Give me proof that God is real

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

Life is not a dream. Dreams are dreams. Thus, when we are not dreaming, we are in reality...reality as defined by us. When in reality, our own existaece is proof of our own existence.

Tell me, are you always this awkward? I'm beginning to think you are.

LJS9502_basic

In other words....you can't prove it. Exactly. Oh...and just because you can't wrap your head around a philosophy doesn't mean I'm awkward. It means you can't think outside the box.:)

You are trying to prove your point by meddling with word definitions and too many what ifs and yeah buts. And that philosophy -- which I understand perfectly -- is yet more speculation based on nothing.

I could suggest something as equally absurd, but it would prove nothing.

EDIT: and if by "thinking outside the box" you mean opening my mind to baseless analogies and the plain ridiculous, then more power to you. How about you think outside your faith-blinded box for once?

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

What an original thread......Prove you exist.;)

resistance93

I am sorry. I do not understand this in the slightest. What kind of zany rebuttal is this? Our own existence is evidence of our own existence. :|

I cannot fathom your thinking behind this.

There is no proof you exist. I could be imaging life in my own mind. The brain is a powerful organ. When we dream...they seem real. Perhaps life is one continuos dream. There is no proof you exist. Sorry.

How about you reason with actual facts and proofs and not with some bizarre, almost riddle-like speculation?

I just found proof that luke doesn't have a sense of humor

I...umm...what? :|

so the account of the mundane and the supernatural should be given equal value?
Mr_sprinkles

You can't entirely discredit the supernatural. Do you believe in aliens? Seems a lot of people here do. These are the same people that are atheist due to a lack of scientific proof. Seems hypocritical to me as they have no proof aliens exist. Yet they speak absolutely that they must exist. I find this very ironic.

Anyway...my point was that his original statement was false because eyewitness accounts are used as evidence. Nothing more philosophical than that. He was wrong.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

Life is not a dream. Dreams are dreams. Thus, when we are not dreaming, we are in reality...reality as defined by us. When in reality, our own existaece is proof of our own existence.

Tell me, are you always this awkward? I'm beginning to think you are.

luke1889

In other words....you can't prove it. Exactly. Oh...and just because you can't wrap your head around a philosophy doesn't mean I'm awkward. It means you can't think outside the box.:)

You are trying to prove your point by meddling with word definitions and too many what ifs and yeah buts. And that philosophy -- which I understand perfectly -- is yet more speculation based on nothing.

I could suggest something as equally absurd, but it would prove nothing.

EDIT: and if by "thinking outside the box" you mean opening my mind to baseless analogies and the plain ridiculous, then more power to you. How about you think outside your faith-blinded box for once?

Um...no. You can't actually prove the existence of anything since all sensations come from the brain. That is not absurd and I didn't invent that philosophy.;)

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

But God told that to Muhammed or something, are you calling God a liar? :shock: :P

LJS9502_basic

Um...no....remember whether one is religious or not...the Christian ideology was begun by the Jewish faith....there is a continuation. Muhammed had his own agenda.

Just as Constantine had his own agenda, I'm sure.

Oh jeez. Not another one of these. Ok, just to clear a few things up...

...it is physically impossible to prove something supernatural DOESN'T exist. It just cannot be done. Ever. How do you prove a god doesn't exist? By NOT finding it? Can you not see that that makes ZERO sense?

Seriously, I wish the theists would stop plugging this ridiculous line; it's a logical fallacy that needs to be laid to rest. It is simply NOT a valid rebuttal.

Please, please, please...if one thing is to change around here, when someone asks you to prove your religion, stop just shifting the burden of proof like that. That is NOT how proving something works. You have to prove the positive assertion, not disprove its negative counterpart.

WHY DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?

Not being able to prove something doesn't exist is not evidence that it does exist, not in the absolute slightest for the reason given above. If you want to play that plainly ridiculous game, then why don't you theists disprove Krishna, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Oh wait, you can't. So why don't you believe in them as well, huh?

And the end of the day, NO religion can EVER be said to be "the truth" on this very simple basis. They are all POSSIBILITIES at the very best and, no matter which one you have chosen -- or been told to choose -- they are all just as likely AND unlikely as each other. No matter how much you believe; no matter how much "faith" you have.

That's right...Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and all the rest...they're all on the same footing so far as credibility is concerned. Like it or lump it, that the cold, harsh reality of the situation.

luke1889

+1billion, well said luke.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"] so the account of the mundane and the supernatural should be given equal value?
LJS9502_basic

You can't entirely discredit the supernatural. Do you believe in aliens? Seems a lot of people here do. These are the same people that are atheist due to a lack of scientific proof. Seems hypocritical to me as they have no proof aliens exist. Yet they speak absolutely that they must exist. I find this very ironic.

Anyway...my point was that his original statement was false because eyewitness accounts are used as evidence. Nothing more philosophical than that. He was wrong.

Again, your comparison is flawed. The bolded section shows where you are being far too general. There is a stark difference between an eyewitness account of an alleged crime and a supernatural event. An account of a supernatural event, for starters, would not even be taken seriously if it were submitted in court. Does this not say something to you about the credibility of such a submission?

It simply cannot be supported by ANYTHING.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

But God told that to Muhammed or something, are you calling God a liar? :shock: :P

Zagrius

Um...no....remember whether one is religious or not...the Christian ideology was begun by the Jewish faith....there is a continuation. Muhammed had his own agenda.

Just as Constantine had his own agenda, I'm sure.

He didn't write the Bible however. Point is moot.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"] so the account of the mundane and the supernatural should be given equal value?
luke1889

You can't entirely discredit the supernatural. Do you believe in aliens? Seems a lot of people here do. These are the same people that are atheist due to a lack of scientific proof. Seems hypocritical to me as they have no proof aliens exist. Yet they speak absolutely that they must exist. I find this very ironic.

Anyway...my point was that his original statement was false because eyewitness accounts are used as evidence. Nothing more philosophical than that. He was wrong.

Again, your comparison is flawed. The bolded section shows where you are being far too general. There is a stark difference between an eyewitness account of an alleged crime and a supernatural event. An account of a supernatural event, for starters, would not even be taken seriously if it were submitted in court. Does this not say something to you about the credibility of such a submission?

It simply cannot be supported by ANYTHING.

Eyewitness accounts have convicted people. It's not flawed dude.:|

Only difference is that you choose not to believe some eyewitness accounts.;)

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]The empty tomb is but one of many converging lines of evidence that suggest a resurrectionnotconspiracy

I was referring to the tomb alone. An empty tomb proves that there was an empty tomb. Suppose there was a man. He claimed to be the Messiah. He died. He was buried. One day, his grave was found to have been dug up and the body removed.

Would you assume a resurrection? Of course not. Damn grave robber more like.

But woah! What is this? We have a guy. He claimed to be the Messiah. He died. His place of burial was found to be empty. See the problem here?

Oh, and if you cite the "appearances" to various people, don't forget...just more...ACCOUNTS. No evidence.

okay, luke, there is a problem. the VAST overwhelming majority of ancient history is based on NOTHING more than accounts. just words on paper. are we to throw out all of ancient history just to suit your worldview?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]are we to throw out all of ancient history just because people can write stories?luke1889

I have been through this point before. There is more than just written evidence for a lot of ancient history. The pyramids? Check. Coliseums? Check. Aztec buildings? Check. Archeological finds? Check.

Those examples prove NOTHING about specific figures or events. just that thousands of years ago, there were people. these people built big structures for whatever reason.

Religion? Nothing. Just ACCOUNTS.luke1889

once again, for specific figures and events of antiquity, we have nothing more than accounts.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"] what would you count as evidence?luke1889

Something subject that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny, so as to provide empirical evidence. Truths operate on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis. There are many religions, none are provable because they do not provide the necessary evidence. Thus, not truths here.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]The empty tomb is but one of many converging lines of evidence that suggest a resurrectionswizz-the-gamer

I was referring to the tomb alone. An empty tomb proves that there was an empty tomb. Suppose there was a man. He claimed to be the Messiah. He died. He was buried. One day, his grave was found to have been dug up and the body removed.

Would you assume a resurrection? Of course not. Damn grave robber more like.

But woah! What is this? We have a guy. He claimed to be the Messiah. He died. His place of burial was found to be empty. See the problem here?

Oh, and if you cite the "appearances" to various people, don't forget...just more...ACCOUNTS. No evidence.

okay, luke, there is a problem. the VAST overwhelming majority of ancient history is based on NOTHING more than accounts. just words on paper. are we to throw out all of ancient history just to suit your worldview?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]are we to throw out all of ancient history just because people can write stories?luke1889

I have been through this point before. There is more than just written evidence for a lot of ancient history. The pyramids? Check. Coliseums? Check. Aztec buildings? Check. Archeological finds? Check.

Those examples prove NOTHING about specific figures or events. just that thousands of years ago, there were people. these people built big structures for whatever reason.

Religion? Nothing. Just ACCOUNTS.luke1889

once again, for specific figures and events of antiquity, we have nothing more than accounts.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"] what would you count as evidence?luke1889

Something subject that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny, so as to provide empirical evidence. Truths operate on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis. There are many religions, none are provable because they do not provide the necessary evidence. Thus, not truths here.

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

Life is not a dream. Dreams are dreams. Thus, when we are not dreaming, we are in reality...reality as defined by us. When in reality, our own existaece is proof of our own existence.

Tell me, are you alwaysthis awkward? I'm beginning to think you are.

LJS9502_basic

In other words....you can't prove it. Exactly. Oh...and just because you can't wrap your head around a philosophy doesn't mean I'm awkward. It means you can't think outside the box.:)

You are trying to prove your point by meddling with word definitions and too many what ifs and yeah buts. And that philosophy -- which I understand perfectly -- is yet more speculation based on nothing.

I could suggest something as equally absurd, but it would prove nothing.

EDIT: and if by "thinking outside the box" you mean opening my mind to baseless analogies and the plain ridiculous, then more power to you. How about you think outside your faith-blinded box for once?

Um...no. You can't actually prove the existence of anything since all sensations come from the brain. That is not absurd and I didn't invent that philosophy.;)

LJ, you are playing mind games, much like the creator of that philosophy was...much like the Wachowski brother did. And I hate to break it to you -- and you better ready the tissues -- but playing mind games do not get you anywhere when you're trying to prove something.

Philosophy is pure speculation, and speculation will win you no evidential battles, let alone an evidential war.

LJ, you are playing mind games, much like the creator of that philosophy was...much like the Wachowski brother did. And I hate to break it to you -- and you better ready the tissues -- but playing mind games do not get you anywhere when you're trying to prove something.

Philosophy is pure speculation, and speculation will win you no evidential battles, let alone an evidential war.

luke1889

Oh I don't know about that. You still haven't proven that you exist. Must be something to it if you can't provide proof.

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]The empty tomb is but one of many converging lines of evidence that suggest a resurrectionnotconspiracy

I was referring to the tomb alone. An empty tomb proves that there was an empty tomb. Suppose there was a man. He claimed to be the Messiah. He died. He was buried. One day, his grave was found to have been dug up and the body removed.

Would you assume a resurrection? Of course not. Damn grave robber more like.

But woah! What is this? We have a guy. He claimed to be the Messiah. He died. His place of burial was found to be empty. See the problem here?

Oh, and if you cite the "appearances" to various people, don't forget...just more...ACCOUNTS. No evidence.

okay, luke, there is a problem. the VAST overwhelming majority of ancient history is based on NOTHING more than accounts. just words on paper. are we to throw out all of ancient history just to suit your worldview?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]are we to throw out all of ancient history just because people can write stories?luke1889

I have been through this point before. There is more than just written evidence for a lot of ancient history. The pyramids? Check. Coliseums? Check. Aztec buildings? Check. Archeological finds? Check.

Those examples prove NOTHING about specific figures or events. just that thousands of years ago, there were people. these people built big structures for whatever reason.

Religion? Nothing. Just ACCOUNTS.luke1889

once again, for specific figures and events of antiquity, we have nothing more than accounts.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"] what would you count as evidence?luke1889

Something subject that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny, so as to provide empirical evidence. Truths operate on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis. There are many religions, none are provable because they do not provide the necessary evidence. Thus, not truths here.

there is multiple indepedent attestation of these events as in corroborating testimonies. notconspiracy

Let me ask you this...if there was all the written accounts of the Egyptian empire -- for argument's sake -- but no physical evidence -- such as the Pyramids or mummies or anything -- would you believe it actually happened?

[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

But God told that to Muhammed or something, are you calling God a liar? :shock: :P

LJS9502_basic

Um...no....remember whether one is religious or not...the Christian ideology was begun by the Jewish faith....there is a continuation. Muhammed had his own agenda.

Just as Constantine had his own agenda, I'm sure.

He didn't write the Bible however. Point is moot.

Okay, and I suppose that those who wrote the Bible (both T's) didn't have an agenda because they're the chosen, pure people of Judah?

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

LJ, you are playing mind games, much like the creator of that philosophy was...much like the Wachowski brother did. And I hate to break it to you -- and you better ready the tissues -- but playing mind games do not get you anywhere when you're trying to prove something.

Philosophy is pure speculation, and speculation will win you no evidential battles, let alone an evidential war.

LJS9502_basic

Oh I don't know about that. You still haven't proven that you exist. Must be something to it if you can't provide proof.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

LJ, you are playing mind games, much like the creator of that philosophy was...much like the Wachowski brother did. And I hate to break it to you -- and you better ready the tissues -- but playing mind games do not get you anywhere when you're trying to prove something.

Philosophy is pure speculation, and speculation will win you no evidential battles, let alone an evidential war.

swizz-the-gamer

Oh I don't know about that. You still haven't proven that you exist. Must be something to it if you can't provide proof.

Nope. I've made a point he has yet to refute. However, if you want to take up his case...be my guest. I await your proof.

So how many people have to say something for it to be true? Please explain your logic.
swizz-the-gamer

but anyway, I am trying to prove a historical event. multiple, independent attestation of an event is strong evidence for an event.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]there is multiple indepedent attestation of these events as in corroborating testimonies. luke1889

Let me ask you this...if there was all the written accounts of the Egyptian empire -- for argument's sake -- but no physical evidence -- such as the Pyramids or mummies or anything -- would you believe it actually happened?

Eyewitness accounts have convicted people. It's not flawed dude.:|

Only difference is that you choose not to believe some eyewitness accounts.;)

LJS9502_basic

some people just make exceptions for god.

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]The empty tomb is but one of many converging lines of evidence that suggest a resurrectionnotconspiracy

I was referring to the tomb alone. An empty tomb proves that there was an empty tomb. Suppose there was a man. He claimed to be the Messiah. He died. He was buried. One day, his grave was found to have been dug up and the body removed.

Would you assume a resurrection? Of course not. Damn grave robber more like.

But woah! What is this? We have a guy. He claimed to be the Messiah. He died. His place of burial was found to be empty. See the problem here?

Oh, and if you cite the "appearances" to various people, don't forget...just more...ACCOUNTS. No evidence.

okay, luke, there is a problem. the VAST overwhelming majority of ancient history is based on NOTHING more than accounts. just words on paper. are we to throw out all of ancient history just to suit your worldview?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]are we to throw out all of ancient history just because people can write stories?luke1889

I have been through this point before. There is more than just written evidence for a lot of ancient history. The pyramids? Check. Coliseums? Check. Aztec buildings? Check. Archeological finds? Check.

Those examples prove NOTHING about specific figures or events. just that thousands of years ago, there were people. these people built big structures for whatever reason.

Religion? Nothing. Just ACCOUNTS.luke1889

once again, for specific figures and events of antiquity, we have nothing more than accounts.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"] what would you count as evidence?luke1889

Something subject that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny, so as to provide empirical evidence. Truths operate on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis. There are many religions, none are provable because they do not provide the necessary evidence. Thus, not truths here.

The way I perceive these things should be very apparent to you now. Even for something like a supposedly well established piece of recorded history, it if is only based on personal accounts, I have my doubts about that too.

Don't think my skepticism is solely confined to religion.

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] Wow you are terrible at debating...

LJS9502_basic

Nope. I've made a point he has yet to refute. However, if you want to take up his case...be my guest. I await your proof.

Still waiting for that proof. You've gone quiet. Where's your debating skills?

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="ElZilcho90"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="lnotconspiracy"]are we to throw out all of ancient history just because people can write stories?notconspiracy

I have been through this point before. There is more than just written evidence for a lot of ancient history. The pyramids? Check. Coliseums? Check. Aztec buildings? Check. Archeological finds? Check.

Religion? Nothing. Just ACCOUNTS.

...you are aware that a vast amount of history is based upon these "accounts"? It's not solely physical evidence like the Pyramids or dug-up arrowheads.

When you have actual physical evidence like the Pyramids, written accounts based on these have a shade more credibility.

But religious scriptures support no physical evidence. This is where my issue lies. Well, that and it fails to live up-to the standard of proper evidence as prescribed by the entire scientific community.

The written accounts can be used in connection with the physical evidence to formulate SOME truths. But ultimately, my above point still stands.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]The empty tomb is but one of many converging lines of evidence that suggest a resurrectionluke1889

I was referring to the tomb alone. An empty tomb proves that there was an empty tomb. Suppose there was a man. He claimed to be the Messiah. He died. He was buried. One day, his grave was found to have been dug up and the body removed.

Would you assume a resurrection? Of course not. Damn grave robber more like.

But woah! What is this? We have a guy. He claimed to be the Messiah. He died. His place of burial was found to be empty. See the problem here?

Oh, and if you cite the "appearances" to various people, don't forget...just more...ACCOUNTS. No evidence.

okay, luke, there is a problem. the VAST overwhelming majority of ancient history is based on NOTHING more than accounts. just words on paper. are we to throw out all of ancient history just to suit your worldview?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]are we to throw out all of ancient history just because people can write stories?luke1889

I have been through this point before. There is more than just written evidence for a lot of ancient history. The pyramids? Check. Coliseums? Check. Aztec buildings? Check. Archeological finds? Check.

Those examples prove NOTHING about specific figures or events. just that thousands of years ago, there were people. these people built big structures for whatever reason.

Religion? Nothing. Just ACCOUNTS.luke1889

once again, for specific figures and events of antiquity, we have nothing more than accounts.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"] what would you count as evidence?luke1889

Something subject that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny, so as to provide empirical evidence. Truths operate on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis. There are many religions, none are provable because they do not provide the necessary evidence. Thus, not truths here.

The way I perceive these things should be very apparent to you now. Even for something like a supposedly well established piece of recorded history, it if is only based on personal accounts, I have my doubts about that too.

Don't think my skepticism is solely confined to religion.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="ElZilcho90"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="lnotconspiracy"]are we to throw out all of ancient history just because people can write stories?luke1889

I have been through this point before. There is more than just written evidence for a lot of ancient history. The pyramids? Check. Coliseums? Check. Aztec buildings? Check. Archeological finds? Check.

Religion? Nothing. Just ACCOUNTS.

...you are aware that a vast amount of history is based upon these "accounts"? It's not solely physical evidence like the Pyramids or dug-up arrowheads.

When you have actual physical evidence like the Pyramids, written accounts based on these have a shade more credibility.

But religious scriptures support no physical evidence. This is where my issue lies. Well, that and it fails to live up-to the standard of proper evidence as prescribed by the entire scientific community.

The written accounts can be used in connection with the physical evidence to formulate SOME truths. But ultimately, my above point still stands.

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] So how many people have to say something for it to be true? Please explain your logic.
notconspiracy

but anyway, I am trying to prove a historical event. multiple, independent attestation of an event is strong evidence for an event.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]there is multiple indepedent attestation of these events as in corroborating testimonies. luke1889

Let me ask you this...if there was all the written accounts of the Egyptian empire -- for argument's sake -- but no physical evidence -- such as the Pyramids or mummies or anything -- would you believe it actually happened?

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

Life is not a dream. Dreams are dreams. Thus, when we are not dreaming, we are in reality...reality as defined by us. When in reality, our own existaece is proof of our own existence.

Tell me, are you always this awkward? I'm beginning to think you are.

LJS9502_basic

In other words....you can't prove it. Exactly. Oh...and just because you can't wrap your head around a philosophy doesn't mean I'm awkward. It means you can't think outside the box.:)

You are trying to prove your point by meddling with word definitions and too many what ifs and yeah buts. And that philosophy -- which I understand perfectly -- is yet more speculation based on nothing.

I could suggest something as equally absurd, but it would prove nothing.

EDIT: and if by "thinking outside the box" you mean opening my mind to baseless analogies and the plain ridiculous, then more power to you. How about you think outside your faith-blinded box for once?

Um...no. You can't actually prove the existence of anything since all sensations come from the brain. That is not absurd and I didn't invent that philosophy.;)

If we do not base proof on our perceptions and sensations, what do you suggest as an apt replacement?

Seriously, you're arguing crazy now.

[QUOTE="resistance93"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

What an original thread......Prove you exist.;)

luke1889

I am sorry. I do not understand this in the slightest. What kind of zany rebuttal is this? Our own existence is evidence of our own existence. :|

I cannot fathom your thinking behind this.

There is no proof you exist. I could be imaging life in my own mind. The brain is a powerful organ. When we dream...they seem real. Perhaps life is one continuos dream. There is no proof you exist. Sorry.

How about you reason with actual facts and proofs and not with some bizarre, almost riddle-like speculation?

I just found proof that luke doesn't have a sense of humor

I...umm...what? :|

You don't have a sense of humor - I'm pretty sure he was joking when he said to prove that you exist.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] So how many people have to say something for it to be true? Please explain your logic.
swizz-the-gamer

but anyway, I am trying to prove a historical event. multiple, independent attestation of an event is strong evidence for an event.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]there is multiple indepedent attestation of these events as in corroborating testimonies. luke1889

Let me ask you this...if there was all the written accounts of the Egyptian empire -- for argument's sake -- but no physical evidence -- such as the Pyramids or mummies or anything -- would you believe it actually happened?

If we do not base proof on our perceptions and sensations, what do you suggest as an apt replacement?

Seriously, you're arguing crazy now.

luke1889

And you don't understand the argument. Nothing need replace the brain...however, the brain can't prove the sensation actually exists...ONLY that it process it. For that is solely the job of the brain. Processing the information. Notice how people on hallucinogenics see things that aren't there? Because of the chemical effect on the brain of the drug.;)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] Wow you are terrible at debating...

LJS9502_basic

Nope. I've made a point he has yet to refute. However, if you want to take up his case...be my guest. I await your proof.

Still waiting for that proof. You've gone quiet. Where's your debating skills?

GIVE ME a proof that we come from some fishes that came from i dont know where, prove me that big_boss4life

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] So how many people have to say something for it to be true? Please explain your logic.
notconspiracy

but anyway, I am trying to prove a historical event. multiple, independent attestation of an event is strong evidence for an event.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]there is multiple indepedent attestation of these events as in corroborating testimonies. luke1889

Let me ask you this...if there was all the written accounts of the Egyptian empire -- for argument's sake -- but no physical evidence -- such as the Pyramids or mummies or anything -- would you believe it actually happened?

no it doesnt. You're providing evidence that GROUPS of people LIVED around a certain time. there is no physical evidence for a very specific person or a specific event. notconspiracy

The SOME truths can be the groups of people and what they created. Ultimately, the specifics can never be fully verified, so they will always remain in doubt. Even if that is a large proportion of the history.

I kind fo feel like I'm starting to agree with your here. Do you think so also?

We can have what we think history MAY have been, but a lot of it can always be cast into doubt because of its written nature. Do you disagree?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] Wow you are terrible at debating...

swizz-the-gamer

Nope. I've made a point he has yet to refute. However, if you want to take up his case...be my guest. I await your proof.

Still waiting for that proof. You've gone quiet. Where's your debating skills?

I'm not asking for proof of God. Theres is none. That's why it's called faith. I asked for Luke's proof that he exists.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] So how many people have to say something for it to be true? Please explain your logic.
swizz-the-gamer

but anyway, I am trying to prove a historical event. multiple, independent attestation of an event is strong evidence for an event.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]there is multiple indepedent attestation of these events as in corroborating testimonies. luke1889

Let me ask you this...if there was all the written accounts of the Egyptian empire -- for argument's sake -- but no physical evidence -- such as the Pyramids or mummies or anything -- would you believe it actually happened?

You would you believe that athousend years before you were born your gran-gran-gran ec etc father, predict in a book without knowing anything just for visions and for a certain *God* voice , that in the year 19** a boy was going to born, and that he would be a good (for example) Doctor, and that he will save many people?

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="resistance93"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

What an original thread......Prove you exist.;)

resistance93

I am sorry. I do not understand this in the slightest. What kind of zany rebuttal is this? Our own existence is evidence of our own existence. :|

I cannot fathom your thinking behind this.

There is no proof you exist. I could be imaging life in my own mind. The brain is a powerful organ. When we dream...they seem real. Perhaps life is one continuos dream. There is no proof you exist. Sorry.

How about you reason with actual facts and proofs and not with some bizarre, almost riddle-like speculation?

I just found proof that luke doesn't have a sense of humor

I...umm...what? :|

You don't have a sense of humor - I'm pretty sure he was joking when he said to prove that you exist.

His subsequent posts seem to suggest otherwise.

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] Wow you are terrible at debating...

LJS9502_basic

Nope. I've made a point he has yet to refute. However, if you want to take up his case...be my guest. I await your proof.

Still waiting for that proof. You've gone quiet. Where's your debating skills?

I'm not asking for proof of God. Theres is none. That's why it's called faith. I asked for Luke's proof that he exists.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] So how many people have to say something for it to be true? Please explain your logic.
swizz-the-gamer

but anyway, I am trying to prove a historical event. multiple, independent attestation of an event is strong evidence for an event.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]there is multiple indepedent attestation of these events as in corroborating testimonies. luke1889

Let me ask you this...if there was all the written accounts of the Egyptian empire -- for argument's sake -- but no physical evidence -- such as the Pyramids or mummies or anything -- would you believe it actually happened?

well then you have to throw out a GREAT amount of ancient history. VERY little of ancient history has eye-witnesses to corroborate it. very little even have contemporary evidence, as in most accounts of an event are written years after they actually happened, or the figures died. notconspiracy

Again, I am not "throwing it out", I am merely stating that, because of the account-based nature of most of history, its validity can always be called into question.

IYou don't have a sense of humor - I'm pretty sure he was joking when he said to prove that you exist.

resistance93

Initially yes. But he really can't prove that. At least you got it.

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] So how many people have to say something for it to be true? Please explain your logic.
big_boss4life

but anyway, I am trying to prove a historical event. multiple, independent attestation of an event is strong evidence for an event.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]there is multiple indepedent attestation of these events as in corroborating testimonies. luke1889

Let me ask you this...if there was all the written accounts of the Egyptian empire -- for argument's sake -- but no physical evidence -- such as the Pyramids or mummies or anything -- would you believe it actually happened?

You would you believe that athousend years before you were born your gran-gran-gran ec etc father, predict in a book without knowing anything just for visions and for a certain *God* voice , that in the year 19** a boy was going to born, and that he would be a good (for example) Doctor, and that he will save many people?

I think now is a good time to ask the OP if she thinks this thread has answered her question.

Does anyone still remember her question? Or are you all too occupied making fun of each others beliefs?

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

If we do not base proof on our perceptions and sensations, what do you suggest as an apt replacement?

Seriously, you're arguing crazy now.

LJS9502_basic

And you don't understand the argument. Nothing need replace the brain...however, the brain can't prove the sensation actually exists...ONLY that it process it. For that is solely the job of the brain. Processing the information. Notice how people on hallucinogenics see things that aren't there? Because of the chemical effect on the brain of the drug.;)

Last time I checked, facts were not established by people on drugs.

We prove things without the boundaries set by our own definitions. Those definitions are there for a reason. If you are going to call those into question, you are not making a reasonable argument.

Okay... Ever seen the show most haunted? Theres a guy on it that almost every episode becomes possessed. I am looking at my television seeing what could be either a guy faking being possessed for money OR a guy possessed by a demon. What do I assume?
swizz-the-gamer

That still has nothing to do with my argument. You need to understand what I'm arguing to start with. It's not important to me that you accept religious truths. They aren't scientific. Nonetheless, considering the world only exists in our perception to process things...Luke can't prove to me or you that he exists. Do we believe he exists....absolutely. But that is because we've convinced ourselves that his posts come from another human. We've never seen him. We can't even prove we won't wake up in a minute and have dreamed this entire conversation. Perception....is not scientific proof. It's how we operate in this world nonetheless.

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] So how many people have to say something for it to be true? Please explain your logic.
notconspiracy

but anyway, I am trying to prove a historical event. multiple, independent attestation of an event is strong evidence for an event.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]there is multiple indepedent attestation of these events as in corroborating testimonies. luke1889

Let me ask you this...if there was all the written accounts of the Egyptian empire -- for argument's sake -- but no physical evidence -- such as the Pyramids or mummies or anything -- would you believe it actually happened?