Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 44518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1421 on: August 11, 2014, 05:21:52 PM »
That's absolutely untrue. If I don't believe that Santa Clause or Bigfoot exists that doesn't deny me the right to discuss their nonexistence. Do you understand what a hypothetical is? We can discuss God as existing as an idea.
You said it yourself. God must exist (as an idea) before we can discuss him. Concluding correctly that the probability of God's existence is 100%.

I don't think you understand that I was responding to someone who was talking about the different gods.
Can you discuss the difference between Santas and chose the true one when you don't believe that he exist?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2106
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1422 on: August 11, 2014, 05:43:02 PM »
Saying the probability of God's existence is 100% because he exists as an idea says nothing at all.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1423 on: August 11, 2014, 08:36:30 PM »
Saying the probability of God's existence is 100% because he exists as an idea says nothing at all.

Not true. It says that his standards are low and his expectations are high. He needs god to be real, and as long as its gonna be real, it might as well be his god.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1424 on: August 12, 2014, 01:02:49 AM »
FSM must exist (as an idea) before we can discuss him. Concluding correctly that the probability of FSM's existence is 100%.

See lukvance, I can do it too.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10926
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1425 on: August 12, 2014, 01:10:28 AM »
FSM must exist (as an idea) before we can discuss him. Concluding correctly that the probability of FSM's existence is 100%.

See lukvance, I can do it too.

I already tried that. Unsurprisingly, Lukvance didn't reply.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1426 on: August 12, 2014, 01:13:00 AM »
FSM must exist (as an idea) before we can discuss him. Concluding correctly that the probability of FSM's existence is 100%.

See lukvance, I can do it too.

I already tried that. Unsurprisingly, Lukvance didn't reply.
Maybe they will this time, not holding my breath though.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1427 on: August 12, 2014, 12:19:06 PM »
Haha I don't really care about FSM.
I am telling you again and again.
Do you have proof of the existence of Love?
Does this kind of proof can be used to prove the existence of God?
If not, I am ready to listen to you. If so then I proved to you that God exist as much as Love.
If you believe that Love is not real, then I can agree with you that God is not real.
If you believe that Love is real then I must ask you what makes you think that Love is real and God is not.
I believe that God is (at least) as real as Love.
Prove me wrong or admit the existence of God. (or the non existence of Love)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 12:25:08 PM by Lukvance »
You're worth more than my time

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10926
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1428 on: August 12, 2014, 12:23:12 PM »
Maybe they will this time, not holding my breath though.

<snipped dodge>

Well, at least he took the time to dodge you, Antidote. You must be having some effect on him.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2997
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1429 on: August 12, 2014, 12:35:49 PM »
If you believe that Love is real then I must ask you what makes you think that Love is real and God is not.

Simple:  I have actually felt an emotion that I call love.  I have never felt any sensation that I could attribute to a god, let alone equate to the god itself.

In fact, all the things that believers seem to attribute to their gods could just as easily be attributed to physiological/neurological processes or to social interactions -- Love, fear, anger, guilt, sadness, joy -- They're all there and they do not need a god in order to be there.

This is why, to Me, love is real but your god is not.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2106
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1430 on: August 12, 2014, 12:38:11 PM »
Haha I don't really care about FSM.
I am telling you again and again.
Do you have proof of the existence of Love?
Does this kind of proof can be used to prove the existence of God?
If not, I am ready to listen to you. If so then I proved to you that God exist as much as Love.
If you believe that Love is not real, then I can agree with you that God is not real.
If you believe that Love is real then I must ask you what makes you think that Love is real and God is not.
I believe that God is (at least) as real as Love.
Prove me wrong or admit the existence of God. (or the non existence of Love)

We've already been over this, Luk. At this point you're just repeating yourself without rebutting the replies that have already addressed this.

Graybeard has already explained to you that the word loves describes an intangible emotion. It's abstract. That abstraction exists in our brains as neurotransmitters and hormones. So your argument that "If Love exists then God exists" becomes "If love is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions then God is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions."

If you understand that I'll admit that love (as an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions) exists and God (as an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions) exists. Now what?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1431 on: August 12, 2014, 12:59:37 PM »
Maybe they will this time, not holding my breath though.

<snipped dodge>

Well, at least he took the time to dodge you, Antidote. You must be having some effect on him.
Yeah, I seem to have really ticked him off

@Lukvance, why don't you try actually ADDRESSING my point, instead of playing a shell game.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1432 on: August 12, 2014, 01:27:56 PM »
If you believe that Love is real then I must ask you what makes you think that Love is real and God is not.

Simple:  I have actually felt an emotion that I call love.  I have never felt any sensation that I could attribute to a god, let alone equate to the god itself.

In fact, all the things that believers seem to attribute to their gods could just as easily be attributed to physiological/neurological processes or to social interactions -- Love, fear, anger, guilt, sadness, joy -- They're all there and they do not need a god in order to be there.

This is why, to Me, love is real but your god is not.
If I understand you correctly, you have felt love and you don't want to believe that people felt God.
Could you imagine someone who never felt love? Or remember yourself before you felt love? Did love exist for you then? Would it be ok if someone told you that it is not love that people experience that it can be attributed to physiological/neurological processes or to social interactions? Hence love does not exist?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1433 on: August 12, 2014, 01:29:55 PM »
Haha I don't really care about FSM.
I am telling you again and again.
Do you have proof of the existence of Love?
Does this kind of proof can be used to prove the existence of God?
If not, I am ready to listen to you. If so then I proved to you that God exist as much as Love.
If you believe that Love is not real, then I can agree with you that God is not real.
If you believe that Love is real then I must ask you what makes you think that Love is real and God is not.
I believe that God is (at least) as real as Love.
Prove me wrong or admit the existence of God. (or the non existence of Love)

We've already been over this, Luk. At this point you're just repeating yourself without rebutting the replies that have already addressed this.

Graybeard has already explained to you that the word loves describes an intangible emotion. It's abstract. That abstraction exists in our brains as neurotransmitters and hormones. So your argument that "If Love exists then God exists" becomes "If love is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions then God is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions."

If you understand that I'll admit that love (as an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions) exists and God (as an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions) exists. Now what?
We agree. We close the debate.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1434 on: August 12, 2014, 01:33:52 PM »
@Lukvance, why don't you try actually ADDRESSING my point, instead of playing a shell game.
I sent you a private message explaining to you why this point you made does not make sense any more we addressed it already in the conversation before.
Did I misunderstood something?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1435 on: August 12, 2014, 01:44:42 PM »
Post it here, when having a discourse with a group of people it's EXTREMELY rude to target one person out of the bunch. I warn you though, if you don't post it here I will

I will not address your "point" until you, or I, do so.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1436 on: August 12, 2014, 02:15:44 PM »
Post it here, when having a discourse with a group of people it's EXTREMELY rude to target one person out of the bunch. I warn you though, if you don't post it here I will
I will not address your "point" until you, or I, do so.
Wow. It's like you skipped the part where I explain to you why your question does not make sense and you focused on the part where I talk about OAA not making any sense. Don't worry I send a PM to OAA too, I'm waiting for his answer before reporting his post as a lie.
I might have misunderstood something about your point and he's supposed to help me understand that.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2997
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1437 on: August 12, 2014, 02:17:18 PM »
If I understand you correctly, you have felt love and you don't want to believe that people felt God.

Apparently you are not understanding Me correctly.  I've heard that many people do feel what they think is a god; however, that in itself is not sufficient evidence that a separate "god" entity exists.  At the endocrinological and neurological level, I have little doubt that their sensations are real; however, I profoundly doubt that the sensations are pointing to a specific being outside their bodies.

Oh, and kindly stop telling people what they do or do not "want to believe," as you are simply not in a position to know that.

Quote
Could you imagine someone who never felt love?

Easily.  I have a very vivid imagination.

Quote
Or remember yourself before you felt love? Did love exist for you then?

This goes back a long, long time, so I'd have to say no.  Undoubtedly I benefited in early childhood from expressions of family members' love for Me, but I can't recall My first experience of love.
Quote
Would it be ok if someone told you that it is not love that people experience that it can be attributed to physiological/neurological processes or to social interactions? Hence love does not exist?

Your conclusion is a non sequitur.  Even if it's "only" physiological/neurological processes or social interactions, I'm clearly experiencing something that I call love; therefore, for Me love does exist.

Your alleged god, however, does not generate any comparable processes for Me, and is only a hypothesis rather than something that I have experienced.  Therefore, I see love as real and your god as unreal.

Oh, and why are you PMing members instead of debating them in-thread?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1438 on: August 12, 2014, 02:25:01 PM »
Haha I don't really care about FSM.
I am telling you again and again.
Do you have proof of the existence of Love?
Does this kind of proof can be used to prove the existence of God?
If not, I am ready to listen to you. If so then I proved to you that God exist as much as Love.
If you believe that Love is not real, then I can agree with you that God is not real.
If you believe that Love is real then I must ask you what makes you think that Love is real and God is not.
I believe that God is (at least) as real as Love.
Prove me wrong or admit the existence of God. (or the non existence of Love)


I have felt something I call love.   Why do you consider love some proof of a higher being?

I understand love to be an evolved biochemical reaction designed by evolution to keep members of a group tothether working toward a common goal of survival.

I do not see it as in any way magical.  I cite a proof that even the strongest bonds of love can be broken with an operation.  I can physically cause you Lukevance to not love your mother or your sister and or your girlfriend by moving a few neurons.    If my statement is true that love resides physically in the confines of your body (specifically in a couple millimeters of grey matter inside your skull.)  then love may very well have a source other than an all powerful being in the sky that is angry for me touching myself at night.

You can see manifestations of love through out the animal kingdom and it almost always serves the same purpose.  The complexity of the rituals surrounding love vary by species and culture but it is just a biological function. 
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 02:30:29 PM by epidemic »

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1439 on: August 12, 2014, 02:31:52 PM »
That's because they are not on subject.
I aksed the question "Would it be ok if someone told you that it is not love that people experience that it can be attributed to physiological/neurological processes or to social interactions? Hence love does not exist?" when you did not felt love or you imagine you did not felt love yet.
"I'm clearly experiencing something that I call love" is not in the equation yet.
Would it be ok if someone told you that it is not love that people experience that it can be attributed to physiological/neurological processes or to social interactions? Hence love does not exist? (if you haven't experienced it yet)
Because that is what you are telling me. You are someone who did not feel God. I am someone who did feel Him.
I am wondering if because we don't feel something it makes it nonexistent, even if most of the others felt it.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1440 on: August 12, 2014, 02:33:14 PM »
I have felt something I call love.   Why do you consider love some proof of a higher being?
I don't.
You're worth more than my time

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1441 on: August 12, 2014, 02:43:35 PM »
Would it be ok if someone told you that it is not love that people experience that it can be attributed to physiological/neurological processes or to social interactions? Hence love does not exist? (if you haven't experienced it yet)
Because that is what you are telling me. You are someone who did not feel God. I am someone who did feel Him.
I am wondering if because we don't feel something it makes it nonexistent, even if most of the others felt it.


Sure it would be ok.     Being informed that love is a social, biochemical reaction does not deminish the sensations associated with it.


On a roller coaster when I take the first big dip I get butterflies in my stomach.  (but in reality there are no butterflies in there at all)   my brain senses an unusual fluttery feeling that it centers on the stomach.)   The fact that there are no actual butterflies in my stomach change anything.   Can I still enjoy the feeling even knowing that there are not bugs in my belly? 

Being informed that Love may not be a magical condtion does not make it any less pleasurable.   In fact for a cluster of sentient organic compounds to meet another cluster of sentient organic compounds and have a complex chemical reaction that makest them both feel good each time they are together is pretty amazing... Even if it is only a natural function.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2106
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1442 on: August 12, 2014, 03:07:05 PM »
I felt "God" on several occasions when I was a Christian. Personal experiences can be very convincing, especially when it bolsters a belief we already hold.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1443 on: August 12, 2014, 03:31:22 PM »
@Lukvance: since you refuse to do so
Quote
And yes, my definition of "exist" (which is NOT the definition I am using to prove to you that God exist here) is basically the following : exist whatever has a name and a definition.
That should NOT be news to you guys as I talked about it long enough in this thread.
I'm surprised that OAA still thinks that I did not answer him. Maybe if he doesn't get simple things like that is a sign of sorts...

Lukvance, be consistent, that alone makes your argument special pleading
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 03:34:09 PM by Antidote »
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1444 on: August 12, 2014, 04:22:07 PM »
It could be a linguistic problem. In English, “Love” is known as “an abstract noun”: it describes something that is intangible. In this case a feeling or an emotion.

Congratulations Luk, you may be the first Catholic to show that God is imaginary.
We agree Graybeard.
If Love is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary. 
Then
God is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary. 
Will you now stop saying that you love your closest (children/wife/girlfriend/whoever you love) as it is a lie because love is only in your imagination? Will you?
You are very strange. But you are even more illogical. "There are none as blind as those who refuse to see." (English Proverb)

Above, you can read this:

"It could be a linguistic problem. In English, “Love” is known as “an abstract noun”: it describes something that is intangible. In this case a feeling or an emotion."

I am capable of that feeling or emotion, but my feeling or emotion simply exists in my mind.

You cannot know my feelings and emotions for those I love.
I cannot know the god that exists in your mind - only you know that because you have created him in your mind.

Your mind is where your feelings and emotions reside.
My mind is where my feelings and emotions reside.

Just like your idea of God exists only in your mind.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1445 on: August 12, 2014, 04:51:47 PM »
Haha I don't really care about FSM.
I am telling you again and again.
Lukvance,

This is a point that you cannot ignore: you have been asked to demonstrate that your proof for your god is not equally valid for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Please address this and then the debate can continue.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1446 on: August 12, 2014, 06:03:55 PM »
Haha I don't really care about FSM.
I am telling you again and again.
Lukvance,

This is a point that you cannot ignore: you have been asked to demonstrate that your proof for your god is not equally valid for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Please address this and then the debate can continue.

WTF I adressed it long time ago.
What part of "exist what has a name and a definition." Isn't clear?
Does FSM has name?
Does FSM has a definition?
If yes, it exist.
I addressed that soooooooooooo long before that you've forgotten it or what? Why should I address it again?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1447 on: August 12, 2014, 06:13:31 PM »
It could be a linguistic problem. In English, “Love” is known as “an abstract noun”: it describes something that is intangible. In this case a feeling or an emotion.

Congratulations Luk, you may be the first Catholic to show that God is imaginary.
We agree Graybeard.
If Love is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary. 
Then
God is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary. 
Will you now stop saying that you love your closest (children/wife/girlfriend/whoever you love) as it is a lie because love is only in your imagination? Will you?
You are very strange. But you are even more illogical. "There are none as blind as those who refuse to see." (English Proverb)

Above, you can read this:

"It could be a linguistic problem. In English, “Love” is known as “an abstract noun”: it describes something that is intangible. In this case a feeling or an emotion."

I am capable of that feeling or emotion, but my feeling or emotion simply exists in my mind.

You cannot know my feelings and emotions for those I love.
I cannot know the god that exists in your mind - only you know that because you have created him in your mind.

Your mind is where your feelings and emotions reside.
My mind is where my feelings and emotions reside.

Just like your idea of God exists only in your mind.
We agree Graybeard. I understood the same thing that you are already explaining. I don't see why you feel the need to continue to do so.
Like Zanku said. We agree. Subject close.

You have your own Love
You have your own God
I have my own Love
I have my own God
They are both in our head.
God exist (at least) as much as Love exist. in our head.
The end.

I know that IF and only IF your love who exist only in your head is NOT REAL then you should not tell your children that you love them.
If it is real, there is no lies involved :)

EDIT : I changed words because I was answering about definition when you were talking about existence.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 06:19:04 PM by Lukvance »
You're worth more than my time

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1448 on: August 12, 2014, 06:25:37 PM »
If your god exists in your head, Luk, why do you want others to go to your church? Why do you want others to have the same beliefs as you have? Why would that matter?

And for those of us without gods in our head, why do we bother you? Do you actually expect everyone to pattern their lives after yours; is this just a big ego trip?

And how does the god in your head relate to crackers and body parts and such? And why should it to ours?
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1449 on: August 12, 2014, 06:39:38 PM »
If your god exists in your head, Luk, why do you want others to go to your church? Why do you want others to have the same beliefs as you have? Why would that matter?
The way I explain it is like when you discover some new kind of food. Why do you want others to taste it? Why do you want other to taste that same one you had? Why does it matter? The answer is just because. We want other to be able to feel the same way we did when we felt it. Some people might like the new food and they will thank you for that. Some people will taste it and find it just Ok and move on with their lives. Some will hate it and will blame you for that too. It is because of the ones who loved it too that you will continue inviting people to taste it.
I hope this answers the other question you asked.
You're worth more than my time