- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWould a painting not convince you of the existence of an artist?
Great. Can you show me God?
Look Kelly, we are bound and severely limited by our finite nature. We will never do the math. We simply don't have all the numbers.
@dj2becker saidYou limited manuscripts to those that were complete and gave a date suggesting that those show a hole in the validity of them. Everything else!
Which evidence could that be?
1 edit
@dj2becker saidRight back at you. If you came across a painting and were not there to see the artist at work, could you ever say with certainty who the artist was? What if many artists were attributed to the work?
Would a painting not convince you of the existence of an artist?
1 edit
I believe in Sasquatch because there's a book about them that says they exist. In the preface, the editor acknowledges that unbelievers also exist, but asserts that the information provided in the book is true.
If a book says it's true, then it must be true, right?
Plus, the book contained an interview with a Sasquatch where the subject reportedly said, "What the hell kind of interview is this? Who do you think you're talking to? Yes, of course I exist. Do you?"
"Because Sasquatch said so," is good enough for me.
[Edit: But in that interview, I don't think the Sasquatch said anything about consequences of doubt. Hmm. Sorry that I strayed from that particular point.]
@caesar-salad saidThat post was abominable.
I believe in Sasquatch because there's a book about them that says they exist. In the preface, the editor acknowledges that unbelievers also exist, but asserts that the information provided in the book is true.
If a book says it's true, then it must be true, right?
Plus, the book contained an interview with a Sasquatch where the subject reportedly said, "What the ...[text shortened]... said anything about consequences of doubt. Hmm. Sorry that I strayed from that particular point.]
😲
@caesar-salad saidApologies sir if I put my big foot in my mouth...
(Consequences yeti to be determined.)
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou realize that simply saying there was a beginning you have ruled out one of the choices.
Neither of us were there at the time of creation (if there even was a creation). How could we possibly rule anything in or out with certainty?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThis still is working back from what we know, someone or some ones did it.
Right back at you. If you came across a painting and were not there to see the artist at work, could you ever say with certainty who the artist was? What if many artists were attributed to the work?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidDo you view evolution, and the interpretation of what the fossils show us, with this same level of scrutiny (none of us were there), or do you just believe what people tell you?
Neither of us were there at the time of creation (if there even was a creation). How could we possibly rule anything in or out with certainty?
@dj2becker saidAs we all know given enough time and enough paint the Mona Lisa
Would a painting not convince you of the existence of an artist?
could be produced by the random play of chimpanzees.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSure that’s a fair question which would require you to examine more evidence but saying there is no artist isn’t getting you closer to the truth.
Right back at you. If you came across a painting and were not there to see the artist at work, could you ever say with certainty who the artist was? What if many artists were attributed to the work?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@wolfgang59 saidNo we don’t all know that, that is simply your faith claim.
As we all know given enough time and enough paint the Mona Lisa
could be produced by the random play of chimpanzees.
@dj2becker saidSorry.
No we don’t all know that, that is simply your faith claim.
I should have said;
"As anyone who has given it some thought knows -
given enough time and enough paint the Mona Lisa could
be produced by the random play of chimpanzees."