Does God exist? (10 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

Many people see things when they don't even expect it. What's even more incredible is that the things appearing in front of them was so vivid that it was as if they're co-existing in that envronment. Yes, a lot of the time they were not sleeping. Eg. a guy was sitting in the toilet. and he just started seeing the floor on an atomic scale with all the partciles colliding and vibrating.

Many people claim to see alot of things. I don't doubt that many people may 'experience' whatever you're describing, but in reality there would be a much more mundane explanation than any supernatural one they probably attribute to it.

If not everyone, most people would be intelligent enough to tell the difference between hallucination and reality.

Unfortunately it has little to do with 'intelligence' and much more with how critical you're willing to examine your surroundings, not that anyone is perfect. If you want proof just watch a live show by a good magician, he will trick you and you often won't be able to explain how he did it.

Like when you just had a dream, you might feel it was real while you were in the dream, but when you wake you you would soon realise that it was a dream because the images was not as vivid as reality

Illusions can be as vivid as reality.

People are just not accustomed to imagining things that are more vivid than reality.

Not 'more vivid' than reality, just as vivid.

. Have you ever imagined something that you had even fooled yourself that it was real? I bet you haven't.

I don't get the point of this question... it might be the odd wording that puts me off.

Why, because we just don't believe in things that we imagine even when we try to delude ourselves.

Yes, reality is a very powerful thing. It's hard to believe our delusions for many reasons, #1 being that others don't also believe them, making us feel we must be wrong by majority rule and #2 because reality is always there no matter how hard you try to deny it.

But that doesn't stop people from having such delusions.

 

[T-mac01]

Many people claim to see alot of things. I don't doubt that many people may 'experience' whatever you're describing, but in reality there would be a much more mundane explanation than any supernatural one they probably attribute to it.



Unfortunately it has little to do with 'intelligence' and much more with how critical you're willing to examine your surroundings, not that anyone is perfect. If you want proof just watch a live show by a good magician, he will trick you and you often won't be able to explain how he did it.



Illusions can be as vivid as reality.



Not 'more vivid' than reality, just as vivid.



I don't get the point of this question... it might be the odd wording that puts me off.



Yes, reality is a very powerful thing. It's hard to believe our delusions for many reasons, #1 being that others don't also believe them, making us feel we must be wrong by majority rule and #2 because reality is always there no matter how hard you try to deny it.

But that doesn't stop people from having such delusions.

Yes you might be correct about critical evluation of surroundings. Personally, I've never experienced illusions, so I don't really know what it's like.
However, I would tend to blindly disagree with "illusions can be as vivid as reality"
Even the way you have phrased it makes it less credible. It can be and so isn't a definite possibility. Therefore, out of thousands of witnesses, there is a great chance that some are not.

Btw, I would criticise some of the eye witnesses from ufo sightings to that of the sea monster in scotland. It's a pity how so many people have completely trusted that picture taken.
Having said that, I still think it's necessary to keep an open mind people's claim. You just never know that some might be real.

 

[T-mac01]

oops, correction, I meant hallucination.

 

[T-mac01]

Just to further clarify, I agree that illusion can be as vivid. But I was trying to discuss hallucination.
People can't hallucinate things as vividly as reality.

 

[gerhard]

its all the same thing in the end though- false beliefs

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes you might be correct about critical evluation of surroundings. Personally, I've never experienced illusions, so I don't really know what it's like.

Well it doesn't really need to be an 'illusion' or a 'hallucination' for you to be tricked into believing you're seeing something you're not really seeing. You can just not be thinking critically enough or the trick can just be too clever for you.

However, I would tend to blindly disagree with "illusions can be as vivid as reality"

Why is that? Why do you think illusions cannot be as vivid as reality? I can offer up hundreds of examples of illusions that people have claimed to be real if you want.

It can be and so isn't a definite possibility.

Well yes, some illusions just aren't as vivid as others, I don't see what's the problem with admitting this, I would be a fool to not.

Therefore, out of thousands of witnesses, there is a great chance that some are not.

Er no... How did you come up with that Idea? I'd love to see the basis to your statistics there.

Having said that, I still think it's necessary to keep an open mind people's claim.

I do think I have an open, but critical mind. I am open to the possibility, but not willing to be wishy washy in the absence of positive evidence.

People can't hallucinate things as vividly as reality.

Well why does it necessarily have to be a hallucination? and for what you've claimed, people have hallucinations that they believe are real.

 

[T-mac01]

Well why does it necessarily have to be a hallucination? and for what you've claimed, people have hallucinations that they believe are real.[/quote]

Find some one like that that are no insane.

 

[T-mac01]

its all the same thing in the end though- false beliefs

Guess you will be the kind who would first believed that Earth is at the centre of the universe.
Actually on a second thought, maybe you would be those that would've thought Galileo was a retard.

Not that bright,

I think you would be one of them. Disagreeing with his theories and eventually tortured him to death with the site of a pyramid binocular. Yea, good luck finding a model like that.

 

[KFunk]

Well why does it necessarily have to be a hallucination? and for what you've claimed, people have hallucinations that they believe are real.

Find some one like that that are no insane.

Acid users.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

and for what you've claimed, people have hallucinations that they believe are real.

Find some one like that that are no insane.

For one, people claiming to be abducted by aliens. What do you think is 'insane' though?

Not that bright,

I think you would be one of them. Disagreeing with his theories and eventually tortured him to death with the site of a pyramid binocular. Yea, good luck finding a model like that.

First of all, the flat earth thing has I think been shown to be a bit of a myth. Secondly yes I would disagree with someone, this is how science moves forward - Disagreement, critical evaluation of argument... that you have a problem with me because of this doesn't bother me, I'm quite flattered in a way, I worry about you though.

 

[dieburndie]

Now you're just forcing yourself to pick bones from egg yolks.

People like you are pretty common these days, don't know anything and yet want to get involved. But don't have enough juice to keep it going . So what do you do, you make a sarcastic comment that can't be bagged nor praised.
You bite tight to someone that seems to be on top of the intelligent ladder thinking this would elvate your knowledge status among your peers.

I eat people like you for breakfast. Yes, you can be that easily consumed without dififculty.

Maybe you should present further evidence in your assumption that I don't know anything. Read my posts, I often contribute useful information that has the potential to be "bagged". Go make friends with The_Logical_One. He tried the exact same approach last week. At least I can string a coherent sentence together, which I find would generally aid me in my attempts to reach the top of the "intelligent ladder".

 

[dieburndie]

Why do you want to know?

Because it explains the science theories we'd yet to have discovered.
You obviously use this teaching as the basis for your ideas, and your posts within this discussion. Therefore it is entirely relevant. I would also like to know.

 

[T-mac01]

First of all, I've finally realised that I'd gotten sick of not-that-bright's "CRITICALLY EVALUATED" comments. His evaluation hasn't been as critical as he's been trying to promote it. I just want to remind people about this just incase some of us has forgotten, including myself. So far, his comments just seems so confined to me. It makes me wonder his real thinking ability and analytical skills of all subject matters.

I want you guys to read carefully about my next few points.

It is obvious that since the beginning of debate on God's existence, the believers could only have proven their sightings passively, despite their best intentions for the outcome. (Of course, there are those that just want to stir things up. Let's just forget them now.)
This puts the defenders "anti-god" in an active mode. Yes, from humans point of view, what could be more intellectually appropriate than believing things that appear right in front of us - technologically teachable.

Now, this is technically correct. But since there is a conflict between the possible truth and methods of approval, it has come to a point where it is necessary to evaluate the credibility of the influential adjudicators. In this case, not-that-bright.

I'm not sure what some of the bypassers in this thread think of his comments. I think mine are very controversial as there is no evidence and theoritical foundation to back them up. I fully understand that even though it's tormentingly frustrating. I've already told you the reason before. Anyhow, readers rating of his comments should be equally important. As you would realise after I've reminded you all, there hasn't been much criticism towards him. I think partially because he has only been commenting rather than introducing new ideas or maybe a lot of you agree with him. I hope that's not the case.

So let's see some feedbacks. And just to give a head start. Wouldn't it be convenient to introduce yourself first, not-that-bright, your back ground, education, etc. Others are also welcomed to provide similar profiles.

As you can see, I've divered the topic to how God's existence can be proved by who.

 

[T-mac01]

Because it explains the science theories we'd yet to have discovered.
You obviously use this teaching as the basis for your ideas, and your posts within this discussion. Therefore it is entirely relevant. I would also like to know.

Well, I appreciate your genuineness but I think it's best to leave it unpublished because I don't feel my position and knowledge is ample enough to represent the teaching. My posts might give a false impression of it's nature. Hope you shall understand.

In fact, I've careflessly called it "teaching" which is also misleading.

 

[T-mac01]

To determine whether or not someone has such knowledge we must first determine whether god exists [/quote]

This just proves your lack of understanding. You're rolling yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason this thread has been going in circles is because we can't make a mutual determination on God's existence. There is no physical way to prove it!!!!!!!

You damn idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ur_inner_child]

First of all, I've finally realised that I'd gotten sick of not-that-bright's "CRITICALLY EVALUATED" comments. His evaluation hasn't been as critical as he's been trying to promote it. I just want to remind people about this just incase some of us has forgotten, including myself. So far, his comments just seems so confined to me. It makes me wonder his real thinking ability and analytical skills of all subject matters.

I want you guys to read carefully about my next few points.

It is obvious that since the beginning of debate on God's existence, the believers could only have proven their sightings passively, despite their best intentions for the outcome. (Of course, there are those that just want to stir things up. Let's just forget them now.)
This puts the defenders "anti-god" in an active mode. Yes, from humans point of view, what could be more intellectually appropriate than believing things that appear right in front of us - technologically teachable.

Now, this is technically correct. But since there is a conflict between the possible truth and methods of approval, it has come to a point where it is necessary to evaluate the credibility of the influential adjudicators. In this case, not-that-bright.

I'm not sure what some of the bypassers in this thread think of his comments. I think mine are very controversial as there is no evidence and theoritical foundation to back them up. I fully understand that even though it's tormentingly frustrating. I've already told you the reason before. Anyhow, readers rating of his comments should be equally important. As you would realise after I've reminded you all, there hasn't been much criticism towards him. I think partially because he has only been commenting rather than introducing new ideas or maybe a lot of you agree with him. I hope that's not the case.

So let's see some feedbacks. And just to give a head start. Wouldn't it be convenient to introduce yourself first, not-that-bright, your back ground, education, etc. Others are also welcomed to provide similar profiles.

As you can see, I've divered the topic to how God's existence can be proved by who.

I think Not-That-Bright's posts are fine, and valued in these forums. I don't need to know his name, background and education at all. He directs them at you because he wants to discuss matters with you, as with a few pages back he asked me why I remained agnostic, not athiest in a similar fashion.

I don't think anyone needs to introduce themselves in these forums at all and it would seem it would serve no purpose.

Not-That-Bright has not once argued in an unacceptable manner against you but you keep going on the defensive and saying that you think he wants you to shut up. Please realise that this is a debate, so when you express your point of view, you will be critiqued and assessed by your view alone. There will be people who disagree with you. So if you cannot rebutt and counter his argument properly, don't assume that he has a personal problem against you.

If you feel he has missed your point, either highlight/repeat it again, or try to rephrase so that he better understands your point.

Also, please try to keep your posts constructive. "KFunk... just what the hell" is not constructive.

 

[T-mac01]

I think Not-That-Bright's posts are fine, and valued in these forums. I don't need to know his name, background and education at all. He directs them at you because he wants to discuss matters with you, as with a few pages back he asked me why I remained agnostic, not athiest in a similar fashion.

I don't think anyone needs to introduce themselves in these forums at all and it would seem it would serve no purpose.

Not-That-Bright has not once argued in an unacceptable manner against you but you keep going on the defensive and saying that you think he wants you to shut up. Please realise that this is a debate, so when you express your point of view, you will be critiqued and assessed by your view alone. There will be people who disagree with you. So if you cannot rebutt and counter his argument properly, don't assume that he has a personal problem against you.

If you feel he has missed your point, either highlight/repeat it again, or try to rephrase so that he better understands your point.

Also, please try to keep your posts constructive. "KFunk... just what the hell" is not constructive.

I'm suggesting this is so that there is a correct way to measure a person's mentallity.
You can't do this with this topic discussion. But you can see if a person is literally stupid or intelligent when you compare their academic excellence.
Get it?

 

[ur_inner_child]

I'm suggesting this is so that there is a correct way to measure a person's mentallity.
You can't do this with this topic discussion. But you can see if a person is literally stupid or intelligent when you compare their academic excellence.
Get it?

And I am saying that this is foolish and unnecessary.

Is it so hard to understand what a debate entails?

You may, however, counter people's arguments, which in the long run, other viewers can make a decision for themselves of who makes the most sense or better argument.

 

[T-mac01]

And I am saying that this is foolish and unnecessary.

Is it so hard to understand what a debate entails?

You may, however, counter people's arguments, which in the long run, other viewers can make a decision for themselves of who makes the most sense or better argument.

Yes

 

[T-mac01]

You know what?
I lose people. God does not exist.
No argument. That's the truth above all else.
People created religion and invented their own imagination just to entertain themselves.
The person that started this thread is an idiot. Of course god doesn't exist. What do you think, if God exists, do you think we would still be here?
Yes, science is our limit and our honour. We are the only perfect animal in this universe.
So, believe nothing but things that are around us. There is no need to wonder things that don't exist.
The end