Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 57026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2802
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #986 on: May 14, 2014, 03:34:34 AM »
OK, this is enough nonsense being talked about love. I think even Luk knows the love is an emotion that happens in the brains of people and, if we are lucky, the object of our desire feels the same way. Surely you are not wanted to say anything else are you, Luk.

Now, the moon. how about if Russia and the USA both land people on the moon? Maybe one of each of the two crews fall in love whilst exploring the moon's surface. We would say, "they found love on the moon." Yet, in reality, it has nothing to do with the moon but only the two individuals who started loving each other.

As for god and love, well, clearly, Luk is referring to the works of AnselmWiki and his proofs of god. Anselm had the idea that god had to be the greatest possible everything juts like Luk is saying, It follows that a being one imagines is not as great as a being that exists and thus, concluded Anselm, god exists. It's great medieval logic but I'm not so sure it works today. The thing is, that despite the 2,000 odd years since Jesus we have had not more information about god so the bible is the only source. If we were to read through everything the bible says about god we would not conclude that he was the greatest at everything - though he is pretty good and having people killed or drowning them.

So, Luk, where is your information that shows that god not only loves but is even greater than that? I hope it's the bible as, outwith that, we are on shaky ground.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6215
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #987 on: May 14, 2014, 06:47:49 AM »

Not good enough.  You said, specifically, "If you go to the moon ... you will find love".  If you're going to make definitive statements like that, you need to be clear.  Where, exactly, on the moon will you "find love"?

Everywhere it has been. Or maybe it is your love that you will find. Since you went there to find love.

Still not good enough.  You said "If you go to the moon ... you will find love".  Unless you can tell me exactly where I will find it, you have no basis to make such a claim.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6215
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #988 on: May 14, 2014, 07:01:22 AM »
I don't understand what more demonstration you need.
I showed that love, like the wind, cannot be seen by the naked eye. We agreed.
Its effect, like the wind, can be measured by tools (like the tree or your eyes). Because love leave an impact on it's environment (like the wind)....

NO.

This is the crucial point at which the problem arises.  "Love" does not leave an impact on the environment.  Love does not carve out holes, plant seeds, or have direct interaction with the world.  Such interactions are carried out by people, driven by love. 
This is a vitally important distinction, which you do not like to accept because it pushes the "love" you wish to champion a loooong step back from the physical - and you know that harms your claim for "god" that you wish to tag it to.

"love" is an emotional state of the brain, that causes people to act in particular ways.  It has no existence outside of the brain - you cannot fill up a cup with "love", cannot take a picture of "love", cannot weigh "love".  Love has no existence outside the individual's brain.

Like I say - I can see why it is important to you to try to claim love has an independant existence.  But you've yet to present one shred of evidence it is anything more than an electrochemical reaction in the brain.

Which makes it EXACTLY like god, IMO.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #989 on: May 14, 2014, 10:08:23 AM »
Ah, that is your point, not mine.
My point have already been made and is directly related to the topic of this thread. The existence of God is as probable than the existence of love (or hate).


Your point is stupid. 

You are playing games and it is not appreciated.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #990 on: May 14, 2014, 10:21:44 AM »
...Thus, concluded Anselm, god exists. It's great medieval logic but I'm not so sure it works today.

Works just about as well as the "demon theory" of illness.  Funny thing, that -- I distinctly do not remember typing any letters lately where the attending physician prescribed incantations or exorcism for an ailment.   ;D

Quote
The thing is, that despite the 2,000 odd years since Jesus we have had not more information about god...

This I find really interesting.  We've analyzed matter right down to the Higgs boson, and looked at galaxies mind-boggling distances away, and yet in 2000 years we've been unable to find any physical trace of the god of the Bible.  Either it's the best hide-and-seek player ever, or it was never there in the first place.

We keep hearing this "God is outside space and time" assertion, but what would that mean in practical terms?  Even if it were possible that a god existed "outside" the known universe, it couldn't have any meaningful interaction with us without leaving some sort of physical trace -- Perhaps an energy imbalance of some sort.

Religion is, not to put too fine a point on it, friggin' useless when it comes to telling us about gods.  I believe that the only way to find the genuine article is to use the Scientific Method and attempt to falsify one's experimental results, until one has cut away everything that doesn't look like a god.

Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2802
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #991 on: May 14, 2014, 10:49:22 AM »
The point here, in case you have forgotten or lost track, is that you, Lukvance, are trying to equate "god" with "love"
Ah, that is your point, not mine.
My point have already been made and is directly related to the topic of this thread. The existence of God is as probable than the existence of love (or hate).
For me, God is more than love. He is perfect in every way, he is the one who knows me the most.
I disagree with the fact that without humans, wind would exist. What kind of proof do you have to support this claim?

To the above, I'd say spheres[1]. The fact is you have not idea what you are talking ab out or you are being obstructive and it doesn't much matter which it is.

1. Love is an emotion - it happens in the brains for those who 'fall in love' for example. All your silly examples of love disembodied, like marks on trees or faces in the moon, and nothing more that something someone who is in love has done. Love is an emotion and has not separate existence apart from the mind of the person doing the loving. You have been asked by various people to show us that love actually exists separate from people and you have failed, yet we know that some people love each other so we know there is something we call love.

For the grammatical, love is an abstract noun. Abstract nouns are not concrete things and have existence in our minds only. Which brings me to ....

2. God. Now, what is the evidence for god... hang on, I remember, its an old book isn't it. It discusses events from more than 2,000 years ago - has to as nothing worth mentioning has happen in the activity of god since! We can't know any more about god than that old book says. Yet, 'god' is supposed to be a concrete noun.... Hang on, wait a sec, I've an idea....

Let's call 'god' and abstract noun - believers say their god dwells within them and this proves it! God is an idea in their brains and doesn't need any separate existence. Indeed, he doesn't seem to have any separate existence. This doesn't seem to get us anywhere much, but it does so much more than it looks. It explains how each believer has a difference idea of the their god (well, if the god is in their own mind, it can be anything the believer wants. It thus explains why there are so many sects and denominations all claiming to be Christian (more or less.) Most importantly, it explains why there have never been any manifestations of any god, in any way, apart from the people, usually priests in the old days, who claimed to know a god.

So then, we have two abstract nouns - love and god. Both really exist but, of course, Luk, only in the mind with no concrete existence anywhere. Does that suit you, Luk? You get to have love and god with real meanings!
 1. euphemism!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #992 on: May 14, 2014, 11:01:44 AM »
I disagree with the fact that without humans, wind would exist. What kind of proof do you have to support this claim?
You're at about step 9 of the 12 Steps to Solipsism program.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2802
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #993 on: May 14, 2014, 11:03:35 AM »
I disagree with the fact that without humans, wind would exist. What kind of proof do you have to support this claim?
You're at about step 9 of the 12 Steps to Solipsism program.

Does a falling tree in a forest make a noise when it crashes to earth is there is no human to hear it, Luk?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #994 on: May 14, 2014, 11:23:44 AM »

Not good enough.  You said, specifically, "If you go to the moon ... you will find love".  If you're going to make definitive statements like that, you need to be clear.  Where, exactly, on the moon will you "find love"?

Everywhere it has been. Or maybe it is your love that you will find. Since you went there to find love.
Still not good enough.  You said "If you go to the moon ... you will find love".  Unless you can tell me exactly where I will find it, you have no basis to make such a claim.
My answer is good enough. Could you tell me exactly where the wind will blow in my backyard? Or, let's say to make the same parallel in size, on earth?
I cannot tell you exactly where love is on the moon like you cannot tell me where the wind blow on earth.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #995 on: May 14, 2014, 11:36:28 AM »
I don't understand what more demonstration you need.
I showed that love, like the wind, cannot be seen by the naked eye. We agreed.
Its effect, like the wind, can be measured by tools (like the tree or your eyes). Because love leave an impact on it's environment (like the wind)....

NO.

YES I did :)
Quote
This is the crucial point at which the problem arises.  "Love" does not leave an impact on the environment.  Love does not carve out holes, plant seeds, or have direct interaction with the world.  Such interactions are carried out by people, driven by love. 
This is a vitally important distinction, which you do not like to accept because it pushes the "love" you wish to champion a loooong step back from the physical - and you know that harms your claim for "god" that you wish to tag it to.
What claim are you talking about?

Quote
"love" is an emotional state of the brain, that causes people to act in particular ways.  It has no existence outside of the brain - you cannot fill up a cup with "love", cannot take a picture of "love", cannot weigh "love".  Love has no existence outside the individual's brain.
So what?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #996 on: May 14, 2014, 11:39:01 AM »
Ah, that is your point, not mine.
My point have already been made and is directly related to the topic of this thread. The existence of God is as probable than the existence of love (or hate).
Your point is stupid. 
Do you have something to support this claim?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #997 on: May 14, 2014, 11:49:47 AM »
So then, we have two abstract nouns - love and god. Both really exist but, of course, Luk, only in the mind with no concrete existence anywhere. Does that suit you, Luk? You get to have love and god with real meanings!
I disagree with your definition of love and God. But my goal being to prove that God exist. I will assume the case is closed.
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #998 on: May 14, 2014, 11:56:29 AM »
I disagree with your definition of love and God. But my goal being to prove that God exist. I will assume the case is closed.

If by "closed" you mean that you have failed, then yes.
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/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #999 on: May 14, 2014, 11:57:31 AM »
My answer is good enough. Could you tell me exactly where the wind will blow in my backyard? Or, let's say to make the same parallel in size, on earth?
I cannot tell you exactly where love is on the moon like you cannot tell me where the wind blow on earth.
The wind will blow anywhere that is exposed to the Earth's atmosphere.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1000 on: May 14, 2014, 11:57:42 AM »
I disagree with the fact that without humans, wind would exist. What kind of proof do you have to support this claim?
You're at about step 9 of the 12 Steps to Solipsism program.

Does a falling tree in a forest make a noise when it crashes to earth is there is no human to hear it, Luk?
Maybe we should let nogodsform support his claim before judging it.
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1001 on: May 14, 2014, 11:59:02 AM »
Maybe we should let nogodsform support his claim before judging it.

nogodsforme is a woman. Just FYI.
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/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1002 on: May 14, 2014, 11:59:11 AM »
I disagree with your definition of love and God. But my goal being to prove that God exist. I will assume the case is closed.
If by "closed" you mean that you have failed, then yes.
I disagree. What makes you say I failed? Could you support this claim?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1003 on: May 14, 2014, 12:01:00 PM »
Maybe we should let nogodsform support his claim before judging it.
nogodsforme is a woman. Just FYI.
Thank you. Sorry nogodsforme , in this virtual world I assume everyone is male.
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1004 on: May 14, 2014, 12:01:57 PM »
I disagree. What makes you say I failed?

The fact that you did.

Could you support this claim?

I could, but you wouldn't understand. Others have tried and you can't or won't see it.
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/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1005 on: May 14, 2014, 12:02:46 PM »
My answer is good enough. Could you tell me exactly where the wind will blow in my backyard? Or, let's say to make the same parallel in size, on earth?
I cannot tell you exactly where love is on the moon like you cannot tell me where the wind blow on earth.
The wind will blow anywhere that is exposed to the Earth's atmosphere.
Even inside your closed house?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1006 on: May 14, 2014, 12:04:24 PM »
I could, but you wouldn't understand. Others have tried and you can't or won't see it.
Ok. Thank you. I know now what to answer you next time you ask for me to support my claims :)
You're worth more than my time

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1007 on: May 14, 2014, 12:04:38 PM »
My answer is good enough. Could you tell me exactly where the wind will blow in my backyard? Or, let's say to make the same parallel in size, on earth?
I cannot tell you exactly where love is on the moon like you cannot tell me where the wind blow on earth.
The wind will blow anywhere that is exposed to the Earth's atmosphere.
Even inside your closed house?
Is the inside of my closed house exposed to the Earth's atmosphere, or closed to it?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1008 on: May 14, 2014, 12:07:22 PM »
Ok. Thank you. I know now what to answer you next time you ask for me to support my claims :)

I don't want to repeat everything everyone has already said just to make you dodge and ignore it again. It's not worth my time.
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/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1009 on: May 14, 2014, 12:08:37 PM »
My answer is good enough. Could you tell me exactly where the wind will blow in my backyard? Or, let's say to make the same parallel in size, on earth?
I cannot tell you exactly where love is on the moon like you cannot tell me where the wind blow on earth.
The wind will blow anywhere that is exposed to the Earth's atmosphere.
Even inside your closed house?
Is the inside of my closed house exposed to the Earth's atmosphere, or closed to it?
That's a good question. Is earth's atmosphere still inside the house I just closed? Was it there in the beginning?  My instinct would say yes to both question.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1010 on: May 14, 2014, 12:29:58 PM »
Even inside your closed house?
Is the inside of my closed house exposed to the Earth's atmosphere, or closed to it?
That's a good question. Is earth's atmosphere still inside the house I just closed? Was it there in the beginning?  My instinct would say yes to both question.
Your instinct is betraying you.  You shouldn't simply say yes to both questions.  Your instinct should be to try to get more specificity on what it is we mean by 'wind', 'atmosphere', and 'inside'.  Your instinct should be telling you that you do not have sufficient information to provide an answer.

Perhaps we should look at the word 'wind'.  I had assumed you meant the wind in terms of the weather-based phenomenon of air currents circulating around the Earth in response to energy being injected into that system.  Perhaps I am wrong.  Perhaps by 'wind' you don't necessarily mean a weather-based phenomenon, but rather, the broader case of movement of gaseous air.  In which case, I amend my answer to "the wind will blow wherever there is gaseous air present".

What about 'still air' you ask?  Well, how 'still' is 'still'?  Air molecules don't stop moving.  If you consider 'wind' to be a more macroscopic phenomenon, such as 'wind' being 'the movement of gaseous air at sufficient volumes and velocities to cause a 1 gram piece of paper to move at least 0.1mm', then a completely sealed off room with air present in it would not have wind in it.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1011 on: May 14, 2014, 12:41:45 PM »
Even inside your closed house?
Is the inside of my closed house exposed to the Earth's atmosphere, or closed to it?
That's a good question. Is earth's atmosphere still inside the house I just closed? Was it there in the beginning?  My instinct would say yes to both question.
Your instinct is betraying you.  You shouldn't simply say yes to both questions.  Your instinct should be to try to get more specificity on what it is we mean by 'wind', 'atmosphere', and 'inside'.  Your instinct should be telling you that you do not have sufficient information to provide an answer.

Perhaps we should look at the word 'wind'.  I had assumed you meant the wind in terms of the weather-based phenomenon of air currents circulating around the Earth in response to energy being injected into that system.  Perhaps I am wrong.  Perhaps by 'wind' you don't necessarily mean a weather-based phenomenon, but rather, the broader case of movement of gaseous air.  In which case, I amend my answer to "the wind will blow wherever there is gaseous air present".

What about 'still air' you ask?  Well, how 'still' is 'still'?  Air molecules don't stop moving.  If you consider 'wind' to be a more macroscopic phenomenon, such as 'wind' being 'the movement of gaseous air at sufficient volumes and velocities to cause a 1 gram piece of paper to move at least 0.1mm', then a completely sealed off room with air present in it would not have wind in it.
Amazing how you and me think alike.
When I stated that love was like the wind. I stated that one was as complicated as the other. They are no simple matter.
Everything has a cause. If you remove the cause, the thing won't exist anymore. (like atmospheric wind and the mountains)
Since love (like hate or "a part of" God) is a concept that has power in our everyday life, our reality, our health, our everything If we remove the cause (in this case the brain) then the thing won't exist anymore.
Can we agree that pain is as concept as love?
I am asking, when we were not evolved as much as today. When our brain was not what it is today. Was there love? and pain? When did the concept form? Wasn't it there before it formed?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1012 on: May 14, 2014, 12:50:35 PM »
You're at about step 9 of the 12 Steps to Solipsism program.

  • We admitted that we were powerless to figure out whether or not anything existed outside our own minds ...  ;)
... which is all very well and fine if one enjoys that sort of thing, of course, but isn't it rather pointless to have one's mind arguing with external entities that may or may not be there?

I grant that the idea of the divine, held firmly in one's own mind, has the potential to affect one's behaviours and outcomes.  Where I've personally run into trouble with theistic concepts is when I tried to believe that they represented an actual being independent of My imagination.  I can't make the proverbial "leap of faith" because I retain the awareness of having mentally formed a god-image without supporting physical evidence.  Until I get the evidence I want, "probabilities of God's existence" continues to approach zero for Me.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1013 on: May 14, 2014, 01:30:16 PM »
I am asking, when we were not evolved as much as today. When our brain was not what it is today. Was there love? and pain? When did the concept form? Wasn't it there before it formed?
(Bold mine)

No.  That's what everyone has been trying to get you to understand.  Love doesn't exist outside of someone's mind.  You seem to simultaneously agree and disagree with that, or, rather, I cannot tell if you agree or disagree with it.  You're sorta all over the place and tragically inconsistent with your posts.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1014 on: May 14, 2014, 01:39:17 PM »
I grant that the idea of the divine, held firmly in one's own mind, has the potential to affect one's behaviours and outcomes.
That's all there is to it. The God in "probabilities of God's existence" is not the one you describe later. More exactly, not the one I demonstrated the existence of.
You're worth more than my time