TRUE christianity does not physically harm anyone.
So, uh..... what about the Crusades? Holy wars which were brought upon by the word of god.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
The concept of a worldwide flood is so implausible that I'd label it ridiculous. Not only would it require God to first create and then vanish four billion additional qubic kilometres of water, which is by the way four times the water Earth has, it would've left a myriad of evidence that would be everpresent. There would be a geographical layer with so thick of plant and animal remains that you couldn't miss it. That layer does not exist.
However, there is evidence that the Abrahamic flood story might've originated from an extraordinarily hard flooding of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. A hypothesis taken further by what is known as Ryan-Pitman Theory.
The "worldwide flood" theory is very plausible because the people of the time thought of the world as the surrounding area... I'm not sure what the Ryan-Pitman theory consists of but I'm sure it elaborates on this idea, that the entire world wasn't flooded, but there was merely a large flood which isn't implausible at all.
Quote from "Equinox" »
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider to be God-fearing and pious." - Aristotle
"Religion is the opium of the masses." - Karl Marx
Quote from "Nektu" »
Wasn't Russia one of the countries that persecuted Christians until the fall of the wall? I remember that Bibles were not allowed into the country and missionaries had to go about things secretly. Much like in China today, where the only recognized church is the government run one. Where Christians are still being put into jail and beaten. Which is interesting, since the underground Church in China is the fastest growing Christian Church in the world.
Nektu, you just proved that the Christian church is addicting like opium in China.
And Russia prohibited bibles and missionaries because the intelligent people knew that the stupid people would fall victim to the addiction that is religion.
I really like where this thread has gone, except for the homosexuality bit.
I think it is necessary for people to realize that if they believe in evolution, then they must at least accept that the Bible is not entirely factual. Does anyone have an argument against this?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dream as if you'll live forever, and live as if you'll die today. "James Dean"
I knew you where going to quote Hume!!! xD well... not quoting, but summon him in your aid
though those ideas seem to demonstrate that cartainty of existence can't be achieved, they are actually only semantic arguments...
If we are puppets of a god-demon being that transmits its thoughts into our brains/minds... then what we call "reality" is in fact an ilussion, but then, that ilussion is our reality, or at least, my individual reality... maybe you don't exist, but in this universal illusion you are a "real" being, with your own opinions and everything... but as there is no actual reality, and I don't actually exist, and what I percive as myself don't exist, then my consiusness and what I feel is an arbitrary creation... but I don't need anything else to say that what I feel is something that I call "reality", dreams and such things, are just illusions of illusions...
I don't know if you get my point... it like: if we deny the existence of reality, then everything is an illusion, therefore, that illusion IS the reality, with a more "ethereal" substance, but not less real for what it matters...
By God Don, you make absolutely no sense at all!!!
Utter and complete rubbish- almost beyond forgiveness.
I hope that after I correct you, you never make such a mistake again.
I quote you:
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
Right now you're just putting your thumbs into your ears, and shouting: "tralalalala I'm right you're wrong, tralalalala I can't hear you".
I mean what the hell was that?
tralalalala??? That doesn't mean anything at all.
Everybody knows its written 'tralalalalala'
Can't you see the subtle yet significant difference???
I'll forgive you just this once though.
I'll go lie down a bit now. I feel tired. I think I may be showing signs of overworking. Damn dissertation.
I'm just curious, why are we talking about philosophy? This is so off topic. If you would like to talk about the philosophy of existence and how all the greats such as Hume, Locke and all those guys reasoned we can do that in a different thread but THIS thread is about religion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I think it is necessary for people to realize that if they believe in evolution, then they must at least accept that the Bible is not entirely factual. Does anyone have an argument against this?
I do not believe in evolution, I do not believe in the Bible, and I think to realize what the Bible is does not require one to be a fan of the scientific method. It's as simple as "My philosophy does not agree with that of the Bible, therefore, the Bible is incorrect".
So, uh..... what about the Crusades? Holy wars which were brought upon by the word of god.
Ok, chistrians live their life by the bible, that's a given and you know that already, just had to say that to lead into this... The old law was done away with (Old Testament) after Christ died on the cross. After he died the New Testament began. The holy land of Jerusalem became of no importance after the Old Testament was finished. Nothing in the new covenant remotely even talks about needing to have power of the holy land for any reasons (you can try to find scripture to back up a war over a piece of land but you wont find any in the new testament). So, true christianity doesn't hurt anyone. Thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, so on etc... Just because God's word sparked a war doesn't mean it was fought over true christianity. People can take things out of context and become obsessed with things (ie, the hold land of jerusalem in the crusades).
If you can show me some scripture of why the holy land should have been important to them under the new covenant, I will rethink my logic, but you better know what you're talking about. (Not trying to come off as a jerk.)
EDIT:
About Russell's teapot:
It does not need to be explained away. It is a philosophical trick. Yes, it is true that no-one can prove there is not a china teapot between Earth and Mars, and no-one truly believes there is.
However, we are also asked to believe in the existence of dark matter. Scientists truly believe it exists, and it cannot be proven not to exist.
Therefore, it is possible to accept the existence of something without proof.
The thing is though, there is evidence for God, it's not just a blind faith as Russell's teapot is, acutally, that is all his arguement is about, is blind faith. There is scientific evidence to support events in the bible.
Another thing: this is just an opinion, so take it at face value (not directed at anyone in particular). I hate it when people try to disprove something with science, when there is science to prove it. Example... (this is dumbec down to make my point clear and to show what I'm trying to say.)
Example: Person 1: I believe God isn't real because of the Big Bang Theory, science proves God didn't create the Universe.
Person 2: I believe God created the universe because the Big Bang Theory cannot be proven without a doubt. Also, there have been artifacts found and scientific evidence to prove that these artifacts verify certain events in the bible.
There are way better examples. Also, another factor that ties into that^ is all arguements (based on science and religion, around the subject of religion) are based on some pressumptions.
EDIT2 @Don:
Things can be proved. I exist as a human being, that is a fact. And it can be proved I exist as a human being by looking at my DNA and the components of my physical body, as well as my thought processes.
ALSO, the Allegory of the cave thing, as well as many of your other arguements seem to be like paradoxes, they just circle and circle, a philosophical trick. Kind of how I explained the Teapot thing above.
And just because someone is in a cave their whole life and doesn't see the world doesnt mean that shadows the only real thing. Doing that to someone would psychologically mess them up, that arguement is based on a HUGE what if of bs.
WHAT IF I WAS IN A COMA FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE, WOULD THE DREAM-LIKE STATE BE A REAL REALITY, NO MORE REAL THAN EARTH? (catch the drift)
Things can be proved. I exist as a human being, that is a fact. And it can be proved I exist as a human being by looking at my DNA and the components of my physical body, as well as my thought processes.
You didn't get the ideas Don exposed... he didn't said you can't watch you DNA or sence your thought processes... he just said that those perceptions could be just mere illusions, so you can't prove they're actually real...
yeah, those are correct, but we are not discussing the definition of reality and proof, but the posibility of percive the reality and to achieve a complete and beyond doubt proof
Quote from "TwilightRealm" »
ALSO, the Allegory of the cave thing, as well as many of your other arguements seem to be like paradoxes, they just circle and circle, a philosophical trick. Kind of how I explained the Teapot thing above.
And just because someone is in a cave their whole life and doesn't see the world doesnt mean that shadows the only real thing. Doing that to someone would psychologically mess them up, that arguement is based on a HUGE what if of bs.
WHAT IF I WAS IN A COMA FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE, WOULD THE DREAM-LIKE STATE BE A REAL REALITY, NO MORE REAL THAN EARTH? (catch the drift)
what you call a philosophicall trick, is actually the object of philosphy... to understand things, and if the process of undertsanding leads to a paradox, then you have a philosophical dilemma... not a trick...
the allegory of the cave is not a paradox...because is not talking about the existence of reality, it's talking about the essence of it...
Things can be proved. I exist as a human being, that is a fact. And it can be proved I exist as a human being by looking at my DNA and the components of my physical body, as well as my thought processes.
Yes, it is fact, based in your perception of reality. Some of us can't just look at our hands and say "I exist" and know that 100%. We could all be asleep somewhere dreaming this, and wake up in a world where we have no arms or legs and float around everywhere by farting hard enough. I'm not saying that is true, or what I believe, but you can't prove we're all really here and viewing things the same way as everyone else.
Quote from "TwilightRealm" »
ALSO, the Allegory of the cave thing, as well as many of your other arguements seem to be like paradoxes, they just circle and circle, a philosophical trick. Kind of how I explained the Teapot thing above.
Okay. Go read Allegory of the Cave. Don't skip lines, don't speed-read, actually read it and absorb the information in the words. Then come back and form a valid argument.
Quote from TwilightRealm »
And just because someone is in a cave their whole life and doesn't see the world doesnt mean that shadows the only real thing. Doing that to someone would psychologically mess them up, that arguement is based on a HUGE what if of bs.
WHAT IF I WAS IN A COMA FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE, WOULD THE DREAM-LIKE STATE BE A REAL REALITY, NO MORE REAL THAN EARTH? (catch the drift)
Don't look at it as a cave, look at it as... a family I guess we can say. Your opinions are distinctly your own, because growing up in your cave (house, family, etc) was different than the cave I was in. Only we were in the same cave, but I percieved things differently than you. Understand? Your cave is your world. Going outside of your cave would be eye opening.
I know I didn't explain the cave properly, it's been a long 4 years since Philosophy class >.> if someone gets what I'm saying and wants to expand on or clarify, please do.
It is not a trick, merely a way of explaining in simple terms why something can never be disproved. And can be extended to say that any "you can't disprove me"-argument is in fact, a fallacy.
I can't disprove the teapot but there is evidence for God to exist. There is no evidence for the teapot other than someone claiming it exists.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
In fact, there is evidence that leads to the existence of dark matter to be more likely than it's non-existence. That is what science is about, nothing can ever be proven to be 100% certain, you can just reach 99,999[...]%.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
Yes, but you can not prove the existence of something in reality. You can prove ideas of reality. You just proved one idea, not the actual reality. Immanuel Kant, who I already mentioned, wrote fascinating ideas based on that.
Things can be proven 100%. Do you have a little wikipedia link to a theory about that too? You can't get me to believe that nothing can never be proven 100%.
Example: It is proven 100% that if I stop breathing and my heart stops pumping, and I never start breathing again and my heart doesn't start pumping again, that I will die without an external force helping me live such as life support.
Just because people have different perspectives of life doesn't mean that things can't be proven 100%.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
Well, it would be completely illogical to even try to argue that the Bible has no real connection with history. After all, it is a proven fact it was written around 50-125 CE. So to say that the people that wrote it at that time didn't connect it to anything real would be a big fallacy.
agreed.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
However, there is more stuff in the Bible that is apparently historical, but all the actual evidence argues against the stuff. Like the fact that both King Herod and the Census of the province Jesus lived in couldn't have happened during Jesus' birth. King Herod died four years BCE and the first possible census, which wasn't even an empire-wide one, happened six years CE.
First off what are you trying to say? Secondly can you explain CE/BCE compared to AD/BC sorry lol.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
Big Bang Theory does not tell us anything about the origin of the universe. It can only get very close to it's birth. It has a God-sized hole in it. In fact, a creator is something totally 50/50, there's no evidence to support either side.
It was just an example, I really don't know much about the Big Bang Theory besides it involving a big bang and the universe coming from it. Actually there is evidence to prove God, faith is involved like in science theories. But there is strong science evidence to prove events from the bible, that couldn't have happened unless God would have intervened, for example the flood.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
A theistic God, such as the Abrahamic ones, seems like the most implausible idea based on all the various evidence arguing against it.
Compared to what other gods being more plausible? What evidence against an Abrahamic God? You just said that there was no evidence for or against a creator, you said it was nuetral 50/50. So please, show evidence so you can contradict yourself.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
It's not a paradox. It's called a metaphor. Metaphors explain complex concepts in a way people can grasp them easier. It's indifferent whether those ideas have anything to do with reality, they're more about understanding concepts not obvious.
First off, an allegory is not a metaphor.
I never said an the cave allegory was a paradox I said they were similar.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
The allegory of the cave can used to support the idea of the existence of a spiritual world, but even in that sense it explains the possibility that our idea of reality might not be real.
THe "might" indicates that you are saying that it is possible for our perception of reality to be real. Which is what you were trying to refute earlier.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
If you were in a coma for your entire life, what you would experience would indeed be the idea of reality for you. You could not observe anything beyond the coma, as you wouldn't wake up. If you can't feel anything outside of the coma, it would be your idea of reality.
That is true, but it doesn't mean it's the real one. What I was saying was, just because someone has a distorted perception of reality ( for psychological problems or other conditions ie, the coma), doesn't mean that there isn't a true reality to normal people. Perception can differ from person to person some, but the reality of this world stays the same.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
The shadows aren't meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor to say that what we see (trees, flowers, computer screens) is not necessarily the reality, merely indirect sensory information gathered about it, which can lie.
Our senses can lie, but if you're a normal person living an average life, they aren't going to lie all to much (within a reasonable amount to affect your perception as much as the next average joe.)
Yes, it is fact, based in your perception of reality. Some of us can't just look at our hands and say "I exist" and know that 100%. We could all be asleep somewhere dreaming this, and wake up in a world where we have no arms or legs and float around everywhere by farting hard enough. I'm not saying that is true, or what I believe, but you can't prove we're all really here and viewing things the same way as everyone else.
Who really believes we are just dreaming, go ask 1000 people on the street if they are dreaming, and if it isnt some college kid acting immature they'll say no, I'm wide awake. And you'll probably get laughed at and looked at like an idiot, crazy madman. lol
Quote from "Seniri" »
Okay. Go read Allegory of the Cave. Don't skip lines, don't speed-read, actually read it and absorb the information in the words. Then come back and form a valid argument.
Why so I can come back and have you say this... to tell me to take your example instead?
Quote from "Seniri" »
Don't look at it as a cave, look at it as... a family I guess we can say. Your opinions are distinctly your own, because growing up in your cave (house, family, etc) was different than the cave I was in. Only we were in the same cave, but I percieved things differently than you. Understand? Your cave is your world. Going outside of your cave would be eye opening.
You totally tore the cave allegory apart with your example. I think you need to go reread it, btw, don't skip any lines and read slow.
Yes I've seen the matrix, one of my favorites :D. It's just a movie man, just a movie.
Reality, based on popular opinion, as you said, is exactly what the Matrix is. Because most people believe that 20th century dreamworld the computer created for them is the real world.
Reality, based on popular opinion, as you said, is exactly what the Matrix is. Because most people believe that 20th century dreamworld the computer created for them is the real world.
Are you really going to try and prove reality with a movie?
Quote from "Seniri" »
Because most people believe that 20th century dreamworld the computer created for them is the real world.
The movie also makes everyone have the same perception of reality to an extent too, which you tried refuting as well.
You totally tore the cave allegory apart with your example. I think you need to go reread it, btw, don't skip any lines and read slow.
Actually, I tried to dumb it down as far as possible while still making it understandable, because obviously you're not intelligent enough to grasp the point of it. And on the topic of intelligence, stop and think before you type. Please.
Are you really going to try and prove reality with a movie?
The Matrix is a work of fiction, yes, but that does not mean the concept is not valid. It is a metaphor, just as the Bible is. Are you going to sit there and tell me a man lived inside of a fish for three days, and survived? That's obviously fiction, but there it is a metaphor. What about the talking mule in the Bible? Metaphor. Fiction. Yet you base your beliefs on it and blindly put faith in the writings of Shrek.
Quote from "TwilightRealm" »
The movie also makes everyone have the same perception of reality to an extent too, which you tried refuting as well.
The movie is a metaphor, stating that the reality we believe is real may not be the true reality. Just because everyone believes it does not make it fact.
Actually, I tried to dumb it down as far as possible while still making it understandable, because obviously you're not intelligent enough to grasp the point of it. And on the topic of intelligence, stop and think before you type. Please.
I'll call you stupid too, you're stupid. And no, you didn't just dumb it down, you totally enilated it and changed the originals alligories meaning by trying to come to the same conclusion with your example as the cave allegories.
I'll call you stupid too, you're stupid. And no, you didn't just dumb it down, you totally enilated it and changed the originals alligories meaning by trying to come to the same conclusion with your example as the cave allegories.
I didn't say stupid, I said unintelligent. Different meanings. I think you may have read it, but took the most literal conclusion and stuck with it. There was no cave. There were no people chained in it. It is a story. But if there were people in a cave forced to just look at the wall shadows, they would each have a different perception on reality. You can't get past the part that "they aren't in the real world" or "everyone else knows that's not reality." That doesn't matter. But hey, you can't even form proper arguments or rebuttals so obviously you can't understand what I'm trying to tell you, so I'll stop trying to teach you now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Idos Domi!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
[spoil][/spoil]
So, uh..... what about the Crusades? Holy wars which were brought upon by the word of god.
The "worldwide flood" theory is very plausible because the people of the time thought of the world as the surrounding area... I'm not sure what the Ryan-Pitman theory consists of but I'm sure it elaborates on this idea, that the entire world wasn't flooded, but there was merely a large flood which isn't implausible at all.
Nektu, you just proved that the Christian church is addicting like opium in China.
And Russia prohibited bibles and missionaries because the intelligent people knew that the stupid people would fall victim to the addiction that is religion.
I really like where this thread has gone, except for the homosexuality bit.
I think it is necessary for people to realize that if they believe in evolution, then they must at least accept that the Bible is not entirely factual. Does anyone have an argument against this?
though those ideas seem to demonstrate that cartainty of existence can't be achieved, they are actually only semantic arguments...
If we are puppets of a god-demon being that transmits its thoughts into our brains/minds... then what we call "reality" is in fact an ilussion, but then, that ilussion is our reality, or at least, my individual reality... maybe you don't exist, but in this universal illusion you are a "real" being, with your own opinions and everything... but as there is no actual reality, and I don't actually exist, and what I percive as myself don't exist, then my consiusness and what I feel is an arbitrary creation... but I don't need anything else to say that what I feel is something that I call "reality", dreams and such things, are just illusions of illusions...
I don't know if you get my point... it like: if we deny the existence of reality, then everything is an illusion, therefore, that illusion IS the reality, with a more "ethereal" substance, but not less real for what it matters...
Utter and complete rubbish- almost beyond forgiveness.
I hope that after I correct you, you never make such a mistake again.
I quote you:
I mean what the hell was that?
tralalalala??? That doesn't mean anything at all.
Everybody knows its written 'tralalalalala'
Can't you see the subtle yet significant difference???
I'll forgive you just this once though.
I'll go lie down a bit now. I feel tired. I think I may be showing signs of overworking. Damn dissertation.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Ok, chistrians live their life by the bible, that's a given and you know that already, just had to say that to lead into this... The old law was done away with (Old Testament) after Christ died on the cross. After he died the New Testament began. The holy land of Jerusalem became of no importance after the Old Testament was finished. Nothing in the new covenant remotely even talks about needing to have power of the holy land for any reasons (you can try to find scripture to back up a war over a piece of land but you wont find any in the new testament). So, true christianity doesn't hurt anyone. Thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, so on etc... Just because God's word sparked a war doesn't mean it was fought over true christianity. People can take things out of context and become obsessed with things (ie, the hold land of jerusalem in the crusades).
If you can show me some scripture of why the holy land should have been important to them under the new covenant, I will rethink my logic, but you better know what you're talking about. (Not trying to come off as a jerk.)
EDIT:
About Russell's teapot:
It does not need to be explained away. It is a philosophical trick. Yes, it is true that no-one can prove there is not a china teapot between Earth and Mars, and no-one truly believes there is.
However, we are also asked to believe in the existence of dark matter. Scientists truly believe it exists, and it cannot be proven not to exist.
Therefore, it is possible to accept the existence of something without proof.
The thing is though, there is evidence for God, it's not just a blind faith as Russell's teapot is, acutally, that is all his arguement is about, is blind faith. There is scientific evidence to support events in the bible.
Another thing: this is just an opinion, so take it at face value (not directed at anyone in particular). I hate it when people try to disprove something with science, when there is science to prove it. Example... (this is dumbec down to make my point clear and to show what I'm trying to say.)
Example: Person 1: I believe God isn't real because of the Big Bang Theory, science proves God didn't create the Universe.
Person 2: I believe God created the universe because the Big Bang Theory cannot be proven without a doubt. Also, there have been artifacts found and scientific evidence to prove that these artifacts verify certain events in the bible.
There are way better examples. Also, another factor that ties into that^ is all arguements (based on science and religion, around the subject of religion) are based on some pressumptions.
EDIT2 @Don:
Things can be proved. I exist as a human being, that is a fact. And it can be proved I exist as a human being by looking at my DNA and the components of my physical body, as well as my thought processes.
Fact: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact
Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Proof: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proven
Proof: to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:
ALSO, the Allegory of the cave thing, as well as many of your other arguements seem to be like paradoxes, they just circle and circle, a philosophical trick. Kind of how I explained the Teapot thing above.
And just because someone is in a cave their whole life and doesn't see the world doesnt mean that shadows the only real thing. Doing that to someone would psychologically mess them up, that arguement is based on a HUGE what if of bs.
WHAT IF I WAS IN A COMA FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE, WOULD THE DREAM-LIKE STATE BE A REAL REALITY, NO MORE REAL THAN EARTH? (catch the drift)
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
You didn't get the ideas Don exposed... he didn't said you can't watch you DNA or sence your thought processes... he just said that those perceptions could be just mere illusions, so you can't prove they're actually real...
yeah, those are correct, but we are not discussing the definition of reality and proof, but the posibility of percive the reality and to achieve a complete and beyond doubt proof
what you call a philosophicall trick, is actually the object of philosphy... to understand things, and if the process of undertsanding leads to a paradox, then you have a philosophical dilemma... not a trick...
the allegory of the cave is not a paradox...because is not talking about the existence of reality, it's talking about the essence of it...
Yes, it is fact, based in your perception of reality. Some of us can't just look at our hands and say "I exist" and know that 100%. We could all be asleep somewhere dreaming this, and wake up in a world where we have no arms or legs and float around everywhere by farting hard enough. I'm not saying that is true, or what I believe, but you can't prove we're all really here and viewing things the same way as everyone else.
Okay. Go read Allegory of the Cave. Don't skip lines, don't speed-read, actually read it and absorb the information in the words. Then come back and form a valid argument.
Don't look at it as a cave, look at it as... a family I guess we can say. Your opinions are distinctly your own, because growing up in your cave (house, family, etc) was different than the cave I was in. Only we were in the same cave, but I percieved things differently than you. Understand? Your cave is your world. Going outside of your cave would be eye opening.
I know I didn't explain the cave properly, it's been a long 4 years since Philosophy class >.> if someone gets what I'm saying and wants to expand on or clarify, please do.
PS. Don't take everything so literally.
I can't disprove the teapot but there is evidence for God to exist. There is no evidence for the teapot other than someone claiming it exists.
Things can be proven 100%. Do you have a little wikipedia link to a theory about that too? You can't get me to believe that nothing can never be proven 100%.
Example: It is proven 100% that if I stop breathing and my heart stops pumping, and I never start breathing again and my heart doesn't start pumping again, that I will die without an external force helping me live such as life support.
Just because people have different perspectives of life doesn't mean that things can't be proven 100%.
agreed.
First off what are you trying to say? Secondly can you explain CE/BCE compared to AD/BC sorry lol.
It was just an example, I really don't know much about the Big Bang Theory besides it involving a big bang and the universe coming from it. Actually there is evidence to prove God, faith is involved like in science theories. But there is strong science evidence to prove events from the bible, that couldn't have happened unless God would have intervened, for example the flood.
Compared to what other gods being more plausible? What evidence against an Abrahamic God? You just said that there was no evidence for or against a creator, you said it was nuetral 50/50. So please, show evidence so you can contradict yourself.
First off, an allegory is not a metaphor.
I never said an the cave allegory was a paradox I said they were similar.
THe "might" indicates that you are saying that it is possible for our perception of reality to be real. Which is what you were trying to refute earlier.
That is true, but it doesn't mean it's the real one. What I was saying was, just because someone has a distorted perception of reality ( for psychological problems or other conditions ie, the coma), doesn't mean that there isn't a true reality to normal people. Perception can differ from person to person some, but the reality of this world stays the same.
Our senses can lie, but if you're a normal person living an average life, they aren't going to lie all to much (within a reasonable amount to affect your perception as much as the next average joe.)
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
Prove to me that this is the real one.
Edit: A little off topic (but still relevant), but Twilight, have you seen the Matrix?
Who really believes we are just dreaming, go ask 1000 people on the street if they are dreaming, and if it isnt some college kid acting immature they'll say no, I'm wide awake. And you'll probably get laughed at and looked at like an idiot, crazy madman. lol
Why so I can come back and have you say this... to tell me to take your example instead?
You totally tore the cave allegory apart with your example. I think you need to go reread it, btw, don't skip any lines and read slow.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
Prove to me it's not.
Yes I've seen the matrix, one of my favorites :D. It's just a movie man, just a movie.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
Reality, based on popular opinion, as you said, is exactly what the Matrix is. Because most people believe that 20th century dreamworld the computer created for them is the real world.
Are you really going to try and prove reality with a movie?
The movie also makes everyone have the same perception of reality to an extent too, which you tried refuting as well.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
Actually, I tried to dumb it down as far as possible while still making it understandable, because obviously you're not intelligent enough to grasp the point of it. And on the topic of intelligence, stop and think before you type. Please.
The Matrix is a work of fiction, yes, but that does not mean the concept is not valid. It is a metaphor, just as the Bible is. Are you going to sit there and tell me a man lived inside of a fish for three days, and survived? That's obviously fiction, but there it is a metaphor. What about the talking mule in the Bible? Metaphor. Fiction. Yet you base your beliefs on it and blindly put faith in the writings of Shrek.
The movie is a metaphor, stating that the reality we believe is real may not be the true reality. Just because everyone believes it does not make it fact.
I'll call you stupid too, you're stupid. And no, you didn't just dumb it down, you totally enilated it and changed the originals alligories meaning by trying to come to the same conclusion with your example as the cave allegories.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
I didn't say stupid, I said unintelligent. Different meanings. I think you may have read it, but took the most literal conclusion and stuck with it. There was no cave. There were no people chained in it. It is a story. But if there were people in a cave forced to just look at the wall shadows, they would each have a different perception on reality. You can't get past the part that "they aren't in the real world" or "everyone else knows that's not reality." That doesn't matter. But hey, you can't even form proper arguments or rebuttals so obviously you can't understand what I'm trying to tell you, so I'll stop trying to teach you now.