It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's time to wake up!

page: 55
25
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




The question wasn't about this moment.

But it was a valid example of something that is proof and true for everyone correct?



Do you like coffee?

But this question assumes you can get an answer from who you're asking.



I don't see a contradiction.
Saying something and being able to prove something are not interdependent.

So you said it, but don't have any proof to back it up. Is this blind faith then?




posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
But it was a valid example of something that is proof and true for everyone correct?

I don't know. Some people with mental problems might put a dent into the universality of that.


But this question assumes you can get an answer from who you're asking.

That is not what is meant by assumption. The assumption is part of the question not part of the circumstances in which the question is being asked.


So you said it, but don't have any proof to back it up. Is this blind faith then?

I have personal experience that leads me to say that but, I still can't show someone what I experienced so, it is not evidence.

edit on 24-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I don't know. Some people with mental problems might put a den't into the universality of that.

Well if you take that perspective then there will probably always be another variable to discuss. The main point was that it is true for everyone that they experience the moment only. What people believe about this doesn't matter because it is true regardless of what people believe is evidence.



That is not what is meant by assumption. The assumption is part of the question not part of the circumstances in which the question is being asked.

So then the question would be, do you believe in god? Is this a loaded question, since it assumes god might exist?



I have personal experience that leads me to say that but, I still can't show someone what I experienced so, it is not evidence.

But either way, 2 plus 2 is 4 whether people believe differently or not correct? I can prove it to myself but I can't prove it to others unless they figure it out for themselves right?



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Well if you take that perspective then there will probably always be another variable to discuss. The main point was that it is true for everyone that they experience the moment only. What people believe about this doesn't matter because it is true regardless of what people believe is evidence.

Even if true, what was your point?


So then the question would be, do you believe in god? Is this a loaded question, since it assumes god might exist?

It is loaded because it assumes that god means the same thing to the person asking and the person answering.

ETA: Of coursethat is not the case if both are clear about what is meant.

It doesn't assume that god might exist because it is actually referring to the persons belief of the existance and not the existance itself.


But either way, 2 plus 2 is 4 whether people believe differently or not correct? I can prove it to myself but I can't prove it to others unless they figure it out for themselves right?

Right.
edit on 24-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Even if true, what was your point?

That truth is truth regardless of what people consider proof for it to be. And we can use fool proof logic in a discussion and if the other person successfully makes sense of this, then he will abandon his old beliefs and allow for those consistent with true ones.



Right.

So what I'm saying is, control is an illusion regardless if people think it's real or not. I can't prove this for you, you can only verify this for yourself. But then again if god really is false, then how can I possibly prove it to you? I can only provide logic and maybe the other person will use it to see he is false?

edit on 24-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
That truth is truth regardless of what people consider proof for it to be. And we can use fool proof logic in a discussion and if the other person successfully makes sense of this, then he will abandon his old beliefs and allow for those consistent with true ones.

And you may be the one that is wrong. Fool proof logic seems to only be fool proof to you.


So what I'm saying is, control is an illusion regardless if people think it's real or not. I can't prove this for you, you can only verify this for yourself. But then again if god really is false, then how can I possibly prove it to you?

I already have and I say you are wrong. Now what?



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



And you may be the one that is wrong. Fool proof logic seems to only be fool proof to you.

Correct, but if I am right then the only way I could convince the other person is through providing my evidence right? We can't just stop at "it's only your evidence". Because although it is evidence for me, it might be universally true fact or not. That's why the facts should be discussed instead of just saying "it's your evidence".



I already have and I say you are wrong. Now what?

But if you are open to the possibility you are wrong then you must listen to my evidence as it might be true. Sure it is my evidence and it seems true to me and I might be wrong. But through providing convincing facts for our arguments we can come to a mutual agreement of what makes sense, and what doesn't.

How am I going to prove god doesn't exist, if the other keeps on accusing me of saying "that's only true to you". You need to actually consider why it's true for me because it could be for you and everyone to, or not.
edit on 24-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Correct, but if I am right then the only way I could convince the other person is through providing my evidence right?

Your evidence to their standards.


We can't just stop at "it's only your evidence".

That isn't where we are stopping. That is where reality is stopping you.


But if you are open to the possibility you are wrong then you must listen to my evidence as it might be true.

I have and you have not proven anything


How am I going to prove god doesn't exist, if the other keeps on accusing me of saying "that's only true to you". You need to actually consider why it's true for me because it could be for you and everyone to, or not.

That's right, "or not".

You don't need to prove anything if you stop making claims.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Your evidence to their standards.

Ofcourse, but there are universal standards like 2 and 2 is 4. If someone elses logic is different standard, it doesn't change the truth. I can simply provide evidence as to why it is that way.



I have and you have not proven anything

Is it even possible for me to prove something to you by your standards? Because no matter what I consider proof, it will only be proof for me so is such a thing really possible?

You made a claim.


I also say that god doesn't exist.

So prove it.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Ofcourse, but there are universal standards like 2 and 2 is 4. If someone elses logic is different standard, it doesn't change the truth. I can simply provide evidence as to why it is that way.

What universal standards?

If they don't accept them then there is nothing you can do.


Is it even possible for me to prove something to you by your standards? Because no matter what I consider proof, it will only be proof for me so is such a thing really possible?

Right, because my evidence trumps everything you have presented as proof.


So prove it.

No, I said that I say that. I'm not claiming that there is any truth to it.

ETA: Maybe it would be more accurate to say that I am not out to convince anyone so, I don't need to provide proof.
edit on 24-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




What universal standards?
If they don't accept them then there is nothing you can do.

Right.



Right, because my evidence trumps everything you have presented as proof.

You can't prove that though so how?



No, I said that I say that. I'm not claiming that there is any truth to it.
ETA: Maybe it would be more accurate to say that I am not out to convince anyone so, I don't need to provide proof.

But if you did start proving he exists, what would that look like? Can you provide evidence?

If your standard for proof is different then mine then we can't possibly come to a conclusion because our reasons are based on standards that are mutually incompatible with one another.

Based on you, it's impossible to prove anything to someone else? isn't that just your perspective or is it universally true?
edit on 25-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Right.

And it only took 55 pages.


You can't prove that though so how?

I don't have to prove it to me.


But if you did start proving he exists, what would that look like? Can you provide evidence?

I wouldn't.


Based on you, it's impossible to prove anything to someone else? isn't that just your perspective or is it universally true?

I don't know about universally true but it happens.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik





And it only took 55 pages.

The conversation started when I claimed that seeing through the illusion helps reduce suffering, you said it didn't matter and I had to tell you that it did. But from you standards it's impossible.


I don't have to prove it to me.

You don't have to prove it to yourself but discuss it with someone else. Maybe then I will change my standard of proof after hearing what proof you give.



I wouldn't.

And why is that?



I don't know about universally true but it happens.

And my point is that you can change what someone thinks through providing proper evidence, or not.
edit on 25-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
You don't have to prove it to yourself but discuss it with someone else. Maybe then I will change my standard of proof after hearing what proof you give.

I don't have proof. It's a good thing that I'm not trying to convince you.


And why is that?

I'm an atheist, for starters.


And my point is that you can change what someone thinks through providing proper evidence, or not.

And my point is that what constitutes "proper evidence" is for the listener to decide and you will not meet everyones standards.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I don't have proof. It's a good thing that I'm not trying to convince you.

Either way, you are trying to state why I am wrong. So it would be pointless unless you give some logic as to why I am wrong.



I'm an atheist, for starters.

I say god doesn't exist. Why do you think he doesn't? Or is your answer going to be an "I don't know" if he exists or not.



And my point is that what constitutes "proper evidence" is for the listener to decide and you will not meet everyones standards.

Logic is universal and truthful statements should apply equally for everyone. However since I have no idea what your standards for proof are I can't convince you of any evidence I give because it might not meet your standard.
My point is, we already know there are standards, so now it's about discussing what they are and how we can change them to make a more compatible discussion.

edit on 25-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Proper evidence to proof free will would be:
A. Have two identical clones brought up in the exact same enviroment and count the decission they make under the exact same circumstances

B. Going back in time to face the exact same decission an empirical amount of time, with the knowledge of being tested erased in between each time.

Disclaimer: i don't think he can....



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
If someone thought that god exists, then I would tell him why he doesn't. He may say, well there is biblical evidence ect ect, but then I would just keep on using fool proof evidence to show he isn't real. If the other person is smart enough to understand my points that god doesn't exist are valid, then good. My point is about trying to show why control is an illusion explaining my points. I can't do anything if you don't understand. I can only give my points why it doesn't exist.


edit on 25-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Either way, you are trying to state why I am wrong. So it would be pointless unless you give some logic as to why I am wrong.

I have already touched on that throughout the thread.


I say god doesn't exist. Why do you think he doesn't? Or is your answer going to be an "I don't know" if he exists or not.

I can't show you my experience. I thought you had finally grasped that.


Logic is universal and truthful statements should apply equally for everyone.

Some people don't apply logic correctly, others will question your application of logic.


However since I have no idea what your standards for proof are I can't convince you of any evidence I give because it might not meet your standard.

You will never convince me over the internet because to do that you have to show me.

All you have done is point me in the direction of DE and my experience with DE does not lead me to the same conclusions that you came to. Now what?


My point is, we already know there are standards, so now it's about discussing what they are and how we can change them to make a more compatible discussion.

The discussion is going great.


edit on 25-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

First you would have to establish what god is. I bet you wouldn't be able to come up with an universally true definition... Given your trouble to handle simple things as free will and conditioning.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Some people don't apply logic correctly, others will question your application of logic.

You questioned my application of logic only so it can fit your standards. I can't prove god doesn't exist to a christian if his standards are the bible.



You will never convince me because to do that you have to show me.

I can only point you to see for yourself. I already said many times DE doesn't do anything unless there is seeing clearly of how the self mechanism works. I said this many times but I'm reluctant to talk about this when you complicate simple things like why god doesn't exist. Your points were valid on some levels, just unnecessary and over complicate things.

My other claim is that it is impossible for something to happen without it having a prior cause to influence it. It is just how the universe works. All you said for this was "it's proof for you not for me". This isn't going to get us anywhere unless we provide logical counter arguments, which I think you attempted but were not good enough. I say there is no control because that is what the evidence suggests. It's the same like an old man living in the sky. There is no reasonable evidence he exists, and there is no reason we should believe in him.
edit on 25-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join