A request to fr0d0 to elaborate

[fr0d0]

*sighs*

And you guys gave kudos for that!

[Violet]

That certainly is the case.

But do they exist? Prolly not.

EvF

All things exist as ideas... otherwise I could not convey the glorious FSM in language and expect you to understand what it is. Is the FSM physically manifest in this universe? I see no more reason for the FSM's physical form than I see for the tooth fairy's... and I don't see why either should exist physically at all ... just as I can't see any reason why there is not a blade of grass in Brazil that grants immortality to whoever chews it.

Do they exist? Possibly. The universe (and possibly things beyond it...) is a massive place with a lot of randomness... it is entirely possible that the FSM, Tooth Fairy, and Magik Blade of Grass all exist. It also depends on how we define them... are we defining them with contradictory terms or not? If so, then they could only exist outside of where logic works (if anything can do so?)... but how could we know anything about that which exists outside of logic?

After all... we have evidence that things can exist outside of logic (in the form of religion especially)... why should logic be any different than the tooth fairy or wether a door really is concealed inside a wall?

Are we likely to ever encounter them? I don't think so. Why not? The universe is apparently massive, and we are very small It's like holding up a blimp, placing two bacteria on either end, and expecting them to find each other... except our odds of encountering them is far worse

---

I have absolutely no idea how to take the second sentence, please rephrase?

I'm talking biblical observations of God

You have to know everything to 'pinpoint?' existence...? I don't know everything about cars... does the car that ran me over not exist?

You accept the car 'is' without knowing everything about it ...interesting

But you 'know' that car exists as a 'whole' because you've seen it. If you didn't know about a car you'd just have the evidence of tyre tracks and the weight of their impression. What could you conclude? ...well existence of a physical entity with the properties of weight and it's distribution.

Less than this would you be able to ascertain existence? Trying to be honest people have concluded that God just 'is'.

I accept that China 'is', without ever having even seen a picture of it I witness the effect of China's existence around me every day... so I conclude that it is likely that China (or something similar, if there is a MASSIVE conspiracy) exists

Just like I accept that 'God' exists... I see the effect of belief in 'God' every day... and so I conclude that it is likely that people really do believe in 'God' I myself think he is just an idea... but I realize that he exists as that idea.

People who conclude that 'God' just 'is' don't understand 'God'. Gravity 'is'... and we have quite a bit of understanding as to how it works, why it works, in what way it works, what it is in itself, etc. People didn't used to understand gravity past the idea that 'if it goes up, it comes back down'. But now we understand exactly what we are talking about... and so we have given that force a name to identify it. That is why we name things after all... to identify what the hell we are talking about in a word (or in few words [Words, which are simply lingual devices to convey ideas]).

If you believe in 'God', then you believe it works in some way or another. If you didn't... then you would hold an equivalent belief in 'God' as you do in 'Uxgogulorphazhucie'. If you do indeed hold an equivalent 'belief' in them... it is in the belief that it is random gibberish that applies to nothing

---

*sighs*

And you guys gave kudos for that!

Of course, It was funny... and it made sense

[Ace Otana]

God leaves 'tracks'!! that would be some form of evidence then. Evidence that you claim time and time again is impossible...interesting.

Indeed...

Solarwave Wrote:Christians have evidence for God because of past experiences of Him

Huh? Really?

Ecolox Wrote: Our existence is evidence of something though, isn't it?

Frodo Wrote:There can't be evidence for God

[fr0d0]

@ Sae: the Jews concluded that God just 'is'. Could it be you could understand more??

As any scientist will tell you, No understanding is considered 'exact' only the best we currently know.

You have many more reasons to believe China exists over God. You can know people 'believe' in God but that's hardly the same thing is it? You can believe the 'idea' exists.

Yes God works. For me I know of no other method. Not that I don't have the utmost respect for the Atheist viewpoint. Even if blindness leads you astray we're all on the same road and fail and succeed under our own efforts.

[Ace Otana]

I likes you frodo. You're funny.

One thing will always be true. Beliefs or not we are all human. So we shall behave like humans.
God is the belief for which fits for some but isn't for everyone. Some desire evidence like myself and I'm quite sure evie too.
I guess I cannot do belief without evidence. But I've always respected the theistic view point. Even if opinions differ greatly.
Faith in god for me is no differant from putting faith in santa or the tooth fairy. From my point of view, they are all the same. All made up. No evidence to validate/confirm or even support any character. So no reason to believe one over the other. When I hear, have faith in god I'm hearing "have faith in santa, toothfairy, FSM my taking cuboard...ect ect." Can't consider one without considering all the others as well.

[Violet]

@ Sae: the Jews concluded that God just 'is'. Could it be you could understand more??

As any scientist will tell you, No understanding is considered 'exact' only the best we currently know.

You have many more reasons to believe China exists over God. You can know people 'believe' in God but that's hardly the same thing is it? You can believe the 'idea' exists.

Yes God works. For me I know of no other method. Not that I don't have the utmost respect for the Atheist viewpoint. Even if blindness leads you astray we're all on the same road and fail and succeed under our own efforts.

'just is'? Everything that exists, 'is'... but what is this 'just is'?

Just about all of us are existentialists... but we all have different 'proof thresholds'. I wasn't the one who suggested that a person needed to fully understand something to 'know' if it exists

Tell me how that belief is inherently different? My strongest evidence that China exists is that other people talk about it... other people talk about 'God' all the time I see no difference between the beliefs... except that I can justify a belief in China by my standards... whereas I cannot accept 'God' in accordance with my 'proof threshold' I definitely believe the idea of 'God' exists... anything can exist in the realm of ideas, after all

How does 'God' 'work?'? Method to do what, exactly? The last sentence makes no sense at all to me :S

[fr0d0]

Well I've known Chinese people, I've seen film, I've tasted the food. It's a damn good hoax.

The thing is what it 'does' innit. I understand stuff; I can feel happy about loads of stuff; I can feel unselfish; I can cut through my own selfishness; I can know and appreciate positivity...

But then that's off the subject of existence.

'Existence' I think is a terminology used to describe anything within this physical universe. 'is' just more accurately describes God.

[chatpilot]

God leaves tracks! Really? It sounds more like we are seeking evidence for the fact that there might be deer in these woods than for evidence on the existence of the imaginary guy in the sky.

[Violet]

Well I've known Chinese people, I've seen film, I've tasted the food. It's a damn good hoax.

The thing is what it 'does' innit. I understand stuff; I can feel happy about loads of stuff; I can feel unselfish; I can cut through my own selfishness; I can know and appreciate positivity...

But then that's off the subject of existence.

'Existence' I think is a terminology used to describe anything within this physical universe. 'is' just more accurately describes God.

---

be |bē|
verb ( sing. present am |am|; are |är|; is |iz|; pl. present are; 1st and 3rd sing. past was |wəz; wäz|; 2nd sing. past and pl. past were |wər|; present subjunctive be ; past subjunctive were; present participle being |ˈbēi ng |; past part. been |bin|)

1 (usu. there is/are) exist : there are no easy answers | there once was a man | there must be something wrong | I think, therefore I am.
• be present : there is a boy sitting on the step | there were no curtains around the showers | Are there any castles in this area?

2 [with adverbial ] occur; take place : the exhibition will be in November | the opening event is on October 16 | that was before the war.
• occupy a position in space : the Salvation Army store was on his left | she was not at the window.
• stay in the same place or condition : she was here until about ten-thirty | he's a tough customer— let him be.
• attend : the days when she was in school.
• come; go; visit : he's from Missouri | I have just been to Thailand | the doctor's been here twice today.

3 [as copular verb ] having the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., specified : Amy was 91 | the floor was uneven | I want to be a teacher | father was not well | his hair's brown | it will be Christmas soon | “Be careful,” Mr. Carter said.
• cost : the tickets were $25.
• amount to : one and one is two | two sixes are twelve.
• represent : let A be a square matrix of order n.
• signify : we were everything to each other.
• consist of; constitute : the monastery was several three-story buildings.
auxiliary verb
1 used with a present participle to form continuous tenses : they are coming | he had been reading | she will be waiting.
2 used with a past participle to form the passive mood : it was done | it is said | his book will be published.
3 [with infinitive ] used to indicate something due to happen : construction is to begin next summer | I was to meet him at 6:30.
• used to express obligation or necessity : you are to follow these orders | they said I was to remain on board.
• used to express possibility : these snakes are to be found in North America | she was nowhere to be seen.
• used to hypothesize about something that might happen : if I were to lose | if I was to tell you, you'd think I was crazy | were she to cure me, what could I offer her?
4 archaic used with the past participle of intransitive verbs to form perfect tenses : I am returned | all humanity is fallen.

---

Very well, on the subject then: I think 'is' and 'exist' are pretty much the same thing (except as an auxiliary verb).

[rjh4 is back]

'Existence' I think is a terminology used to describe anything within this physical universe. 'is' just more accurately describes God.

I must say, Fr0d0, that I have seen some of your posts that prompted Evie's question in this thread and I wondered just like Evie. However, given what you said above, I understand your position now. I guess I do not limit the definition of "exist" like you do. Like others, including Sae, I equate "exists" with "is". But given your use/position of the term "exist" or "existence", your position makes sense. You have certainly cleared things up for me.