Bill Clinton would say "define prove", but i'm trying to defend getting my dick sucked. having a strong inner conviction that god exists, is not a good reason for you to believe it. what is true, and is not true is unknown now, so what's good reason to believe is debatable. inconsistent beliefs isn't going to change my belief, or give me any reason not to believe it.
However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.
science/logic/reason tells us this is statistically improbable, even moreso than the way the universe was created.
Quote from: dahangscience/logic/reason tells us this is statistically improbable, even moreso than the way the universe was created.to you science, logic, and reason show god is improbable. to someone else science/logic/reason show god is likely
and hang in response to your signature, since when does reading something provide evidence?
i have a feeling i'm exciting you, so yes. a personal experience proves nothing.
It has been fun, but I no longer have any reason to continue with this thread, or any other thread.Since personal experiences prove nothing, any and all things we might discuss fall into the category of nothing. Why? Everything we discuss is based on our personal experience, what we've read, heard, learned in some form or fashion.This also means all the science in the world means nothing. Why? Because every experiment, every theorem, every idea is embedded with the personal experience of scientists who then pass that on to us - however, since personal experiences prove nothing, all the stuff science has so called proven is invalid because it is based on the personal experience of the scientist who has communicated their personal experiences (learning, etc) with us.Have fun.QD
you only further prove my point - biology itself is not a reason to believe in god. personal experiences are something that prove absolutely nothing. having a strong inner conviction that god exists is not a good reason to believe it. David Koresh had a strong inner conviction that he was the final prophet, clearly he had good reason to believe he was the final prophet then, right? one personal experience leading to the belief that muhammad was the last prophet should not be inconsistent with another's personal experience of something entirely different if these experiences have true (universal) validity.