Christianity VS White Magic (Only for Spiritualist/WhiteMagicians & Christians)

[HillBilly]

If you really want to get down to it, nothing is provable.

Of course. But some things are alot more probable than others.

[Nikolas]

Yes. Here are other possible explanations:

1. Your children (and wife) are merely your hallucinations
2. You want to beleive you have a wife and children and have decived yourself into thinking they exist
3. You are lying to everyone here about whether you have a wife, or kids, or witnessed any birth
4. They're not your kids
5. A moderator edited the post after you wrote it and turned off the edit notice
6. The whole of AGS and its forum is a figment of my own hallucination
7. We are all characters in a story where the author wants things to seem like you have kids.
etc.

If you really want to get down to it, nothing is provable. So proof of God is as unattainable as proof of your own existence.

1. No cause I can feel them, clean up dippers and feed them.
2. No, cause I've met her family and my family hangs around with hers
3. Could be. It's up to you to believe that part...
4. Hmmm... with that nose? I think they are
5. Mods can't do that. Admins may but indeed I don't think CJ would bother...
6. Then we share the same halucination.
7. Prove it. (the easiest answer and the fastest one to com eto mind is almost always the correct one )

OF course if we take that road, we will never reach an agreement. But generally I would think that only a fool would doubt my having children (even if you haven't met me inperson... where binky has... (without children, though). But "the ultiamte truth" is kinda problematic.

either way, I can certianly accept that people believe to something I maybe have trouble believeing in, and even more accept that they think it's the truth (which is a big possiblity to me). What  Ican accept is someone preaching over hte internet about that truth, being the only one!

And I am very tall!

[Babar]

Let me make it simpler then, I take back what I said. I am what I am/do what I do because I KNOW it to be (at least part of) the truth.

I think SSH has a point, Cap'n Binky. Being true does not necessarily mean it is verifiable. The truth was the truth even before it became verifiable. You agree to that fact. The earth has always been round, gravity has been around long before Isaac Newton said anything, etc. You don't see where this is going?

You will not listen to anyone talk about the truth of their religion until what? They invent the God-detector and it beeps green? You will not listen to anyone who talks about Jesus as the truth until what? They.....(I can't even think of an answer to this...A Jesus-Detector?). Most of the arguments have been laid on the table, and have been there for thousands of years. The "Documents" for and against, the "artifacts". The rest is just verbal calisthenics.

Now let me expand on the "KNOW". For myself, I've seen enough "proof" to accept what I've accepted, in the same way I accept the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity. If someone came up with something that showed that gravity is not how I think it is, or relativity just scratched the surface, I'd happily listen, and the same with my understanding of religion and God.

[Nikolas]

I don't know if you can clasify things in the "undenyiable truths", and the "shaky ground truths" really...

But if I wat to do that I would place the Earth being round in the first truth (and the fact that I personally have children), and the there is god in the second. Personally.

But either way I see little point in discussing about the truth. The truth is something for people to dissagree on...

[CaptainBinky]

I think SSH has a point, Cap'n Binky. Being true does not necessarily mean it is verifiable. The truth was the truth even before it became verifiable.

In other words, up until the point they realised they were wrong, it was utterly true that the world was flat? You can't say that that statement is "true" just because it's what everybody believed. What you can say, is that they believed it to be true.

I am holding a pen in my hand right now. Is that the truth? Well how can you possibly say. You can believe me, or you can disbelieve me, but you can't be absolute one way or the other simply because you have absolutely no way of knowing.

As it happens, I was lying.

Or was I?

Such is the big problem with life. You have no way of knowing, and because it's therefore utterly meaningless you probably don't care a great deal. Which funnily enough, is exactly how I feel about whether or not there's a God.

[SSH]

I think SSH has a point, Cap'n Binky. Being true does not necessarily mean it is verifiable. The truth was the truth even before it became verifiable.

In other words, up until the point they realised they were wrong, it was utterly true that the world was flat? You can't say that that statement is "true" just because it's what everybody believed. What you can say, is that they believed it to be true.

That's not what he said at all. The fact that the world is round was true before it was verificable, i.e. before mankind had the ability to deduce it. You said things are only true if they are verifiable, Binky. Relativity was a bad example.

As for meaninglessness, don't you think avoiding eternal torment is important?

[CaptainBinky]

That's not what he said at all. The fact that the world is round was true before it was verificable

Yes, but until it's verified I don't know whether it's true or not and neither does anyone else.

So the only difference between the statements:

"The world is round"
and
"The world is flat"

is that we now know that the world is round so we can say that the first statement is true and the second false. But until we verified it, they were both just opinions regardless of the fact that with hindsight, one can be said to be correct.

[Nacho]

Explain me something... Are you deffending the existence of God, denying the existence of "Truths", or "realities"?

I don' t know how this debate started, by, you, believers, what are basically saying is "We can' t be sure if the Earth rotates once a day... But God exist, that' s true"?

Don' t you see how contradictory that is?

-We can' t be sure if Nikolas exist... he might be an hallucination... But God is real. Maybe nothing exists... Then the evidences we staled about the existence of God are allucinations as well... But God is real.

You, believers, must put eveything in doubt because the "existence of God" is a knowleadge that is in the same bag as "The World is flat" and "The Earth is in the middle of the Universe". You must put in doubt that the earth rotates, because, otherwise, God will go to the bin with this ancient theories. This one has lasted more just because it' s basically nice. Be nice and go to Heaven, you are forgiven, blah, blah...

Anyway, still, a silly argument, because if nothing exists, God either, IMO.

PS after seeing a reply: Nice coincidence you mentioned "Thw world is flat" Blinky. Ã, 

[Babar]

EDIT: What SSH said.

EDIT: To what Binky said.

Binky, if a person said that the world was round when most people thought it was flat, would that person be telling the truth? If a person KNEW that the world was round when most people thought it was flat, would that person be telling the truth?

It's all good. You say something that has not been proved by consensus is opinion and not the truth. I say otherwise.


SSH:
Damn you and your weird powers, SSH! Everytime I make a post I have this weird déjà  vu of you posting a little ditty witty right after it!

Nicholas, I'm surprised that you put such a personally unverifiable truth as the Earth being round as your "first truth" .

EDIT: LET ME GET A WORD IN!

Farl, what's going on right now is a whole lot of "what ifs" and "I don't believe because I can't sees" and "lets play games with ideas" because nothing fruitful can come from such an odd discussion.

BTW, you are all fools

[Nacho]

But, when asked for evidences, believers can' t do anything else than taking the debate to odd fields like "faith", "miracles", "prophecies" and "visions"... So, I think that this is much illustrative...

[CaptainBinky]

Binky, if a person said that the world was round when most people thought it was flat, would that person be telling the truth?

I wouldn't know. I could ask him why he thinks that then either believe him or not.

If a person KNEW that the world was round when most people thought it was flat, would that person be telling the truth?

As above. If it turned out that it could be proved that the Earth was round, then with hindsight we could say that he was telling the truth, and all the people who believed him would smile smugly.

It's all good. You say something that has not been proved by consensus is opinion and not the truth. I say otherwise.

So if I tell you that God doesn't exist, is that the truth? Or is it my opinion?

[Babar]

So if I tell you that God doesn't exist, is that the truth? Or is it my opinion?

I don't know. I say God exists, and that's the truth. Nyaah! (This could go on forever)

Farl, my proof is not your proof. Go look for your own proof! Oh, you don't want to? Ok.

If I said why I think that people don't think God exists, they'd think I was insulting them, so it's safer for me to be quiet. This is an Adventure Game Studio forum, and I'm here because I play/make adventure games. Besides, I am not another person, so I can never be sure WHAT exactly they are thinking.

[Nacho]

Babar, you say "A person knows the Truth... Maybe it' s the only in the World who knows it... He is right, the others are wrong". I basically agree here. That can happen. One person can be the only who owns the truth in the world. It actually happened before, when someone said something newthat finally was real.

And then, your stalement fails... you say that the "believers" are an example of that... You can' t know that. You examine yourself and tell "This belief is so strong, that I can' t be wrong" False... Strenght of beliefs do not determine the truth. You can find very amart people who are socialists... You can find very smart people who are conservative.

What about if you find someone who has the same certain of the opposite? If you find someone who is so sure about the innexistence of God will your beliefs rumble? Because that God does not exist is probably the thing I am more sure about.

No... Strong beliefs do not make a belief true. Only truth makes believe be true.

You can' t prove God exists. I can' t prove It doesn' t... But I can tell there are no evidences, at least. You can' t say there are.

I can say that believing in God is comfortable and that' s probably the psicologycal reason of why so many adult, inteligent people do. You can' t say that being skeptical is comfortable.

I can say that, historically, promising a paradise to those who follow the variable ideas of the Church has been a tool for the Church which has given it a surprising amount of power. You can say "The missuse of the idea of God by the church does not mean it does not exist...", but you can' t refutate the previous idea.

So... We have logical againt faith. I don' t need it. If someones need it, I won' t be the one telling them they must reject the faith... But please, don' t try to make me belief in fairy tales because you need them.

[Nikolas]

I don't know. I say God exists, and that's the truth. Nyaah! (This could go on forever)

Yes, but the problem lies that Nikolas, Farl and Binky are not trying to convince anyone about the truth (which neither are you, but rmullen is), but most importanly we are not even claiming to know the turth. You are

[Nacho]

To be honest Nikolas, believers and skeptical fall, probably without intending so, I must say, into telling the other what to believe or not... I want to apology if I made that... 

[SSH]

You can' t prove God exists. I can' t prove It doesn' t... But I can tell there are no evidences, at least. You can' t say there are.

Of course there is evidence. The Bible is evidence, the number of believers is evidence. It is not enough evidence to prove, true, but you can't say that that isn't evidence.

[Nikolas]

Farl, Indeed...

I do apologise as well...

SSH: yes, ok but the bible for me is a shaky evidence (a simple book writtng by meer humans), and the number of believers would mostly signify the existance of Budha, or the Indian theology rather than chirstian god

[Nacho]

Andrew, Mein Kampf was a book, and it had a lot of believers. I am not saying that the bible says the same, and that the Christians are Nazis, but I mean "There are some books that can be seen as sacred, and a doctrine can have a lot of followers" That does not imply that what is said in the book is the truth and that the followers are right. That' s not a fact, that' s a...  a something... which does not imply anything.

[Babar]

Nacho, I did not say (specifically) that believers were an example of that.

Once again, I'll say that I have my proofs, and I have no evidence to the contrary. My proof, however, is not your proof. It wouldn't work for you. Also, if someone can prove to me the inexistence of God, I'll accept that. Although, as you said, it's not possible. If someone does not believe in God, there will be little that can prove the existence of God to them. I find it very, very, very unlikely that someone will come up with an equation and say "Therefore God exists!" and everyone will accept.

It's not at all a question of Logic vs. Faith. Once someone knows that God exists, or is willing to accept the existence of God, Logic supports them. But not before.

That bit about being comfortable vs. skeptical is another thing that scares me concerning general views towards "religiousness": Oh, he's just religious because he's more comfortable accepting all than questioning anything.

That's not how I work. Show me something contradicting God's existence, and I'll drop it like it's hot.  If I see something contradicting it, I'll drop it like it's hot. And no, I'm not wilfully closing my eyes to any of it. Show me.

Nicholas: No, I AM trying to convince you of the truth. I'm just trying to convince you to look for it yourself. I can't relate to you to be able to have you understand what I see as the "Truth".

[MrColossal]

Of course there is evidence. The Bible is evidence, the number of believers is evidence. It is not enough evidence to prove, true, but you can't say that that isn't evidence.

Logical Fallacy

Appeal to Common Belief
This fallacy is the argument that a claim must be true because many people believe it. It ignores the possibility, demonstrated frequently throughout history, that the majority can be completely wrong. The popularity of an idea or claim is often based upon features other than logic or evidence.

Believers aren't evidence, sorry.