Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[Angrboda]

I haven't voted because I don't want to be put on the spot, but I believe gnostic atheism is highly defensible, and I don't think I could demonstrate the Shakti empirically to another, but to me it is more than belief.

So I lean towards gnostic in both the theist and atheist categories.

[Lek]

I haven't voted because I don't want to be put on the spot, but I believe gnostic atheism is highly defensible, and I don't think I could demonstrate the Shakti empirically to another, but to me it is more than belief.

So I lean towards gnostic in both the theist and atheist categories.

Much of this discussion is "psychobabble" to me, but as a christian there is always a little nagging doubt present in my mind and probably always will be as long as I live. That's why I'm in a constant effort to investigate my faith. I want the truth and if what I believe is not, then I want to know.

[discipulus]

That it's scientifically provable

Maybe I should have made that clearer. I wonder if the two gnostics really are now! :S

Please bear with me, for I am a novice.

So essentially, empiricists hold to a proposition which states that we should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven....

Is that correct?

I am sorry if I am being redundant, please bear with me.

[truthBtold]

I haven't voted because I don't want to be put on the spot, but I believe gnostic atheism is highly defensible, and I don't think I could demonstrate the Shakti empirically to another, but to me it is more than belief.

So I lean towards gnostic in both the theist and atheist categories.

Much of this discussion is "psychobabble" to me, but as a christian there is always a little nagging doubt present in my mind and probably always will be as long as I live. That's why I'm in a constant effort to investigate my faith. I want the truth and if what I believe is not, then I want to know.

So u believe in something that has no evidence,and until u do find evidence that the bible is bull.. then u will not believe that junk?? Yourr not be honest to urself

[Whateverist]

I wouldn't see God's residence within as any loss of stature. It simultaneous gives God a place in the world and reminds you that the otherness of the world is in you too.

The Christian tradition has both of course.

I like your idea. I make use more of God in everything in my awe and wouldn't like to lose that. It'd be a huge loss for me.

And if God possibly could be more, then he has to be it all to be completely God.

Your god, your call of course. But in a sense if God were only celebrated for creating the world you experience, for providing you the foundation for your conscious perspective, in a sense He has created everything and you should be duly grateful. Whatever we call it that makes what we experience possible is truly an amazing thing and it isn't anything we can directly take credit for ourselves. So much goes on below the surface to make us possible.

---

That it's scientifically provable

Maybe I should have made that clearer. I wonder if the two gnostics really are now! :S

Please bear with me, for I am a novice.

So essentially, empiricists hold to a proposition which states that we should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven....

Is that correct?

I am sorry if I am being redundant, please bear with me.

That's not what I hear Frodo saying. I think he is saying that empirical evidence of gods is not possible but that it entirely okay to believe in them anyway. But he will correct that as needed.

[fr0d0]

That it's scientifically provable

Maybe I should have made that clearer. I wonder if the two gnostics really are now! :S

Please bear with me, for I am a novice.

So essentially, empiricists hold to a proposition which states that we should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven....

Is that correct?

I am sorry if I am being redundant, please bear with me.

In certainly no expert, but how about we go by this definition:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ration...mpiricism/

[discipulus]

That's not what I hear Frodo saying. I think he is saying that empirical evidence of gods is not possible but that it entirely okay to believe in them anyway. But he will correct that as needed.

I see....

Well, I am sure you are smarter than I and more knowledgeable about these issues and I do admit I know little about some of these things so I try to learn. Maybe you could help me better understand this idea of empiricism. If you are able, I would humbly ask you to tell me if my understanding of empiricism is correct. It is written below:

So essentially, empiricists hold to a proposition which states that we should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven....

---

Please bear with me, for I am a novice.

So essentially, empiricists hold to a proposition which states that we should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven....

Is that correct?

I am sorry if I am being redundant, please bear with me.

In certainly no expert, but how about we go by this definition:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ration...mpiricism/

You have been faithful in helping me, and the link you supplied me is excellent I think, but it is very hard for me to understand. Would you say that my summation is an accurate one?

[fr0d0]

Your god, your call of course. But in a sense if God were only celebrated for creating the world you experience, for providing you the foundation for your conscious perspective, in a sense He has created everything and you should be duly grateful. Whatever we call it that makes what we experience possible is truly an amazing thing and it isn't anything we can directly take credit for ourselves. So much goes on below the surface to make us possible.

You're dead right. Ultimately it's all in our heads if you look at it that way. Same as all experience.

Would you say that my summation is an accurate one?

I would. That's how I see it, and how I think Prof Dawkins used it, and why I also use it, thanks to his usage.

[discipulus]

I would. That's how I see it, and how I think Prof Dawkins used it, and why I also use it, thanks to his usage.

If empiricists hold to a proposition which states that we should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven, then their view is self-refuting, no?

The proposition: "We should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven", cannot be scientifically proven, and thus, fails to meet its own criteria.

[Whateverist]

I would. That's how I see it, and how I think Prof Dawkins used it, and why I also use it, thanks to his usage.

If empiricists hold to a proposition which states that we should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven, then their view is self-refuting, no?

The proposition: "We should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven", cannot be scientifically proven, and thus, fails to meet its own criteria.

Damn! No wonder you were buttering me up so good. Good one.