Dussel wrote:
Exit_stage_left wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
An atheist is like looking at a flower and saying it doesn't really exist because I don't beleive because I'm an atheist and so there.
If you can show me evidence for the existence of the "flower" then I will believe in it.
I think you start at the wrong end:
The first question must be: "What is that, what we describe as a 'flower'?" (or anything else, a metal, water, etc. pp.)
Our mind has a concept of "flower" as the combination of certain attributes, which in synthesis brings us to the conclusion, that, because all of this attributes are present, that the object, which causes sensual phenomena, has to be of the kind of objects, we call flower.
So the statement "This is a flower." is less a statement about the object itself, but about the categories we order and synthesise or model of reality in reaction the sensations we receive. Nevertheless: It is still a reaction to sensual experiences.
The idea of the existence of a god is not a reaction to sensual experiences and is therefore of an other quality than the idea of the existence of flowers. Therefore your question misses the point.
well, God can be a reaction to psychological experience, and the flower itself can be a reaction triggered by psychological experiences as well.
And yes, the existence of the flower works better because it is something that can be physically proven, unlike an entity as an immaterial god, however, the issue dispite its existence being proven is if the flower has god-like properties or is a god entity and if we should worship it, the issue will no longer be about proving its physical existence, because it is there.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
Last edited by greenblue on 08 Feb 2009, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.