Hmmm...politically you're not...eligible, thus the calendar problems. LE. Oh! My ego just got a boost: it got a golden cup from MDL.
Here is one for the January page: "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details" ~Einstein You can have it for free, though. There are exceptions, not every scientist had much ego.
Free will doesn't exist If God is omniscient. Well I would not know but I know that god is every man woman and child. i.e god is everybody.and everybody has free will. if Omniscient is this." all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing" Then the dude is simply an observer and say's what he see's. That do's not make him god it make's him a clever f***er.
@TCM: Only when I'm passing an outdoor cafe filled with snooty, pretentious people. Then, I believe it's called "cropdusting" Just a thought. You can't prove faith. It's something you either have or do not have. If you have it, that's great. If you don't have it, it's great. You have the free-will to choose. @3sidedcube: As far as I understand it, We have free will because GOD does not meddle in our affairs. Right or wrong, We choose our own path and our own destiny. GOD watches and renders aid -ONLY- if we ask.
Of course you can prove faith. According to wikipedia, "Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof." which seems like an adequate definition. So if someone says he believes in something without giving proof that that something exists, you have proof he has faith. That proof in itself is meaningless, though, other than telling you that the person is likely to be hard to reason with. And actually, having faith is not great. You shouldn't applaud the blind belief in anything without reason. I'd rather be among reasonable people than nutjobs. If someone's thinking is not based on reality, his action are bound to be irrational sooner or later.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews. Chapter 11, Verse 1. Faith isn't just belief. Faith is perception. A reality outside the realm of our experience.
You can't, by definition, perceive anything outside of our experience, because then it wouldn't be outside and would be observable and testable. If your brain, stimulated by whatever signals, comes up with all these ideas, it's still nothing more than signals in a lump of biomass inside your skull. Any diviners, people who can talk to ghosts and all that crap has never been proven beyond statistical noise and luck. It's just pompous little humans who have the audacity to think they have grown beyond their basic biological nature because they want to exercise power over other humans and want to aggrandize themselves. All that bulls**t is perfectly explainable by basic human nature to make s**t up, because if we didn't see patterns and faces in nothingness, we wouldn't be here today. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia So it's just another unfounded claim for the esoteric calendar page. Edit: Just reading that article: " the fact that a schizophrenic initially experiences delusion as revelation." Congratulations guys, you are on par with schizophrenics. 'an apophany (i.e., an instance of apophenia) does not provide insight into the nature of reality or its interconnectedness but is a "process of repetitively and monotonously experiencing abnormal meanings in the entire surrounding experiential field". Such meanings are entirely self-referential, solipsistic, and paranoid — "being observed, spoken about, the object of eavesdropping, followed by strangers".'
Faith is the essence of a future reality, a commitment to a certainty. Faith gives substance to things hoped for and demonstrates provable reality to things unseen. Hope is not a wish, dream or fantasy. It is a reality. Although these future things are unseen, the person with faith is convinced of the reality of them. When anxiety begins, faith ends. When faith begins, anxiety ends.
Dear TCM, I have a quick question for ya: how much percent of the brain do you think humanity uses consciously??? When humanity will reach 100%, then a "different reality" will open up and they will laugh about their so-called "knowledge". Right now, the so-called scientists have a piece of the puzzle, yet they brag like 5 year-olds they know the whole puzzle.
I have made the experience that people (like you) who are using the term 'proof' frequently usually don't know the meaning of it, are abusing it for ego reasons by bending its meaning (a matter is proven when one says/thinks it is) or are unable to get that to have a proof has nothing to do with to be real, to exist or reality itself. Such people claim for proof there where they want to enforce their own (different) opinion while they take things for real without to deliver the same, a proof. Also they do not get that there are subjects which are neither empiric nor logical. To me also senseless is to assign any superlatives to an entity and to ask for proof of existence of it at the same time. An example of an inconsistency: Most people for instance assume that they exist anyway they are not able to prove it. Also they are not able to prove that they don’t exist anymore after death. This ideology consists of assumptions and are taken for real without proof, at the same time a concept of god requires proof.
To falsify that statement, you'd have to come up with a case of a proven contact between a living human and a dead "spirit" or whatever. Since no such case ever happened, it's safe to assume that no spiritual realm exists that is in contact with our perceived reality. [1] I also don't get your constant talk about ego. You are the one making the extraordinary[2] claims all the time without any evidence whatsoever, not me. I've said it before, the proof that the scientific method works is in the fact that you can perpetuate your unfounded claims to people thousands of kilometers away from you, over a global communications network that can only exist because the reality that science has described so far, is in fact, the reality we live in. Do you deny the existence of electrons, electricity and electromagnetic waves because it's impossible to perceive them with our biological senses? No, because we can predict and prove their effects with utmost accuracy, otherwise, no modern technology could work. Demonstrate any effect of a spiritual realm that falsifies any current biological or chemical science and we can talk. Until then, off to the calendar. Edit: [1] And this is because all of current biology suggests otherwise. It's not just a claim out of nothing. [2] The extraordinariness comes from the claim being contrary to all of what we _know_ for a fact about the human body. It's an evolutionary and proven fact that our brain is heavily flawed and filling in gaps all the time. You can prove it with any optical illusion where your brain is telling you something different than the ruler in your hand. Evolution is a proven theory. So based on that, what is more likely, your brain making stuff up because it's wired to, or the existence of a spiritual realm outside of our reality? To prove the latter, you have to come up with extraordinary evidence because the claim goes against all current knowledge. That why my claims and your claims are not the same. Yours are extraordinary, mine are backed by most of current human knowledge. And that's why you weasel around and never come up with any tangible evidence and that's why you're only talking out of your ass. Sorry. And whose ego is bigger? Mine, because I side with the community of fellow apes and seek real knowledge, or yours, because you want to rise above what you factually are and claim insights you can't actually have?
Since so many seem to be unaware of or even reject the single most important method, which even allows them to post their nonsense in the first place, here's a quick overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
You have quoted the last 50% of the inconsistency to avoid personal issues. The point here is: I have asked you to prove one’s existence during ‘lifetime’ and the nonexistence before and after it. The ideology that there is no existence after death is based on assumptions, there is no proof. It is not different to the concept of god. I have asked you for a proof, just the same as you did for god. You cannot ask for proof and on the other side argue on the lack of a falsification. With this I meant people bend it to their needs. To stay consistent you'd need either to falsify the concept of god or you need to deliver a proof that you exist before/ don't after death. If you cannot, then we’re talking about assumptions/belief. You believe that you're not existent before 'life'/after death and others believe in god (eternal life). But you are asking for proof and when asked yourself for proof you are asking for falsification. This I mean with ‘ego-reasons’, it's not about reasoning, it's about opinion.