09 Dec '05 20:07>
Cmon all iam an anthist not cuziam ignorant but cuz I no theres no god and there no proof so give me proof and i shall be set free!lol but really there is no god!
Originally posted by smokeymcpot420Really? You could've fooled me. What that intellect, you must know way more than the average theist.
cuziam ignorant.
Originally posted by TetsujinI consider these to be religions:
Really? You could've fooled me. What that intellect, you must know way more than the average theist.
Pray tell, which religions have you looked at?
Edit 2:
Since I should mention this:
I consider these to be religions:
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
I consider these to be pseudo(non)-religious ideologies:
Hinduism
Bhuddism
Confuciani ...[text shortened]... aoism
Feel free to ask me anything if you have a question about one of these in particular.
Originally posted by vistesdAll distinctions are artificial. But, from what I've read and understood, the latter four don't fit on the same side of the page as the former three.
This seems to be a somewhat artificial distinction to me—though I think you may be using the word “religion” in a stricter sense than I do. Are you separating them on the basis of “supernatural (or extra-natural) theism”? That makes some sense, but—
What is sometimes called “the perennial philosophy” of monism, that is perhaps most clearly expressed in ...[text shortened]... m/kabbalah in Judaism, Sufism in Islam)—although those streams do seem to be more “underground.”
Originally posted by TetsujinMy line of divide is based upon the form of it's revelation.
All distinctions are artificial. But, from what I've read and understood, the latter four don't fit on the same side of the page as the former three.
My line of divide is based upon the form of it's revelation.
I'd put sikhism in with the other four, but it's just a sad marriage of Islam and Hinduism that I find to be a stupid joke.
Yes, offense intended.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardSure. Proof by Construction is one method. To prove that something exists by this method, simply construct it via valid means from things that do exist.
Could you give an example?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesProving the existence of an ordered set of numbers is quite difficult.
Sure. Proof by Construction is one method. To prove that something exists by this method, simply construct it via valid means from things that do exist.
Suppose you didn't believe in the existence of any numbers greater than 9, and you challenge me to prove that such numbers do exist. Then my method of proof would be to start with the number 9 ...[text shortened]... , I have constructed a number greater than 9, thereby proving that numbers greater than 9 exist.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCan you apply this proof by construction on the existence of God or on the existence of ..... satan ?
Sure. Proof by Construction is one method. To prove that something exists by this method, simply construct it via valid means from things that do exist.
Suppose you didn't believe in the existence of any numbers greater than 9, and you challenge me to prove that such numbers do exist. Then my method of proof would be to start with the number 9 ...[text shortened]... , I have constructed a number greater than 9, thereby proving that numbers greater than 9 exist.
Originally posted by ivanhoePossibly. It would depend on your definition of God. For example, if you define God to be a number greater than 9, then I have already applied this method to prove his existence.
Can you apply this proof by construction on the existence of God or on the existence of ..... satan ?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles.... and if the sky falls down we all will be wearing blue hats, Dear Doctor.
Possibly. It would depend on your definition of God. For example, if you define God to be a number greater than 9, then I have already applied this method to prove his existence.