Nobodhi said:

you say that God and Jesus exist. but how are we supposed to know what you mean by those words? they are merely words to me. what is it that exists, your conception of god, the whole of existence, a man in the clouds, what is it?

---

Nobodhi said:

yes and i am telling you why people ask you for proof, since you clearly stated:

DONT ASK ME FOR PROOF AND I WONT ASK YOU.

---

TheCow said:

Alright lets ignore definitive proof's then. However let's consider evidence one way or the other. Pile up all of your evidence for Jesus and God, and Ill pile up my evidence for atoms existing. Lets compare the size of our piles, hm yours feels kind of slim there. And if what you say is true, that there is a God and Jesus, then that means reality does exist with subjective opinions as in Christian doctrine we are all individuals. So based off your opinions you know as fact that I exist so I do not see your point. And then furthermore because God made everything in the universe and made it knowable and real for me to experience with my senses, and gave me a consciousness I should then be able to determine things about the nature of this universe. Therefore all the experiments that I have done to show atoms are real, are thus valid and have to be accepted by you.

However if you are wrong and there is no God or Jesus then we are back in a world with no definitives and thus the only course of action is to merely gather data. And at that point the side for atoms existing vs. not existing is heavily weighted in the first direction. See even if we are brains in a jar, logic will still hold. And so saying that because we can't definitively prove atoms exist, does not give free reign for anything else to be as real as atoms. You have forgotten logic, and evidence vs. non evidence of something existing. Even if a demon is controlling us, then we are in his world and whatever we see is as real as can be, and is thus defined as real. Therefore even still, any experiments we do, even if he changes the outcomes, are still valid and thus still carry more logical weight then a baseless statement about a book written 2000 years ago.

---

FocusHawaii said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger-Marsden_experiment

---

Walter1496211 said:

TheCow said:

Alright lets ignore definitive proof's then.  However let's consider evidence one way or the other.  Pile up all of your evidence for Jesus and God, and Ill pile up my evidence for atoms existing. Lets compare the size of our piles, hm yours feels kind of slim there.  And if what you say is true, that there is a God and Jesus, then that means reality does exist with subjective opinions as in Christian doctrine we are all individuals.  So based off your opinions you know as fact that I exist so I do not see your point.  And then furthermore because God made everything in the universe and made it knowable and real for me to experience with my senses, and gave me a consciousness I should then be able to determine things about the nature of this universe.  Therefore all the experiments that I have done to show atoms are real, are thus valid and have to be accepted by you.

However if you are wrong and there is no God or Jesus then we are back in a world with no definitives and thus the only course of action is to merely gather data.  And at that point the side for atoms existing vs. not existing is heavily weighted in the first direction.  See even if we are brains in a jar, logic will still hold.  And so saying that because we can't definitively prove atoms exist, does not give free reign for anything else to be as real as atoms.  You have forgotten logic, and evidence vs. non evidence of something existing.  Even if a demon is controlling us, then we are in his world and whatever we see is as real as can be, and is thus defined as real.  Therefore even still, any experiments we do, even if he changes the outcomes, are still valid and thus still carry more logical weight then a baseless statement about a book written 2000 years ago.

---

You lost me in your first sentance I don't care about your paragraph drawn from opinion if you can't offer me proof then what you have to say is relative.  What you have learned is relative.  And by what means you have come to that understanding is relative I want proof.. if you cannot offer it don't try and dance around the subject.

---

Quote:

See even if we are brains in a jar,

---

Walter1496211 said:

A personal friend of mine spent an entire six hours of his life falsifying information on wikipedia not a very good source IMO.

---

fireworks_god said:

Walter1496211 said:

A personal friend of mine spent an entire six hours of his life falsifying information on wikipedia not a very good source IMO.

---

If that is the entirety of what your opinion on wikipedia is based upon, I'd have to state that your opinion isn't resting upon a good foundation. The content editing system makes it so that changed information is reviewed, and there are clearly a lot of dedicated individuals, much much more so than people like your personal friend, who ensure that information is accurate. In fact, I've read that scientific studies have determined that Wikipedia is more accurate than online versions of encyclopedias.

As with any source, it is to be taken as one perspective, and further research is advisable, but clearly Wikipedia is a great resource.

---