Are you projecting your own behaviour now? You say the best evidence for something is if humans talk and write about it. Now tell me how that doesn't apply to movies and books from this day, how it also doesn't apply to _every_ other book and god from 2000 years ago and long before that, but it _only_ applies to the bible and the god of the bible[1]. What makes it special? Can you answer simple questions? Or do you know you can't answer them and have to resort to smoke screens over and over again? Edit: [1] You don't even have to explain why you dismiss Allah for example, when this is even a current belief of other people. By that alone every reasonable human being would see that they can't both be right (christians and muslims), so it's likely that it's all just bulls**t, because neither have any proof and they contradict each other.
I made no mention of talking about anything, You have a tendency to say what is not being stated. How do you know anything existed at all unless we have written history? Did the Roman civilization really exist? What about the Persians??? Why do we not know who built Stonehenge? Because nobody recorded it in history. This whole concept your perpetuating is absurd, If you can not recognize written history then you are hopeless I'm starting to think that Plato is a fairy tale, because you can not prove to me that he ever existed
The big difference is, we aren't basing any extraordinary claims on the existence of Plato, the Romans or the Persians. We know the Romans existed not only by the records, but also by the evidence we actually dig up. And again, that evidence is not being used to prove the existence of a supernatural being, only the existence of an ancient people, which is not at all unlikely and doesn't contradict anything we currently know. But your claim of a supernatural being (an extraordinary claim because it involves acts that contradict the laws of physics) is based _only_ on hearsay and books, i.e. even weaker evidence than digging up actual fossils. There may have been a guy called Jesus. It's not an extraordinary claim. Even today there are people called Jesus. But to connect that to supernatural powers and miracles is extraordinary, so it requires extraordinary evidence, which strangley no one can come up with. PS: That people talk before writing books is somehow implied. You even imply it with your statement of "biblical views". How else would these views spread if not by talk? I'm not putting words where they weren't implied already.
Your side stepping the issue you made of the writings that were made, back 2000 yrs ago. Is that because you can not prove that Plato existed? I can not believe these BS records that you claim that Plato existed, a bunch of wacko's made it all up and wrote it down The Jews built a massive temple to God, There is ancient evidence that was dug up! Jesus is a very common name even today...so? Your biased views are beyond belief...LOL
It's not unlikely he existed. As I said, it's also not unlikely that Jesus existed. You are confusing the mere existence of something that is human and doesn't contradict current knowledge with the existence of something that is supernatural, whose existence you base on that human and which does contradict laws of physics and current knowledge. Is anyone making a claim like "God xyz exists because Plato existed"? Plato's existence is not used to claim extraordinary events. That proves the existence of the temple and that people back then, just as today, had beliefs. It proves nothing about the actual existence of God. You need to draw the connection to the Hulk. I've seen him on screen, I've heard people talk about him. He has extraordinary strength and transforms against the laws of biology and physics. I'm telling you to believe in the Hulk. Why won't you? Don't you see the evidence? See how stupid that sounds? See how stupid you sound? It's the same thing. If the Hulk is too abtract for you, what do you say about Allah?
If somebody recorded the Hulk 2000 years ago, maybe they would think he existed as much as Plato existed too. Just because you think Plato could've been a human, makes no difference of his possible existence or not. Your stating that you can not accept history as it was written, even when it comes to writings from or about Plato. Your attempting to use technology we have today to disprove things that happened before this tech. Can you prove the John F Kennedy existed? Or do you think I should believe in any photoshop video's you might provide? This discussion is absurd People believe that Allah existed, I am not disputing the possible existence of Allah. You continue to move this subject around to attempt what???
I really hope if there is a God that it helps you cause you really need it. You need to learn to differentiate between real and fiction !
Sid_16. Have you considered now if god is an eternal entity or 'infinitely' tied to time? Or even finitely? Without to determine that anything you have posted can be questioned.... BTW: If god is tied to time (it matches to what you've posted so far) then please tell me when he was born and by 'whom'. Hegel categorized already by using the 'instance' that is in question....to observe something that is autonomous (like the breath) 'disables' the instance even more....but as mentioned I want to read Hegel still haven’t found the spare time yet. And Freud was just a man who had problems with women. At least his works are very influenced by this... One would be forced to become aware that one's identification of one-self (the idea) definitely will vanish (body). The question is: Is there awareness beyond the object-identification?
The. Existence. Of. A. Human. Does. Not. Contradict. The. Laws. Of. Physics. The existence of the Hulk with all his properties I described _does_ contradict the laws of nature, so even if they wrote books about the Hulk 2000 years ago, he still wouldn't be real. Do you have any idea how many gods "existed" in human folklore thousand of years ago? What about them? Why aren't they real? I am oblivious to the actual existence of Plato because no one claims anything based on him that contradicts the laws of nature. It's likely he existed because we have records of him and they don't contradict the laws of nature. I am not trying to disprove anything. I am challenging you to prove what you claim. Is Kennedy the son of a god we ought to worship? [1] To get you to think how likely it is that your god exists, when even the existence of other gods contradicts the written history that you base your belief on. What is likely? 1) your god exists but Allah also exists but nobody told you about it? 2) your god exists but Allah doesn't exist? But muslims claim the same thing in reverse. Who is right? 3) no god exists and they're _all_ just made up? Edit: [1] Actually, let me spell it out for you once again. The existence of Jesus or any actual human being is not in question. He may or may not have existed. It doesn't change a thing. What is in question is the existence of God. The only "evidence" for that is human records, books written by humans, books that contradict the laws of nature, books that stem from primitive times. Given all we know about the human nature, its flaws, its need for stories, its evolutionary trait to ascribe agency to inanimate objects, it's just not likely that any god actually exists, _unless_ you have extraordinary evidence. You may now plug your ears again and cry "la la la", because we won't be seeing any evidence from you anytime soon.
Main idea of this world isnt free will fmo cos if we had idea or how the other person feels we almost choose to do good The main idea to experience good in its highest form tho compering it to evil
You make the assumption that Plato was human, you can not prove that he was or was not. You state that you do not believe in written history. You state that you can not prove Plato existed, then how can I prove to you that God existed? I have respect of others beliefs, If they so choose to believe in another god, I am not here in this forum to change that. I guess that you can not comprehend peace and love for our brothers? What good could I accomplish by causing strife about one's god? I think your mind has been polluted by televangelists? are your views of God/gods skewed?
Because that is the reasonable assumption. If you claim otherwise, prove it. You know where this is going. It's likely he was human because that doesn't contradict the laws of nature and our current knowledge. It's unlikely he was not human because that contradicts our current knowledge. The question whether he was not human is also in itself pointless, because the answer ends with the question. There is not a global organized religion operating on that question. After you assume the reasonable thing that he was human, there is no controversy because there are no idiots running around that preach the Cult of the Non-human Plato. If you can accept both sides of a contradiction with a straight face, without ever questioning either your or their side, that to me smells like the pinnacle of ignorance. You are not really thinking, you're going "la la la" with fingers in your ears. This view may be valid in your own community where everyone lives the same delusion and you can pretend to be tolerant towards anything you don't actually experience. Try traveling to the middle east and telling these fine people that you don't believe in Allah but you accept their beliefs. Shall we guess how much love and peace you'll get?
Please do tell on where you draw this knowledge from? Could it be from ancient written word that you stated do not accept The question is whether he existed and to prove his existence, or prove the existence of God. The idea is the same. You can not prove Plato existed and you can not prove God existed without written word. I pitty you, you can not be capable of accepting cultural differences Again, your lack of cultural differences. Not all Arabs or Muslims are bent of destroying others. There are 1000's if not millions of Jews living right in the Middle East as we write! Plus Christians and Muslims. I will not dispute that there are radical Muslims out there to kill Christians and Jews and they do everyday, but not all Muslims are radicalized
@TCM & sid_16: unable to respond to the point, now you deviate the subject towards gods, religion and so on... The question is: can a 4D brain perceive/sense/understand an nD entity/being/force? The answer is very simple: NO. This means, regardless how much one intellectually "torture" oneself, one won't be able to understand IT and that's very hard to accept, thus one will invent a lot of meaningless ideas in order to feel superior.
I wasn't even talking to you about any god or religion just now. My last post to you was about how you know that "nD" even exists. And I'm still waiting for an answer. Edit: You said (regarding nD): "I never said I understood. I said I know. It's quite a difference." to which I replied "Finally some evidence will come pouring in. Go ahead! How do you know?" That was my last post to you. So I don't know why you're talking about deviation. Can't you follow a simple thread of logic among other people's posts?
From the fact that there has _never_ been a verified instance of a human-looking being that wasn't human and that it's just not likely to exist based on all we know about evolution. The burden of proof is still on you and "it's written by humans" just doesn't fly as evidence.
And this does not apply to you? Both applies also to science, not religion only. (Consider when Einstein/Eddington wanted to demonstrate their findings and how the established 'scientific egos' had a look at them.....) BTW: Travelling educates....
You are also constantly confused about science vs. the results of science. Einstein didn't change how we do science. He brought forth new insights using the scientific method. Science will be science. The knowledge gained through science can change. That's the whole point, to refine knowledge, otherwise we wouldn't need to do science anymore.