On 29 Apr, 14:20, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
And their followers all have clearly defined parameters for their
individual interpretations of that "entity". But, do you have any
evidence for that deity (or collection of deities)?

Thinking about yourself as a separate unit is only true to some
extent.

Your body constantly interacts gravitationally, electromagnetically,
thermally, and by exchange of gases with the environment.

This blending with external influences is actually what causes much of
your behavior, and a human being isn't exactly a completely closed
system.

This is why holism is superior to egoism. While the egoist considers
himself to be a closed system, the people advocating holism
understands themselves to be constantly interacting with the
environment, and thus blending with the whole.

This blending with the whole could be interpreted as being one with
God, and if you only could conceptualize that you are not a closed
system, but a rather a system blending with the whole from ceaseless
interactions with your environment, then you would comprehend what
God is.

But why doesn't the egoist understand that he is in synergism with the
whole? Because the egoist is incapable of conceptualizing himself as
being in constant interaction with the whole, even if there is clear
proof that he is not a closed system. Much of the problem to the
atheist is similar to the problem of the egoist. You are not capable
of conceptualizing God as the objective truth transcending subjective
differences.

On 29 Apr, 14:50, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
So you have no evidence of this deity (or deities).

I have clear evidence of your inability to conceptualize God.

On 29 Apr, 14:59, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
My conception of God is irrelevant. Things don't exist simply because
we can conceive them.

Things that does exist, certainly doesn't seem to exist, unless we are
capable of conceptualizing them.

On 29 Apr, 15:03, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now, do you have evidence that this deity exists or not?

Of course I have personal evidence that God exist, but that doesn't
help you in any way.

I can also have strong inductive reasons to believe in God, without
having any evidence.

There are a lot of things we believe in from strong inductive reasons,
without having any evidences.

On 29 Apr, 15:16, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Like what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Strong_induction

On 29 Apr, 15:16, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
(I love this tactic, by the way. The "I have an anecdote" tactic. Of
course, no one can prove this anecdote happened so we're just going to
have to believe them.

I didn't ask you to believe me. In fact, I don't want people to
believe anything unless they have strong inductive reasons or can
prove it to themselves.

On 29 Apr, 15:29, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't ask for a dictionary definition of it. I was asking for
examples of things we believe in for strong inductive reasons without
having any evidence for them. Beyond deities.

Anything that is probable but not certain. It is probable that I am
not going to crash and die if I drive to work today, but it is not
certain. It is probable that it is not going to snow during the summer
here in Norway, but it is not certain. It is probable that all human
beings are going to die, but it is not certain.

Zanthius wrote:
I can also have strong inductive reasons to believe in God, without
having any evidence.

There are a lot of things we believe in from strong inductive reasons,
without having any evidences.

Like what?

On 28 Apr, 20:55, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
How does one know what would be in harmony with your god?

The objective truth is always in harmony with God.

On 28 Apr, 20:57, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Let's get this straight. You're room is a metaphor for the
supernatural. How can you determine anything about the supernatural
empirically?

God isn't supernatural, he is just beyond your comprehension of the
natural.

Zanthius wrote:
On 28 Apr, 20:57, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Let's get this straight. You're room is a metaphor for the
supernatural. How can you determine anything about the supernatural
empirically?

God isn't supernatural, he is just beyond your comprehension of the
natural.

Sorry, but if he's beyond our comprehension of the natural, then why
do so many people believe they know the precise parameters thereof?

Let us say that God lives inside of the dark room, where it is very
difficult to see, but not impossible to see.

One person might be able to discern something there, but perhaps he
doesn't see it clearly enough, and misinterprets what he sees.

Some people might see a bit more clearly what is inside of the dark
room, and they are called saints, some might see even more clearly,
and they are called messiahs.

These people might actually see what is inside of the dark room where
God lives, but unfortunately, most religious people cannot see
anything inside of the room, they merely have faith in the saints and
in the messiahs.

On 29 Apr, 15:03, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now, do you have evidence that this deity exists or not?

Of course I have personal evidence that God exist, but that doesn't
help you in any way.

On 29 Apr, 15:37, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everything that you've quoted has evidence for them.

What evidence do I have that I am not going to crash and die, if I
drive to work today?