(May 7, 2013 at 3:55 am)Esquilax Wrote:(May 7, 2013 at 2:57 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It's not 'feelings' Esq, it's thought. If you can rationalise something that cannot be proven empirically, that's not a feeling. There are reasons for your decisions. What you are dismissing is this whole realm of human endeavour (which covers far more than philosophy). That's wholly illogical.
You can rationalize a lot of things. Your ability to do so doesn't mean that it exists, or even that it's rational at all; all it proves is that your mind is able to contort into a shape where it can accept a given proposition. I mean, there are tons of religions you don't ascribe to, and they've all managed to rationalize their gods into being the same as you have. Obviously at least one of you is wrong, despite thinking you've got more than a feeling.
And I'm not dismissing anything, I'm simply noting that things that exist tend to leave evidence of their existence, and without evidence we're not justified in believing something to exist.
I'm not interested in existence. There is nothing to prove. My faith hinges on my belief.
My mind doesn't 'contort'. It finds the most rational answer, as it must.
If all religions address the same subject, then all religious conclusions are pretty close.
