The sheep challenge

Discuss the Christian Faith.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

"I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

The above statement from a member called 'sheep'......discuss
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

Bruv;1452096 wrote: "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

The above statement from a member called 'sheep'......discuss


Before we begin, can we agree that only facts can and should be used to try and prove or disprove the existence of a God?

Bruv, I'll wait for your response so that the parameters of the discussion can be agreed upon before we continue, otherwise we will just end up making arguments to prove our case using different metrics and it will be impossible to come to any agreed upon conclusion.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12366
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

The sheep challenge

Post by LarsMac »

Bruv;1452096 wrote: "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

The above statement from a member called 'sheep'......discuss


I Reject the idea that it is an either/or choice. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, to believe in both.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

sheep;1452099 wrote: Before we begin, can we agree that only facts can and should be used to try and prove or disprove the existence of a God?

Bruv, I'll wait for your response so that the parameters of the discussion can be agreed upon before we continue, otherwise we will just end up making arguments to prove our case using different metrics and it will be impossible to come to any agreed upon conclusion.


You made the statement, you set the challenge, it is for you to set the 'metrics'.

To my mind you have made a ridicoulous claim that cannot be substantiated whatever metrics are used.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452096 wrote: "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

The above statement from a member called 'sheep'......discuss


Well, doesn't that depend upon the depth of what one actually "sees"? Does an apple come from the tree, the seed, the earth, from God, or the evolution of two atoms colliding with one another? Neither of the last 2 alternatives are "actually seen" anyway.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

Bruv;1452116 wrote: You made the statement, you set the challenge, it is for you to set the 'metrics'.

To my mind you have made a ridicoulous claim that cannot be substantiated whatever metrics are used.


If facts are not the only evidence we use, then we are making assumptions and isn't this what Atheists ridicule believers in God of doing?

I made the statement that "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

Now let me begin.

There is only 1 provable fact: consciousness. Since this is true, everything else is and will always remain a theory. As I stated before: it is more believable to believe in God then it is the world we see.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

sheep;1452135 wrote:

There is only 1 provable fact: consciousness. Since this is true, everything else is and will always remain a theory. As I stated before: it is more believable to believe in God then it is the world we see.


Define consciousness.

So how are you proving consciousness?

Or alternatively if consciousness is the only provable fact, how can you believe in an unseeable creator of the actual things you can see and touch?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

High Threshold;1452125 wrote: Well, doesn't that depend upon the depth of what one actually "sees"? Does an apple come from the tree, the seed, the earth, from God, or the evolution of two atoms colliding with one another? Neither of the last 2 alternatives are "actually seen" anyway.


What is wrong with your statement, is that: in a dream you see and have all the same senses you have during this prolonged existence you call life, so the answer is no... what you see is only proof of consciousness, not of what you are seeing.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

High Threshold;1452125 wrote: Well, doesn't that depend upon the depth of what one actually "sees"? Does an apple come from the tree, the seed, the earth, from God, or the evolution of two atoms colliding with one another? Neither of the last 2 alternatives are "actually seen" anyway.


Look out your window, see the blossom?

That is a provable fact, anything concerning an unseen super being is pure supposition created by mans need have some reason for his own existence.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

sheep;1452137 wrote: What is wrong with your statement, is that: in a dream you see and have all the same senses you have during this prolonged existence you call life, so the answer is no... what you see is only proof of consciousness, not of what you are seeing.


I don't dream.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

Bruv;1452136 wrote: Define consciousness.

So how are you proving consciousness?

Or alternatively if consciousness is the only provable fact, how can you believe in an unseeable creator of the actual things you can see and touch?


Consciousness is the awareness of oneself.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

Bruv;1452138 wrote: Look out your window, see the blossom?

That is a provable fact, anything concerning an unseen super being is pure supposition created by mans need have some reason for his own existence.


When I dream I can see blossoms... your statement proves nothing.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

sheep;1452141 wrote: When I dream I can see blossoms... your statement proves nothing.


My blossoms are very real, I don't know or care what your unconcious mind dreams of......that is only within the realms of your conciousness.



Stuff enough blossom into your breathing cavities and you die..........how real do you want?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

Bruv;1452144 wrote: My blossoms are very real, I don't know or care what your unconcious mind dreams of......that is only within the realms of your conciousness.



Stuff enough blossom into your breathing cavities and you die..........how real do you want?


In my present state of consciousness that may be true, but what about in my next state of consciousness: what shall I experience then? Shall it be a constant state of unbroken consciousness, or shall it be broken up into segments like this one is: with about 30,000 days of segregated intervals.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

sheep;1452135 wrote: If facts are not the only evidence we use, then we are making assumptions and isn't this what Atheists ridicule believers in God of doing?


I agree with you.



sheep;1452135 wrote: There is only 1 provable fact: consciousness.


No, no. This is no less an assumption than what you've spell out above.



sheep;1452135 wrote: ..... Since this is true ...


Now you're acting silly.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

sheep;1452137 wrote: ..... in a dream you see and have all the same senses you have during this prolonged existence you call life .....


And you read this somewhere, did you? Pardon me please but you are digging yourself a hole and it gets deeper as you go along.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452138 wrote: Look out your window, see the blossom?

That is a provable fact .....


No it isn't.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

High Threshold;1452149 wrote: I agree with you.





No, no. This is no less an assumption than what you've spell out above.




Since you have the same senses during dreams as you have during what is known as consciousness (which you proclaim is your life: these 30,000 days of existence) you can no more prove the reality of this life then you can your dreams. What if these 30,000 days are but a dream in comparison to your next conscious reality?

Prove to me what you see is real and I can use the same argument that dreams are real. And if you state that continuation is proof, then I point to death and state that your continuation of consciousness proves nothing.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

High Threshold;1452150 wrote: And you read this somewhere, did you? Pardon me please but you are digging yourself a hole and it gets deeper as you go along.


Please expand on your argument. But no, I didn't read this somewhere: although I am aware of other that hold my views.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

sheep;1452154 wrote: Since you have the same senses during dreams as you have during what is known as consciousness .......


Not again ............... Prove it.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

High Threshold;1452156 wrote: Not again ............... Prove it.


When one dreams they do not distinguish it from a non-dream unless something extremely unusual takes place in that dream; there is no variation in the senses that alerts the mind to a difference in dreams verses non-dreams.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

This debate was concerning the statement.....

"I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

So far nobody has gotten close to mentioning that.

How did dreams get a mention?

The only thing I have ascertained from this so far is that blossom viewed from my window is not proof enough of it's existance.

When I put foreward the idea that enough blossom pushed up your breathing cavities and you die........the idea gets ignored.

What level of 'reasonable' are we talking about here? As in the statement "more reasonable to believe in god than to believe in the world you actually see"?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

sheep;1452158 wrote: When one dreams they do not distinguish it from a non-dream unless something extremely unusual takes place in that dream; there is no variation in the senses that alerts the mind to a difference in dreams verses non-dreams.


So you are willing to say that the ability to distinguish reality is as valid in a sub-conscience state as it is in a conscience one? I've got two legs - you can now pull the other one.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452159 wrote: This debate was concerning the statement.....

"I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

So far nobody has gotten close to mentioning that.


Read post #19 at .......

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/chris ... ink-2.html
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

High Threshold;1452161 wrote: So you are willing to say that the ability to distinguish reality is as valid in a sub-conscience state as it is in a conscience one? I've got two legs - you can now pull the other one.


I reckon the one called sheep is pulling more than my leg.................................and he's enjoying it a lot more than I am.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452163 wrote: I reckon the one called sheep is pulling more than my leg.................................and he's enjoying it a lot more than I am.


He must not have the proper technique.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

High Threshold;1452162 wrote: Read post #19 at .......

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/chris ... ink-2.html


Why are you directing me off this thread that I started at the request of sheep to answer a single point ?

I am easily confused you know.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452165 wrote: Why are you directing me off this thread that I started at the request of sheep to answer a single point ?

I am easily confused you know.


Never mind the thread. Haven't you have an uncle Reggie from Yorkshire countryside? Ask him what to do about sheep.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

High Threshold;1452166 wrote: Never mind the thread. Haven't you have an uncle Reggie from Yorkshire countryside? Ask him what to do about sheep.


Is English your second language ?

Or has mentioning sheep made you too excited to type properly?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15908
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

High Threshold;1452125 wrote: Well, doesn't that depend upon the depth of what one actually "sees"? Does an apple come from the tree, the seed, the earth, from God, or the evolution of two atoms colliding with one another? Neither of the last 2 alternatives are "actually seen" anyway.


That the apple comes from the tree and the tree from the Earth are demonstrable facts, that the Earth comes from God is opinion.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15908
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1452135 wrote: If facts are not the only evidence we use, then we are making assumptions and isn't this what Atheists ridicule believers in God of doing?

I made the statement that "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

Now let me begin.

There is only 1 provable fact: consciousness. Since this is true, everything else is and will always remain a theory. As I stated before: it is more believable to believe in God then it is the world we see.


If you want to try and prove the existence of God from existentialist principles then feel free - it's something that's never been proven before.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452170 wrote: Is English your second language ?




You just now figured that out, have you?
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bryn Mawr;1452198 wrote: That the apple comes from the tree and the tree from the Earth are demonstrable facts, that the Earth comes from God is opinion.


Yes, that's the point.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

High Threshold;1452206 wrote: You just now figured that out, have you?


You will have to learn to speak slower.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452213 wrote: You will have to learn to speak slower.


Perhaps the word you're searching for is "Slowly"?
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

High Threshold;1452215 wrote: Perhaps the word you're searching for is "Slowly"?


Who's the English speaker here ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452223 wrote: Who's the English speaker here ?


Dunno. You write as though you're an American so I naturally thought neither of us are English-speakers.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

High Threshold;1452228 wrote: Dunno. You write as though you're an American so I naturally thought neither of us are English-speakers.


You know how to hurt don't you?

Is it you scared away Mr sheep ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452232 wrote: Is it you scared away Mr sheep ?


"Scared"? I had hoped it was my superior logic and argumentative skills.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

High Threshold;1452233 wrote: "Scared"? I had hoped it was my superior logic and argumentative skills.


If you are so logical,argumentative skills shouldn't come into it.



Hold up.......sheep is back.......hovering.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

Bruv;1452159 wrote: This debate was concerning the statement.....

"I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

So far nobody has gotten close to mentioning that.

How did dreams get a mention?

The only thing I have ascertained from this so far is that blossom viewed from my window is not proof enough of it's existance.

When I put foreward the idea that enough blossom pushed up your breathing cavities and you die........the idea gets ignored.

What level of 'reasonable' are we talking about here? As in the statement "more reasonable to believe in god than to believe in the world you actually see"?


Is the blossom seen in your dream any more or less real then the one you can see now in this state of consciousness? In dreams they are seen and yet you claim they are not real because the dream is not the continual state you experience for the 30,000 days you experience in this continuum. But can you prove these 30,000 days are any more or less real then your dreams? Seeing the blossom does not prove its existence only your own.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

High Threshold;1452161 wrote: So you are willing to say that the ability to distinguish reality is as valid in a sub-conscience state as it is in a conscience one? I've got two legs - you can now pull the other one.


I am saying that, your reality is in whichever state you are conscious of and that no other reality exists to you.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

High Threshold;1452162 wrote: Read post #19 at .......

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/chris ... ink-2.html


The world you see in dreams you claim is not real. But is it any less real then the one you see now? Can you prove it? I am saying you absolutely cannot: you can only prove consciousness and not what you see.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1452200 wrote: If you want to try and prove the existence of God from existentialist principles then feel free - it's something that's never been proven before.


If we don't push the boundaries: we remain in the box others have created for us.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

sheep;1452238 wrote: Is the blossom seen in your dream any more or less real? In dreams they are seen and yet you claim they are not real because the dream is not the continual state you experience for the 30,000 days you experience in a continuum state. But what if these 30,000 days are but a fraction of a dream compared to your next state of consciousness that will be experienced after death? seeing the blossom does not prove its existence only your own.


How did dreams come into this ?

I have mentioned I do NOT dream.

The blossoms I see from my window are not a dream, when I squeeze them between my nails they bleed sap, they stain my flesh, they smell, if I poke them in my eye it hurts, seeing the blossom then becomes difficult.

The blossom is very real, very very real.

If you continue talking in such a nebulous manner and not seriously addressing the point you said you could prove, I shall have to go play elsewhere.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452236 wrote: If you are so logical,argumentative skills shouldn't come into it.




I'd like for you to take a few minutes to think about what you've just said. We're speaking about the scriptures here, ya know.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

Bruv;1452245 wrote: How did dreams come into this ?

I have mentioned I do NOT dream.

The blossoms I see from my window are not a dream, when I squeeze them between my nails they bleed sap, they stain my flesh, they smell, if I poke them in my eye it hurts, seeing the blossom then becomes difficult.

The blossom is very real, very very real.

If you continue talking in such a nebulous manner and not seriously addressing the point you said you could prove, I shall have to go play elsewhere.


I have a hard time believing you do not dream. Have you ever had a dream? I have read that many people that claim they don't dream just don't remember their dreams: can this be true of your case?

In any case, seeing most people do dream, all that you have stated about the blossom, is, and can be, true in dreams and therefore your experience with the blossom does not make it real, only real to you.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

High Threshold;1452248 wrote: I'd like for you to take a few minutes to think about what you've just said. We're speaking about the scriptures here, ya know.


Just seen the answer to my last post..........................yes I see what you mean.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

sheep;1452240 wrote: I am saying that, your reality is in whichever state you are conscious of and that no other reality exists to you.


So, if you put an equal amount of "reality" (this is YOUR choice of words) in the individual reality, ie. "mine", "yours", "his", "hers", and presumably "theirs", and "ours" then you really have no choice than to accept "one's reality" even if it might be "in the world I, you, he, she, they, and we actually see" rather than the reality of "God's existence" because, after all, "it is the reality in whichever state one is conscious of" ....... again, your own words.

It looks to me that you've just shot yourself in the foot.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

sheep;1452249 wrote: I have a hard time believing you do not dream. Have you ever had a dream? I have read that many people that claim they don't dream just don't remember their dreams: can this be true of your case?

In any case, seeing most people do dream, all that you have stated about the blossom, is, and can be, true in dreams and therefore your experience with the blossom does not make it real, only real to you.


Listen Mr sheep (with no capital) let us get this straight the opening post posed the topic in hand.................I shall repeat it for the record.

"I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

It is not about whether or not I dream, my dream life is irrelevant.

I will not countenance any argument to 'show it more reasonable to believe in God' (with a capital) that relies on my dreams.

I can start a thread about dreams if you want......................this thread is not about dreams.

It is about you and the statement that I have had to repeat yet again in an effort to pull you back onto the subject in hand.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth

Return to “Christianity”