(May 9, 2013 at 4:14 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Once you are convinced of the validity of the information.

As has been stated ad nauseum, people can convince themselves that anything is real and claim through their deluded minds that the information is valid. No matter how much one wishes something existed that clearly does not exist, merely wanting it to exist will not make it so anywhere except in that individual's mind. I could delude myself into believing that leprechauns are real, claiming special knowledge of valid information related to their existence, but my simply wishing it or convincing myself of it will not make leprechauns poof into existence.

I would agree whole heartedly with that Maelstrom.

I don't think you delude yourself, I think you lack information.

(May 9, 2013 at 4:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I would agree whole heartedly with that Maelstrom.

I don't think you delude yourself, I think you lack information.

Then aid us, great sage.

That's been my question since the beginning: absent evidence within the physical world- the only world we actually experience- how are you able to know about the existence of god? What is convincing you of this, and how can you be sure it's not just something you're deluding yourself about?

That's the wrong question Esq. See above for how that defeats itself. The only verifiable evidence of God is everything in existence.

(May 9, 2013 at 4:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The only verifiable evidence of God is everything in existence.

False. The existence of something does not imply intelligent design behind its creation.

(May 9, 2013 at 4:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: That's the wrong question Esq. See above for how that defeats itself. The only verifiable evidence of God is everything in existence.

Yeah, that's not compelling. Existence denotes existence, nothing more. You're clearly seeing something additional, so why not tell us what it is?

(May 9, 2013 at 4:58 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 4:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The only verifiable evidence of God is everything in existence.

False. The existence of something does not imply intelligent design behind its creation.

It is the definition of a leap of faith.

If evidence is forthcoming to render the premise factual (creation myth or whatever ones wants to call it), let it be presented:

I think what it comes down to is that some folk will only be convinced by what is evidenced and, importantly, testable and verifyable. And some will be convinced by what they believe to be true. If I were to do the latter it would be dangerous, especially if, say, someone tried to convince me they could cure me of my T1 diabetes by using a pill but they refused to tell me what was in the pill and that instead I had to believe it would work. Relying on hard evidence is a virtue, one that is often frowned upon by those that cannot provide it to back up their claims.

(May 9, 2013 at 4:58 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 4:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The only verifiable evidence of God is everything in existence.

False. The existence of something does not imply intelligent design behind its creation.

You asked, pre supposing 'God', as you named him. Given 'God', then everything is created by him. Not given God, had you not asked a loaded question, the answer could have been different. ie: we don't know. Or to put it in another, widely accepted form: God (same answer again).

(May 9, 2013 at 7:46 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Or to put it in another, widely accepted form: God (same answer again).

God is not an answer. He is an excuse.

(May 9, 2013 at 7:48 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 7:46 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Or to put it in another, widely accepted form: God (same answer again).

God is not an answer. He is an excuse.

It kinda looks that way. I'd say that's your limited understanding and not accurate.