Prototypical

Yes I think so. I do have a desire to continuously examine what I believe to be true but I don't know that I have a desire to believe in any particular thing. I seldom dismiss anything without consideration.

Hi de_skudd. Kudos for an excellent examination of the nature of truth. "Statement: All truth is relative! Rhetorical Question: Is that a relative truth?" Say for example you are travelling along at 75mph as indicated by your speedometer. I am watching you from space and see that you are travelling along at 75mph plus the speed of the rotateing earth. From your reference frame, you are moving at 75 mph. From my reference frame you are moving at 975 mph. If I could look down on the entire solar system I would see you moving at 75 mph relative to the surface of the earth, 975 mph relative to the space surrounding the earth and some other speed when taken relative to the sun. Yet another speed when taken relative to the centre of the galaxy. Which one of is the true speed?

From a theist's perspective, what is the purpose or benefit of prayer? I can see that it is a form of positive thinking and can serve to focus one's thoughts and attention in a positive direction. Much like meditation I presume. Would God not be aware of my thoughts and desires without my verbalizing them? Is it not presumptious of the person doing the praying to assume that God would need reminding or prodding regarding what s/he should do? Should a theist not assume that God knows exactly what needs doing?

Only you can waste your time Ikester. Just like only I can waste my time. So OK, which one of these questions would you like me to answer first? I was trying to answer your questions regarding what I consider to be reasonable when the following list of questions came flooding out before we could resolve the first question about what we consider to be reasonable.

Are you saying then that I must want the evidence to be true before I can actually even see it? Do you not see a problem with that or are you not saying that?

This is far too scattered to achieve anything. I am happy to address your points one at a time. By doing this we can come to an agreement (or not) about any particular point and then move on. I gave you my definition for supernatural. I answered your question in an unequivical manner. What is your definition of supernatural?

I suppose that is as true for you as it is for me or anyone else. You are welcome to offer your own definitions. How do you decide what is reasonable to you? How about you stop assuming that I am a liar with no integrity. This may be true for some but is certainly not true for me. Again, I am looking for reasons to change my mind. Do you have any? Offer some up and I will see if they are reasonable to me. It may be that what is reasonable to you is not to me. C'est la vie. Wrong. I am not against God. The idea of God is a very appealing idea. I am against unsupported beliefs. My beliefs must be supported by evidence that is reasonable to me. The very same way that your beliefs must be supported by evidence that is reasonable to you. Right. That is why I am not 'against' God because, in my opinion, God does not exist. I am against the idea of God which certainly does exist. Well, you certainly put one up to discuss your disbelief in evolution. Why are you wasting your time doing that? Do you secretly believe in evolution? Well ikester, it is called a strong argument. That is why I believe it. What is your definition for supernatural?

Hey ikester. We could use something like this; "reasonable doubt;" that state of minds of jurors in which they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction as to the truth of the charge. I take your point that what is reasonable varies between men. Let's see if there are any areas where we agree. No, I am not afraid of that. That is what I am here for. My life has been one long shedding of misconceptions. Eventually, I hope to be rid of them all. May I suggest a more directed conversation. Let's focus on this question. I would drop the 'reasonable' qualifier. If it is a thing then it is natural. If there are 'supernatural things' then they are, by definition, outside of nature and do not interact with anything that is inside nature. They are not detectable by any natural means. If they are detectable then they are not outside of nature.

Hey Ron You can, of course, believe what you will about me. What I said was that the only reason to believe in God, that I have found, was the desire to do so. You may have many other reasons to believe in God and those are what I came looking for, as stated. Your inferences and innuendo are your own and not mine. The only reason to not believe in a God is the desire to do so. Hmmm, I suppose that you could say that. Is that what you believe? Are you being genuine? My statement referred entirely to my own observations and not to you at all. If you were offended by my assessment of the evidence supporting theism why then would you repeat my offence? Do you not treat people as you wish to be treated? Is this the level of discourse? But Peace man. I am not here to attack or insult anyone. Yeah, either logical or empirical will do. I am talking about evidence that I would accept as I am the final arbiter of what I believe to be true. As is everyone else. Generally speaking, Webster's definition should serve; a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof I do not believe that I have all the information or answers so I am looking...with my eyes and my mind open. I do not approach theism with a mind set of opposition. We may disagree about a great many things but I would be surprised if I could not learn something from you. I came here to be corrected if necessary. I would never be so arrogant as to tell you what you should believe. I realize that you have other points that I will be happy to address if we get that far. Perhaps if we can get past the idea that we are somehow adversaries then we can communicate so much more effectively.

I take it that this is the appropriate thread then. I suggest that we take it one point at a time. Only that the evidence be reasonable. How do I know when to abandon reason or which unreasonable evidence that I should accept? This seems a good example of the logical fallacy of Special Pleading. My inclination is to say that 'I don't know' rather than to make up some explanation. Especially one that contradicts all the other things that I know about the Universe.

OK thanks ikester7579.

Thanks all for your welcome. I will not engage your points here but instead look for the appropriate threads (unless this is the appropriate thread). I will say again that my desire is to know the truth as best as it can be known and not that any particular thing be true.

Is there a list of forbidden words and names? If I type the symbols "p*rn" , is that construed as trying to get around the filters? These are not facetious questions. I feel a little as though I am walking on egg shells.

Hi MamaElephant, I thought that it was a very poor reason. It has been my experience that some of the things that I desire, upon critical review, are not always in my best interest.

Hello all, I have come seeking reasons to believe in God. Thus far in my studies I have only found one and that is the desire to do so. I can assure you that I come with an open mind but also that it is led by reason.