reality just by a different name. That is not to be confused with the theist view of nature as evidence of Gods existence which is something entirely different. So it all depends on how one is actually defining God. If I think God is the Universe then he obviously exists. The devil
is therefore in the detail although most interpretations reference some meta physical or non physical capabilities which for me automatically invalidates his existence
As long as you keep your 'God' within the empirical then there is an empirical possibility it can exists.
Then it is a question of what is the probability which in such a case is almost negligible.

Note Richard Dawkins as scientist and not a philosopher is in such a situation.
As a scientist, Science do not allow him to claim certainty in an empirical setting.
Thus at best he can only be an agnostic and has to make provision that there is a 1/7 possibility [his god belief scale] that God could exists. But somewhere in his mind, he think it is actually 0% possibility like Zeus or a Santa Claus but not being a philosopher he has no basis to express it.

This is why an empirical-rational basis [with philosophy] is the most effective to deliberate on the issue of God.

When you claim your pantheistic God is empirically based, there is a possibility for such a god to exist, but the possibility of an actual proof is very slim.
The real problem with a empirical-based pantheistic God is it has limitations.
An empirical God not being certain and absolute cannot be absolutely 100% in terms of any quality attributable to that God, thus is always below 100%. So in what % can one assign to one's pantheistic God, 99%, 90% , 80%??. Because there is a gap, this leave room for another to claim a greater God that one's claim, i.e. an inferior. The point is a typical God cannot inferior to another.

This is why even with a pantheist God like Brahman within Hinduism-Vedanta, such a God is claimed to be absolute or The Absolute [capital A] so that Brahman cannot be inferior to another God.

Thus if you want to claim your pantheistic god to be an empirical God, then you have to accept it has empirical limits, which is not typical of any 'God.'

Generally there is no serious issue with a pantheistic or a panentheistic God which is not assigned any agency power in comparison to the Abrahamic monotheistic God with agency power.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:24 am

Snark wrote:Sorry, Spectrum. You're irrational and irrelevant.
Your opinion, OK.
Btw, what is your other nic?

Snark:
1. to be critical in a rude or sarcastic way:
to snark about the neighbors.

2. rude or sarcastic criticism.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/snark?s=t


No wonder ..
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:25 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Note Richard Dawkins as scientist and not a philosopher is in such a situation.

Richard Dawkins is an idiot. And not because of his beliefs, but because he constantly embarrasses himself and all atheists. Krauss, not an idiot, had to distance himself from the idiot.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:19 pm

Snark wrote:Apart from the fact that Prismatic567 hasn’t demonstrated squat in spite of his arrogant claim to the contrary, experience has demonstrated to my satisfaction that I do not have the right to NOT believe in a loving God.


So, you look on your life as being either a glass half full or perhaps all full.
Perhaps you are also grateful for the life you have experienced.


I may be wrong here but it almost seems to me that though you have experienced a loving God ~you may not have experienced a God who has given you free will to think otherwise based on how the other side lives, based on less than a *tunnel* vision and more on a panoramic vision of the reality of the world and life.

There are many who, based on the emptiness of that glass, are incapable of seeing a loving God. How do you explain a loving God to someone who has never experienced love, joy, happiness, a sense of security but only misery, fear and degradation?

How do you explain away a loving God in view of it all? Are some more special to this God and some much less....

Would you put a band aid on it? You believe in a loving God because you believe. Does that make it so?
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:43 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Would you put a band aid on it? You believe in a loving God because you believe. Does that make it so?

To the only one for whom it really matters, yes, it makes it so.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby dan25 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:07 pm

Snark wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Would you put a band aid on it? You believe in a loving God because you believe. Does that make it so?

To the only one for whom it really matters, yes, it makes it so.

If he (I presume your male, Snark) believes in a loving God then it is so that he believes. But what we believe has no effect on what actually exists in reality.
dan25
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users