I cannot fully answer that one.

Do I believe that God as we understand it exists? Nope, not a chance. Not the Christian God, not the Hindu God, not the Muslim God nor the Pagan Gods or any of the others we "Know" of.
However, did someone create all of this? *shrug*

I cannot tell you how Energy came to be, nor gravity, nor mass. All I know is Energy cannot be destroyed. It can be transmuted, converted, and twisted into a million billion trillion different forms... But it cannot be destroyed. We, us, our being.. our spark, is energy. When we die, that spark is no longer inside us. What happens at that point, I am not sure.

Do I believe we go to a collective Heaven or Hell? Nope. Do I believe we are judged for our actions? Not unless we judge ourselves. I do hold onto a theory though.. That if Heaven or Hell exist for a person, it is because they created it for themselves, based upon how they view themselves at the moment of death.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Excellent point. That was why I made it VERY specific. Not having an "eye witness" case does NOT equal "blind faith". MOST jury trials in the U.S. are NOT eye witness accounts. They are circumstantial cases that have a lot of evidence that is well put together. MANY people just believe a story someone told them with no substantiation other than what the person told them. THAT is pretty much "blind faith". That doesn't cut it for me, either.

Even in your example of court and circumstantial cases, remember that even its based on 'reasonable doubt' not absolutes.. so even then its sort of 'faith' that you think the guy is guilty...

quote Originally posted by User00013170: so even then its sort of 'faith' that you think the guy is guilty...

Absolutely. You are getting my point.

Nobody thinks twice about the court system, and how few times a case is eyewitness. So way more often it is a circumstantial case.

And basically it get down to the jury's "faith" in one sides circumstantial evidence. But that isn't "blind" faith. Their faith is based on evidence. Just not eyewitness.
There is a whole bunch of stuff people do "by faith", instead of eyewitness.

Maybe I have a headache. I go to a pharmacy. I go to the counter and the bottle says IBUPROFEN. I never did a chemical analysis of the tablets before swallowing them into my body. I never even at least went to the ibuprofen manufacturer and eye witnessed them put them in the bottle I bought.


Now I DID use circumstantial evidence. I did pick a pharmacy, so I trusted the pharmacy's reputation. I did read the label. I did make sure the seal was intact.

And ultimately I exercised faith based on circumstantial evidence, and took the ibuprofen.


And THEN, I EXPERIENCED the effect. And now I believe EXPERIENTIALLY. But wait. Did I? Maybe it was placebo effect.

And on we go.
But my point being pre-existing bias, and burden of proof founded on quantity and quality of circumstantial evidence.

Unproven belief is all you get from the outside looking in.
It would be like asking you if you believe in a Billion dollars?
You say yes.. But have you ever seen in person a Billion dollars? Have you ever touched a Billion dollars?
So if you haven't really ever seen it or touched it how do you know it exists? Because people tell you so?

If you have never experienced the grace of god, you know he exists. Trying to explain that to someone who is completely closed off to that idea is meaningless.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: From the Big Bang!

the TV show

quote Originally posted by TK: It's either the literal word of a god or it's not. There is no in between. The instant we allow that, humans do the interpreting and then anything goes, and we know how that turns out.

So am I to beleive that God reached down out of the heavens, grabbed a pencil and some paper and wrote it down? No, it's the literal word of God as recorded by humans. God says "On the first day I" and it is written as what a human understands a day to be. Then over the years it is converted from one language to another. Every language is not equal, some languages have words other languages don't so a substitute of similiar meaning or a conjunction of words must be used to represent the previous word. This is the problem I have had with finding a Christian Sect that has the same beleif I have. Sure I share beleifs with many, but I am not going to be bound by the idea that the Bible they use is completely accurate.

Like the court of law, it has to be reasonable. You can deny the earth goes around the sun. At one time, humanity didn't know the answer to that, but now that it is common knowledge that the earth goes around the sun, it would be considered unreasonable to believe the sun or the universe goes around the earth.

You can deny the world is X-billions of years old and that the earth is only 6,000-years old. At one time, humanity didn't know the answer to that, but now that it is common knowledge that the earth is billions of years old, it would be considered unreasonable to believe the earth is only 6,000-years old.

You can deny that evolutions take place, that instead God created Adam and Eve out of mud and a rib bone. At one time, humanity didn't know the answer to that, but now that it is common knowledge that evolution does take place and that we are decedents of apes, it would be considered unreasonable to believe that Adam and Eve was the beginning of humans on earth.

Sure! There is only but one absolute in life, and that is that we all will die. Is there a soul or life-form within us that lives on forever after our physical bodies have decayed? Evidence is showing that there is not anything like that once we die.

Religion or a belief in God(s) is only a temporary explanation (although always proven wrong once the knowledge is acquired) of the questions that we have no answers to yet. Many who still believe in religion or God(s) either haven't been totally satisfied with what we have acquired in knowledge of our universe to answer questions they may have, or have been indoctrinated or are too naive to believe the scientific evidence and knowledge that we have acquired and is publicly accessible to the masses.

The human created God(s) always have something in common, and that is the gift of everlasting life in one form or another. Be it heaven, hell, purgatory or reincarnation.

But when the evidence points towards that there is no God, it would be reasonable to believe that there is not any.

When people say that God speaks to them or shows them evidence, they never clarify it. They just assume some event is just god helping them out, because god only helps those who believe. Yet most of all humanity have and usually will die in complete suffering and agony, just like the rest of Nature. But then they say that God is making them suffer as well, as if God picks both ways with you. Picking and choosing isn't what is happening. What is happening to everything around the universe and in your lives is complete chance. God doesn't help you, because there is no God. Everything is happening by random and chance, much like how the Universe begin and how life begin. There is no plan or chess pieces being moved here. There is no telephone to God's voice.

"I believe what I believe!" is what the niave and indoctrinated say. That's fine, because it doesn't really matter what you believe because there is no god to care or even matter what you believe. Once you die, it's lights out and you are gone forever. You will not awake and there is no afterlife. Don't fool yourself to believing in that and make what matters now while you are alive, not in some fantasy dreamland after you die.

quote Originally posted by Khw: So am I to beleive that God reached down out of the heavens, grabbed a pencil and some paper and wrote it down? No, it's the literal word of God as recorded by humans. God says "On the first day I" and it is written as what a human understands a day to be. Then over the years it is converted from one language to another. Every language is not equal, some languages have words other languages don't so a substitute of similiar meaning or a conjunction of words must be used to represent the previous word. This is the problem I have had with finding a Christian Sect that has the same beleif I have. Sure I share beleifs with many, but I am not going to be bound by the idea that the Bible they use is completely accurate.

Oh, Jeeze....the "bible" is just a collection of pagen tales re-told and re-written.....they were decided upon at the 1st and 2nd council of Constantinopal and the councils of Nicea....Wiki it after Wiki comes back online, or google for other sources. NOT like there is any shortage of knowledge on the matter.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-17-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: So am I to beleive that God reached down out of the heavens, grabbed a pencil and some paper and wrote it down? No, it's the literal word of God as recorded by humans. God says "On the first day I" and it is written as what a human understands a day to be. Then over the years it is converted from one language to another. Every language is not equal, some languages have words other languages don't so a substitute of similiar meaning or a conjunction of words must be used to represent the previous word. This is the problem I have had with finding a Christian Sect that has the same beleif I have. Sure I share beleifs with many, but I am not going to be bound by the idea that the Bible they use is completely accurate.

It certainly makes it easy to pick and choose.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: I believe God exists. I also believe that everyone's perception of that God is different. I also believe that that's okay, as long as I'm not expected to believe their perception.

God told me Raydar has it right and there is no reason to be head him.

As far as circumstantial evidence goes, I have boat loads. I would like to give example 2. My sister that had cancer just after the birth of her second daughter was totally over reacting to my sons behavior on Christmas at her house. My son was following one of her girls around and was convinced that he would mishandle one of her many breakables. It was 10 years from when she had cancer and back then, the doctor said that they are sure that the treatment had permanently damaged her ability to reproduce. When we left that unnecessary stressful Christmas night, I asked my wife for a moment to relax before we drove away. What I did was pray to God that my sister would have a chance to know how different it is to raise boys and maybe understand how well behaved my son is. Within the year, she was pregnant, after she gave birth to the first one, she was sure it was a fluke and had the second one within a years time of the first one being born. Wild and demanding are a fair description of her boys.
Vengeful God. A God that answers prayers humorously. Has to be most than the power of meditation or I have crazy mojo meditation powers.

Completely circumstantial!

quote Originally posted by Ventura: 12,000 years ago an asteroid struck North America and wiped out anything werighing over 200 pounds. No food supply for larger animals. Research Clovis. We really don't know squat about the history of the world............

Hey! I weigh less than 200 pounds. Bring on the asteroids!!!

quote Originally posted by FriendGregory: God told me Raydar has it right and there is no reason to be head him. As far as circumstantial evidence goes, I have boat loads. I would like to give example 2. My sister that had cancer just after the birth of her second daughter was totally over reacting to my sons behavior on Christmas at her house. My son was following one of her girls around and was convinced that he would mishandle one of her many breakables. It was 10 years from when she had cancer and back then, the doctor said that they are sure that the treatment had permanently damaged her ability to reproduce. When we left that unnecessary stressful Christmas night, I asked my wife for a moment to relax before we drove away. What I did was pray to God that my sister would have a chance to know how different it is to raise boys and maybe understand how well behaved my son is. Within the year, she was pregnant, after she gave birth to the first one, she was sure it was a fluke and had the second one within a years time of the first one being born. Wild and demanding are a fair description of her boys. Vengeful God. A God that answers prayers humorously. Has to be most than the power of meditation or I have crazy mojo meditation powers. Completely circumstantial!

That is why there is no need to go to the hospital or take medication. Just pray to God and all will be healed.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: That is why there is no need to go to the hospital or take medication. Just pray to God and all will be healed.

I wish! Apparently God wanted me to give the doctor some of my wisdom. LOL
The mysterious workings of God or just dumb luck. I would rather be lucky than good.

I did however pray that my Dad keep his mind long enough to get his trust completed. About 2 days after it was sighed, he would not have been able to have signed it legally, cancer got up in his brain. A week later he was dead. With the trust, my Mom is much better off, it is the goal that I asked of God.
Example 3, I can play this game all day.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Religion or a belief in God(s) is only a temporary explanation (although always proven wrong once the knowledge is acquired) of the questions that we have no answers to yet. Many who still believe in religion or God(s) either haven't been totally satisfied with what we have acquired in knowledge of our universe to answer questions they may have, or have been indoctrinated or are too naive to believe the scientific evidence and knowledge that we have acquired and is publicly accessible to the masses. .

"Science is both a process of gaining knowledge, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process. The scientific process is the systematic acquisition of new knowledge about a system. This systematic acquisition is generally the scientific method, and the system is generally nature. Science is also the scientific knowledge that has been systematically acquired by this scientific process."

Just some comments:

Science has proven itself wrong through history. Science can invent itself as much as scientology can. Human science involves politics, it involves money, it involves human motivation, much the way religion can be abused. Science proves God just as much as it may seem to some to refute God. It all depends on your presuppositions, and everyone has those, usually formed by either personal experience, politics, money, human motivation. We have come up with parameters, systems and goals and used them to claim fact. We like to make ourselves gods.

quote Originally posted by FriendGregory: I wish! Apparently God wanted me to give the doctor some of my wisdom. LOL The mysterious workings of God or just dumb luck. I would rather be lucky than good. I did however pray that my Dad keep his mind long enough to get his trust completed. About 2 days after it was sighed, he would not have been able to have signed it legally, cancer got up in his brain. A week later he was dead. With the trust, my Mom is much better off, it is the goal that I asked of God. Example 3, I can play this game all day.

That's cool. Like I said, people believe in a God because its the temporary answer to questions that you may have.

You could have curse God and the same thing would have happened.

I have been thinking a long time about this.
Does God exsist.
I always come back to something I read, heard, or thought of some time ago, I don't remember.

We only exsist, becouse there is someone to witness it.
Someone to say "I see that, so it must exsist, atleast to me."
And then they ask someone else, to confirm it.
Then it is really real.

If there was only one person left on Earth, there would not be a single person left on Earth, becouse there would be no one to witness it and make it real.
But to that last person, he would be real to himself.
The question then becomes, is that enough to actually be real, just becouse you think it to be so?
Without confermation of your reality, could you just be a imagining of your own self?

Is "I am." enough to make it real?
Or "He is."?

I guess to the person saying it.
And those that agree.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I have been thinking a long time about this. Does God exsist. I always come back to something I read, heard, or thought of some time ago, I don't remember. We only exsist, becouse there is someone to witness it. Someone to say "I see that, so it must exsist, atleast to me." And then they ask someone else, to confirm it. Then it is really real. If there was only one person left on Earth, there would not be a single person left on Earth, becouse there would be no one to witness it and make it real. But to that last person, he would be real to himself. The question then becomes, is that enough to actually be real, just becouse you think it to be so? Without confermation of your reality, could you just be a imagining of your own self?

Well, you are a tough jury.

So it HAS to be another PERSON witnessing to your existence before you will judge that you can believe in your existence? At LEAST one.


I'm easier. I'll accept my DOG's witness. The way he wags his tail and gets all excited when he sees me, and he doesn't do that at other times. I accept that change in his behavior when I become present to him as evidence of my existence.

Or non-domesticated animals that are doing whatever they are doing, and then when they experience my existence, their behavior drastically changes and they flee.


But, then, I'm good with the evidence of my senses to witness to my existence. On a sunny day, I can eyewitness a shadow that moves in concert with my intentional movements.
I can build or arrange things, and to me that is enough evidence of my existence.


Just curious why you decided to render all other evidences invalid and insist that it MUST be a human witness.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Just curious why you decided to render all other evidences invalid and insist that it MUST be a human witness.

I did not nessisarily mean to do that, nor am I at all sure that I have any idea what I am talking about.
As to the human witness question, I guess it could be becouse we are the only creatures (that we know of?) that can reconize & express the notion of "I am." (the concept of one's self)?

Aspects Of Self:

1. The Existential Self
This is the most basic part of the self-scheme or self-concept; the sense of being separate and distinct from others and the awareness of the constancy of the self”.

The child realises that they exist as a separate entity from others and that they continue to exist over time and space. Awareness of the existential self begins as young as two to three months old and arises in part due to the relation the child has with the world. For example, the child smiles and someone smiles back, or the child touches a mobile and sees it move.

2. The Categorical Self
Having realised that he or she exists as a separate experiencing being, the child next becomes aware that he or she is also an object in the world. Just as other objects including people have properties that can be experienced (big, small, red, smooth and so on) so the child is becoming aware of him or her self as an object which can be experienced and which has properties. The self too can be put into categories such as age, gender, size or skill. Two of the first categories to be applied are age (“I am 3”) and gender (“I am a girl”).

Listen, i'm no brain, and not near on the intelligence level that you are.
I'm just throwing thoughts out of the darkness.

P.S. My original post is only "something I read, heard, or thought of some time ago, I don't remember."
I never claimed to believe it or even support it it.
Hell, i'm not even sure I actually exsist.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: As to the human witness question, I guess it could be becouse we are the only creatures (that we know of?) that can reconize & express the notion of "I am."

But you are looking for EXTERNAL evidence that you exist. So a life form doesn't have to be able to express "I am" for you. They have to be able to express "YOU are."

Animals handle that concept very well.
I'm not holding you accountable for the statement you heard, and asking you to defend it.

What I AM saying is that a LOT of these sort of existential statements like you heard somewhat SOUND profound on the surface, but then with a little scrutiny and a few foundational questions, they actually turn out to be pretty non-sensical hypotheticals.


If you are the only one person left on Earth, then there is one person left on Earth. Someone's else's perception or non-perception of it doesn't change what IS. He is ONLY real TO HIMSELF, because by the constraints of the hypothetical, there IS no other self.

But you aren't REAL because you THINK you are real.

Which begs another point. Just because you THINK something doesn't make it real, either.

I think I can take on some 350 pound person of solid muscle and kick his/her butt. That doesn't make it real.
I think I can jump off a 3 story building and fly. That doesn't make it real.

In either case, I'd get confirmation of "reality" REAL quick.


So is "I am" ENOUGH to make it real? No. But there is PLENTY of evidence that you are real.

What is interesting is what level and volume of evidence people require in order to believe what really is. Whether God exists, or I guess even more foundationally, whether YOU do.

(SPOILER ALERT: You actually DO exist.)

as far as the original question goes my answer is, No one will ever really know. Do "I" believe in God? no. Do I believe that there is the possibility? yes. although highly unlikely and who is to say which "god" it is. Why does it have to be a Christian god? who is to say which god is right and wrong? there is no way to prove that there is a god christian, pagan or any other manifestation. So no one will ever really know until they pass on.

quote Originally posted by Syn: So no one will ever really know until they pass on.

At that point I'm guessing that those who did not believe feel they have made a huge mistake.. And realized it too late.

quote Originally posted by Syn: who is to say which god is right and wrong?

YOU are the judge.

And for you to make the judgement as to if or which god is right or wrong, YOU have to decide which evidence is permissible.


Judges make that all the time. Inadmissible evidence. Admissible. You get to decide.

If you throw out the Bible, quran, Joseph Smith's writings, Torah, Tanach as inadmissible, which you can do, then you have science and you have everybody's opinion and imagination.


If you are using science and everybody's opinion and imagination, that is fine but then the answer is that you will NEVER reach a definitive verdict. You can't. You can make a judgement. Maybe you LIKE someone's imagination. Or maybe you hear a certain opinion enough times from enough people that you respect, and you base your judgement on that. But you don't REALLY reach a very definitive verdict. (and that any disrespect to your ultimate judgement.)

quote Originally posted by Syn: as far as the original question goes my answer is, No one will ever really know. Do "I" believe in God? no. Do I believe that there is the possibility? yes. although highly unlikely and who is to say which "god" it is. Why does it have to be a Christian god? who is to say which god is right and wrong? there is no way to prove that there is a god christian, pagan or any other manifestation. So no one will ever really know until they pass on.

As much as the monotheist want to claim there is only one god, it's clear that if there is one, there is more than one. There is no way to reconcile the varying descriptions no matter how one tries to rationalize it as "god appears differently to different people." That's just us talking and trying to make sense of it.

quote Originally posted by TK: There is no way to reconcile the varying descriptions no matter how one tries to rationalize it as "god appears differently to different people."

Just discussing with you here.

There is a very EASY way to reconcile it, just based on your life experience.


Forget God. Take any HUMAN. Pick an example. Take George Bush, for example. Take Barack Obama, for example.

Now just read through the threads JUST on Pennock's Fiero Forum. Read the VASTLY varying descriptions of them. Now expand that to around the world.


Why, with the divergence of descriptions, they must ACTUALLY be several different people. No. They are who they are. But there sure are varying descriptions. The vast majority of the descriptions coming from people who have NEVER seen EITHER person face to face, or spoken to them face to face. But they sure have firm, confident descriptions of them.

I always liked this story. I'd do as the football player did..
.
.
.
An atheist professor was teaching a college class and he told the class that he was going to prove that there is no God.
He placed a chair on the platform and took a seat.
He said, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!"
Ten minutes went by.
He kept taunting God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."
He got down to the last couple of minutes and a big 240 pound football player in the class walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him flying from his platform.
The professor struggled, obviously shaken and yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"
The football player replied, "God was busy; He sent me!"

[This message has been edited by Dodgerunner (edited 01-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Just discussing with you here. There is a very EASY way to reconcile it, just based on your life experience. Forget God. Take any HUMAN. Pick an example. Take George Bush, for example. Take Barack Obama, for example. Now just read through the threads JUST on Pennock's Fiero Forum. Read the VASTLY varying descriptions of them. Now expand that to around the world. Why, with the divergence of descriptions, they must ACTUALLY be several different people. No. They are who they are. But there sure are varying descriptions. The vast majority of the descriptions coming from people who have NEVER seen EITHER person face to face, or spoken to them face to face. But they sure have firm, confident descriptions of them.

I don't see the analogy. I consider this a rationalization. Since I have never been approached or experienced a god I can't say with complete authority. It's just my observation based on what I am told and watching people's reactions.

Maybe a better way to say it is that people appear to be talking about totally different gods.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 01-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by TK: Maybe a better way to say it is that people appear to be talking about totally different gods.

Exactly.

Just like people appear to be talking about entirely different PEOPLE. Doesn't mean they ARE different people.


Obama is SUCH a GREAT speaker.
Obama is a teleprompter reader.
Obama is one of the greatest presidents ever.
Obama is a socialist.
Obama is a measured decision maker.
Obama is paralyzed and can't make a decision.


He is who he is. Yet people appear to be talking about an entirely different person.


If there IS a monotheistic god, why would you think, just like any other being, there would be divergence of description just like there is with any person? And then you take the fact that there are people from different time periods, and people from different cultures.

I'm not quite sure how that becomes a rationalization. What I described is normal human behavior that happens to beings all the time.

Again, it's just an observation and opinion. I am not attempting to make any sense out of it or convince anyone otherwise. I understand your position and that's about as far as we will get.

quote Originally posted by TK: I have never been approached or experienced a god I can't say with complete authority. It's just my observation based on what I am told and watching people's reactions. Maybe a better way to say it is that people appear to be talking about totally different gods.

I've never had a personal, physical confrontation or experience with a god, either.

And I agree with your observation and comment.

IF you based what God was like based on what other people SAY, you WOULD say they were talking about totally different gods. Absolutely.
What people say about the God of the Bible, for example, and Allah of the Quran, they CANNOT be the same being. They have contradictory elements in their descriptions. IN that one, though, it isn't even PEOPLE saying different things, it is their own books that say different things.


But even the God of the Bible, people say different things about HIM, and if all are true, then correct, it cannot be the same being because the comments are contradictory.


My point, though, was that just because someone says something Bush or Obama that is contradictory to what someone else says doesn't result in a conclusion that there are two (or more) Bushes and two (or more) Obamas. It means that some peoples comments are actually wrong.


Hope that clarifies what I was saying.

Sure, I understand what you are saying. It's logical.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I have been thinking a long time about this. Does God exsist. I always come back to something I read, heard, or thought of some time ago, I don't remember. We only exsist, becouse there is someone to witness it.

No to say that is to say "is it relevant to me", not "does it exist".
I have never understood how anyone could claim that.
That whole if a tree fell in teh forest but no one was there to hear it thing.... of course it made a sound, if there weer nothgin on earth but plants they woudl still exist, it just wouldn't matter to the humans that were no longer there.

quote Originally posted by TK: Sure, I understand what you are saying. It's logical.

Good. I was testing my clarity in expressing it, and not in any way testing your capability to understand it. Glad you took it that way.

And being logical never was meant that therefore someone has to agree with it.

I appreciate you sharing your life experience and observations.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Good. I was testing my clarity in expressing it, and not in any way testing your capability to understand it. Glad you took it that way. And being logical never was meant that therefore someone has to agree with it. I appreciate you sharing your life experience and observations.

No problem! I didn't take it personal either way.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: No to say that is to say "is it relevant to me", not "does it exist". I have never understood how anyone could claim that. That whole if a tree fell in teh forest but no one was there to hear it thing.... of course it made a sound, if there weer nothgin on earth but plants they woudl still exist, it just wouldn't matter to the humans that were no longer there.

Some would say;

The tree falls and viberates air.
Our ear picks up that viberation, and converts it to "sound" (well, our brain does).
Untill those air vibrations are converted to sound, they are only air vibrations.
Take away the coverter (ear), and there is no sound.

Right?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Take away the coverter (ear), and there is no sound. Right?

Sure. But the lack of sound doesn't negate the existence of the tree, nor the fact that it fell.


The people that find it fun to do mental gymnastics about these issues go around and around.

"If there was no one to witness, and therefore no sound, how did you know it really happened?"


Uh, because YOU set up the hypothetical, and you SAID it did.

If I'm not in the woods, and I'm not hearing the sound of trees falling, I have no way to KNOW whether one did or not.

But my KNOWLEDGE of whether one did or not doesn't influence whether it indeed happened.

"Well, how do you KNOW it happened?"

Answer. I DON'T.

But where does one get the erroneous supposition that whether something IN REALITY happens or not is dependent on my knowledge of it.

There is A LOT of stuff that goes on FOR REAL, that I have NO knowledge of.


Fun to think through, though.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Sure. But the lack of sound doesn't negate the existence of the tree, nor the fact that it fell.

I'm only referring to sound the tree makes, not the trees existence.
And i'm not even referring to that.
Just the belief of that.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by rstubie: At that point I'm guessing that those who did not believe feel they have made a huge mistake.. And realized it too late.

Refer to my other question about who is to say what is right and wrong, that stands for which god is right or wrong. Or hell even which DENOMINATION is correct, I mean I know of 1st, 2nd AND 3rd Baptists. all believing different things, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodist, Mormon I mean really which is correct? and who is the judge? You can't look at the bible because it doesn't say "thou shalt not be a Methodist" I was raised a 1st Baptist all my life, I've read the bible front to back more times than I care to which is why I don't believe in god.

quote Originally posted by Syn: I've read the bible front to back more times than I care to which is why I don't believe in god.

I wasn't willing to determine my judgement based on second hand opinion from a denomination. I was like you. I read it cover to cover myself. Over 20 times now.

We came to a different conclusion, but I respect you for taking the time investment to read it yourself and decide for yourself.