1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettcool, did you see the documentary on BBC i player? get a British proxy server and you can watch it, its the best i have seen, the whole dialogue strictly taken from his letters.
It'll be our little secret.
Here are four Van Goghs we have at the Detroit Institute of Arts:
http://www.dia.org/art/search-collection.aspx?searchType=new&department=&keyword=van+gogh
But even more tantalising than that my friend, Glasgow, the foremost socialist city of the empire shall be hosting a work of its celebrated sons, the Glasgow boys, 140 pieces brought together from private and public collections. What made them so special, not only there artistry, but they painted real people in real scenes from around the city. They truly produced some of the most outstanding works of art for the period, unparalleled in my opinion. Socialism my friend in its purest form, check it out. Naturally they dare not charge to see those masterpieces, it is against the spirit of the city.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8608484.stm
Originally posted by karoly aczelThis is an example of why the term 'god' is often thought to be incoherent. There seems to be no agreed upon definition of what the term means.
We are not our bodies. We are the Spirit that inhabits these bodies. To be born into a physical body means we must first forget all that we know and go through the painstaking process of relearning who we actually are. Amnesia is a part of incarnating into this physical plane. To understand who we really are is to understand God.
As far as the God ,( ...[text shortened]... s not God however a God-concious entity. Otherwise known as an angel in christian terminology.
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat evidence would I find sufficient? I'm not sure, but I'll know it when (if) I see it.
[b]I am aware of the arguments for god, I understand them, but find them unconvincing.
I question the basis upon which you've found them all so unconvincing.
If you come up with a more convincing argument, I may reconsider. Lacking that, however, the verdict is 'not proven and assumed to be false.'
What evidence would you consider sufficient and reasonable?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI like this one, by Thomas Millie Dow:
cool, did you see the documentary on BBC i player? get a British proxy server and you can watch it, its the best i have seen, the whole dialogue strictly taken from his letters.
But even more tantalising than that my friend, Glasgow, the foremost socialist city of the empire shall be hosting a work of its celebrated sons, the Glasgow boys, 140 ...[text shortened]... inst the spirit of the city.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8608484.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Millie_Dow_-_Late_Autumn_At_Barbazon_1879.jpg
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIf you're not sure what evidence would be sufficient, then how can you claim that the evidence you've seen hasn't been good enough? There should be some criteria by which the evidence is assessed, right? What would that be in your case?
What evidence would I find sufficient? I'm not sure, but I'll know it when (if) I see it.
Originally posted by epiphinehasOh epiphinehas, methinks it would be enough to prove by means of valid scientific facts and evidence that the Human is created by a so called sentient Creator kat' eikona kai kath' omoiosin Tou; or that, this so called Creator created the universe
If you're not sure what evidence would be sufficient, then how can you claim that the evidence you've seen hasn't been good enough? There should be some criteria by which the evidence is assessed, right? What would that be in your case?
😵
Originally posted by karoly aczelI'm not going to debate your views on the pre-born, they are your views
We are not our bodies. We are the Spirit that inhabits these bodies. To be born into a physical body means we must first forget all that we know and go through the painstaking process of relearning who we actually are. Amnesia is a part of incarnating into this physical plane. To understand who we really are is to understand God.
As far as the God ,( ...[text shortened]... s not God however a God-concious entity. Otherwise known as an angel in christian terminology.
you are welcome to them. I was using your views to point out that people
disagree on what is going on, maybe children know a great deal about
God at that age, even Jesus spoke about even the rocks would cry out
to God at one point. I don't know what infants know so making a blanket
statement that suggests they agree with me on a point, is a little out there.
As far as God speaking, God often uses others to speak for him, in both the
OT and NT. He is also quite able to speak for Himself too.
Kelly
Originally posted by epiphinehasI think I have posted this before but it seems like a good time to do it again.
If you're not sure what evidence would be sufficient, then how can you claim that the evidence you've seen hasn't been good enough? There should be some criteria by which the evidence is assessed, right? What would that be in your case?
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
It is a list of the kind of evidence that would be sufficient to persuade that particular atheist of the truth of a religion (and therefore the existance of that religion's particular deity or dieties.
I think it is pretty comprehensive myself.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by epiphinehasThat doesn't make any sense. Its not even clear what you are asking for. Are you asking for specific examples of evidence that he would find sufficient, or are you asking for general guidelines regarding such evidence? Either way, neither is relevant to his claim that evidence currently available to him is insufficient.
If you're not sure what evidence would be sufficient, then how can you claim that the evidence you've seen hasn't been good enough?
Maybe it would help if you carried out the exercise yourself: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you that there are invisible unicorns in my fridge?
Originally posted by twhiteheaddid those invisible unicorns at one time sent a prophet or something. did that prophet said or do anything interesting? would the universe be a better or more interesting place with the existance of said unicorns? how would your life be affected by said unicorns? do they have an afterlife? would they be angry and smite you if you don't believe in them or reward you if they do? what are they doing in your fridge?
That doesn't make any sense. Its not even clear what you are asking for. Are you asking for specific examples of evidence that he would find sufficient, or are you asking for general guidelines regarding such evidence? Either way, neither is relevant to his claim that evidence currently available to him is insufficient.
Maybe it would help if you carri ...[text shortened]... at evidence would be sufficient to convince you that there are invisible unicorns in my fridge?
and because i am a christian, are your unicorns better than the infinite almost omnipotent god and the awesome dude that is his son?
answering these questions might be a start in convincing me of their existance.
Originally posted by ZahlanziDemonstrating that Jesus believed in god doesn't mean he was right.
did those invisible unicorns at one time sent a prophet or something. did that prophet said or do anything interesting? would the universe be a better or more interesting place with the existance of said unicorns? how would your life be affected by said unicorns? do they have an afterlife? would they be angry and smite you if you don't believe in them or re ...[text shortened]... is his son?
answering these questions might be a start in convincing me of their existance.
Whether or not the universe would be better off with Christianity doesn't mean it's true.
Attempting to demonstrate that your conception of god is better than another doesn't mean it's true.