Gah! Frozen Flame War!

Maybe the opponents realized they were just people looking for meaning in life and that they weren't so different after all and then we all went for ice cream? I guess someone didn't get the memo.

It died. Let's leave it that way. These "debates" are incredibly tiring due to nobody listening to anybody, and I lack the willpower to keep myself out of them.

Well, I realized that by my giving a method to prove whether there is a God you wanted proof that I could just hand out on a piece of paper. But my method was a way of proving to yourself, whether or not a God exists. And I guess nobody likes that kind of proof... so I stopped.

Some people just like total certainty on a universal scale, which is something we are not likely to have in our lifetimes unfortunately.

It's something that's basically flat out impossible, actually.

And while some are fine with uncertainty in favor of eventually finding a good answer, some people prefer to answer uncertainty with rigid adhesion to speculative conclusions. Everyone makes their own choice, and it's up to each person to change their own mind.

Ironic, that's something that I've tried to argue for recently in these threads, only to be shot down for I'm not sure what reason. Well, a consequence/alternate version of something I've tried to argue.

What you were trying to argue was that my perspective was no less biased than yours, and thus ours were equally rational perspectives. You claimed to be immovably placed in your faith, while telling me that my claim of no-bias was unfounded, and that I was just immovable. This is demonstrably false, a good example being my recent conversion to vegetarianism. I said I was capable of change when presented with sufficient evidence and reason, and I was told that nothing would be sufficient for me. I'm sure you'll reason this example off as not-applicable somehow, like you've done with every example of evolution, but I guess everyone else can at least use it to contextualize my claims, even if you don't.

I'm not starting this up with you taking half the things I say out of context/proportion/meaning/whatever. This, however, is absolutely false, and has no evidence to support it, as I never claimed, nor would claim, this to be true.

</stupid continuation of thread>

error: command not found in deckmaster library.

Everything you have said or agreed with about the "spiritual sense".

"My worldview can survive even if I admit that I take things (such as science) on faith."

"Note, however, that my worldview is not exactly either of those, this is just an example of how stupid it is to tell me that my worldview is inconsistent."

"You refusing to believe me when I say that I do not wish to get into a long, drawn out discussion of what my beliefs are when it's really none of your business and when your assumption that you know what I believe (which is an assumption, being as I've never said anything in this thread about holding to the letter of the Bible) is your problem."

"I try not to waste my time attempting to prove things to people who have their minds made up. (I seem to fail as I post in here so often, but still...) Especially when said "proof" is some arbitrary "test" which has dubious validity. "

Every time you refused to reveal or let people guess at your worldview, refusing by extension any attempt to contextualize your claims and show flaws or inaccuracies. This, in effect, is a deliberate denial to be moved by denying the possibility of questioning your own beliefs.

Your claims of knowing quite specific things with no evidence:

"Don't go mixing micro and macro evolution, they are on completely different scales. The former is quite a lot less unlikely from an intuitive standpoint, as it involves small changes."

"Until you give me proof that somebody was alive through evolution, it will never be observable in my mind."

"I should probably note that I still maintain that claiming proof of anything to do with religion is silly, as people will believe what they want to."

"If there is no god (which you're welcome to believe, I just would say you're wrong)"

Point being, you have time and time again asserted that something is a certain way, and you stand by it with no opportunity for others to change your mind.

Some random idiot online who I've had absolutely no positive contact with and who misrepresents most of what I say? Nope, he wouldn't have much influence in the major decisions in my life.

(Seems that icu knows me well, heh)

Look, you seem to view debate in a fundamentally different way than I. When I come to a debate, I don't think "I'm right, they're wrong, I have to prove it to them." I think "They have one perspective, I have a conflicting one. If we talk about our respective perspectives long enough, one of us may learn something." There are times when my "opponent"'s perspective is one that I once held before learning something which made me change my mind; in these cases, I am a bit more insistent, hoping that they will learn what I did and either change as I did, or at least reevaluate their perspective. I very, very rarely hold a solid position on a subject. I have called myself an atheist, but by no means should that imply that I deny the possibility of gods. Mine is a neutral position, with all possibilities holding a certain probability. Generally, the most probable is adopted tentatively as a sort of default/filler position. In this case, there are thousands of suggested gods, each with their own probability, but a universe as complex as ours without a god is just plain more probable than with, just like how "Mary is a librarian." is just plain more probable than "Mary is a librarian and literate." It doesn't matter how silly an illiterate librarian would be, more assumptions lessens the probability of something.

I should hope that this would at least in part explain that I have no vested interest in converting you to my perspective. I am not personally trying to change your mind, that can't happen. I am trying to present alternative viewpoints and reason that you might consider when making decisions. This is one of those cases where I at one point held a fundamentally similar position. When I looked at that position from a new perspective, namely in considering the probabilities of the various gods weighed against one another, I realized that there was no rhyme or reason behind adopting one over another beyond what one grew up hearing. Faith didn't matter, because faith was equally good proof for Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Jupiter, Quetzalcoatl, etc. What they taught was irrelevant, as Aesop's Fables teach a lot of good things, but that's no evidence for talking animals. The number of followers was irrelevant for obvious reasons, as was the strength of conviction amongst them. The third party physical and historical evidence for each was negligible, so why jump to one conclusion over the others, when I could live my life just as well as "Neutral", if not better. Despite claims to the contrary, an absence of belief is not a belief in absence.

Again, when I come to a debate, my intention is to face my perspective against another until one of them fails by their own merits; I don't particularly care which one, though sometimes prior experience makes it easier to guess which will prevail. It's like smashing two sticks together until one breaks to see which one is stronger. My issue isn't that you won't change your mind to mesh with my perspective, it's that you won't eve consider the opposition. You are hiding your stick, announcing it to be just as strong, if not stronger, than mine, but unwilling to put it to the test. Whether or not I misrepresent you, am an idiot, or have had any positive contact with you, facts are facts and information is information, no matter where it comes from. If I'm right, I'm right; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No number of ad hominems you throw at me will change the probability that I am either.

Even if you have often said, I am misrepresenting your position(which you've never provided any evidence in favor of; I simply try to flesh out what you mean, heavily drawing on direct quotes, when you refuse to do so yourself) such a claim is irrelevant. You know what your actual position is, and you would be able to see through any misrepresentation, but the information and perspective I provide are there nonetheless. The real, final decision is made in your head. In my stick example, it doesn't matter what I claim your stick is made out of, be it balsa or rock maple; all that matter is what happens when they collide. Further, I don't think any of my central points have hinged on what I have represented you as thinking. Most of them have been broad remarks decrying unmoving belief in general, regardless of what your individual beliefs may be.

In closing: You don't know everything. I don't know everything. We learn by introducing new information and changing our minds. I don't care whether you agree with me or not, at least be capable of change.

Beings act to remove their unease, a being that acts repeatedly must be incapable of removing its unease permanently, so an omnipotent being would not need or want to act more than once, because it could remove its state of unease permanently.

The mere observation of an experiment (or almighty being) may change the outcome (or its existence).