Is basing your beliefs off of evidence circular reasoning? What reason is there to base your belief off of evidence...

Couldn't help myself. After this post I'm gone. Good night and good luck.

I didn't create anything. I rearranged some electrons in my brain and that lead to this appearing on a computer. That's the distinction. Things get rearranged all the time with no detectable intent behind them. There is no reason to believe that intent is NECESSARY for rearrangement to occur, especially in a universe where we know utter random chance can occur. The universe is not wholly deterministic, this we eliminated. It is not entirely probabilistic either, this we can eliminate by observing any cause-effect situation. The only option is that it is a bit of both, and since at the most fundamental level is where the determinism stops working there is no reason to conclude that there is a creator. No need for a cause for all this effect. As I've said, I'm agnostic. I don't know that a creator ISN'T responsible, but the certainty with which people mistakenly assert one MUST doesn't stand up to logic, and based on other things that have been proved false I doubt one is. Should be evidence arise invalidating mass-energy conservation then I'm sure I'll revise my stance to being an agnostic theist.

Hi, newfriend

All good mate, thanks for the chat. I'm probably off myself. Stay safe big man

Attached: 1584088635024.jpg (600x800, 105.02K)

the point he makes is that you can KNOW

knowing is cosmic it cant be explained, you just know. children KNOW and they learn to not know

you can not trust your senses because they are not real, they are made of the same stuff the material universe is made of......MOTION

cause & effect

you can KNOW cause you can not KNOW effect......

Why do you KNOW what he says is TRUE? and therefore BELIEVE what he is SAYING?

witness the double sixes of truth

these two posts are a message from god

Attached: 1585634874764m.jpg (1024x768, 147.05K)

because it resonates in your heart. YOU KNOW. there is no explanation required. if you dont know, then it is not meant for you, keep rolling forward on your journey

Read this & fuck off
“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage.”
Suppose … I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself….
“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle—but no dragon.

“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”

Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

“Good idea, except she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.”

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it is true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility….

Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you they have dragons in their garages—but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths after all…

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they’re never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself: On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon’s fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such “evidence”—no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it—is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strangedelusion

-Carl Sagan