Quote from: the joint on August 27, 2015, 02:49:13 AM

Quote from: OBAViJEST on August 26, 2015, 10:35:17 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on August 26, 2015, 07:50:45 PM

Quote from: BADecker on August 26, 2015, 06:00:33 PM

We don't even have free will.

Quote from: BADecker on April 14, 2015, 04:29:26 PM

Even the giving of free will to mankind...

Quote from: BADecker on August 26, 2015, 06:00:33 PM

We MAY have free will

Talk about cowardly covering all the bases so you're always correct whatever the outcome. Roll Eyes

BADecker has got so many different threads of lies going on, the wet end just can't keep track of them all. Funny. Cheesy

Remember, you can lie to us BADecker, but you can't lie to God. Tongue

LOL

Every single time I try debating with someone (on whether or not god exists), it seems to be with someone covering all the bases as you've mentioned. That, or the other person is simply so full of themselves it causes their mind to shut out any alternatives to their own 'beliefs'.

I literally just said that if we can grow lesser organisms in a petri dish, it's completely possible that our universe is a mere lab experiment in itself...and I'm being argued with the same exact logic Roll Eyes

We simply cannot use 'scientific facts' to understand something beyond our comprehension. Humanity's understanding of....EVERYTHING....has been attained from our time on Earth. That's it. There could be thousands of galaxies out there, each with different 'laws' of physics/biology/etc. We're carbon-based life forms.....who knows if there are species out there, created from the building blocks of 'elements' we can't even comprehend?

There are just too many variables out there, that it's both pointless and narrow-minded to be this devoted to finding a 'god'

Have you instead considered focusing on that which is invariant? For example, the relationship between objective content and perception is invariant, i.e. the existence of objective content is inherently linked to our perception of it. Not only is this self-apparent, but it precludes any unnecessary assumptions, e.g. that objective content can exist independent of perception.

The reason I mention this is to place a different spin on traditional exploration. Instead of trying to "find" anything, why not instead recognize, in the most simple of terms, how we come to understand anything at all (i.e. the process by which we know) and see what that might tell us about reality instead? Recognizing the self-evident truth that objective content and perception are logically inseparable has vast implications on reality in and of itself, and it can even tell us a hell of a lot about things that we haven't explored or don't know about yet.

Interesting, I like the way you think (no pun intended). Have any links or resources on this matter?