what would be an actually good reason to believe in a god.

[Baruch]

Are you implying that we live in one branch of a multiverse created by random statements by god?

Christian apologetics: the art of apologizing for Christianity and/or bending the truth to verify the Christian narrative
well... ya!!! thats been the storyline for a long time. Where's yur faith?

No, each person is a branch of the multiverse, but not independent, dependent.  "Where two or more are gathered in my name ..."  You say ... I am a human.  But you don't know what a human is ... so one is always begging the question.

[Baruch]

Universally accepted evidence of stated deity's existence is the only reason to believe in that god's existence.

Except the basis of what you call evidence, is corrupted by your biology and upbringing and socialization.

[Sorginak]

Except the basis of what you call evidence, is corrupted by your biology and upbringing and socialization.

Clarify.

[Baruch]

Clarify.

Every thought, every word spoken or written, every interpretation by you of the words of others, or as evidence of the thoughts of others ... is based on your personal history.  You are not different from your personal history.  There is only historical bias, there is no objectivity ... except what is artificially created by specialists, like mathematicians ... and even they disagree at times.  What is a dictionary?  A giant self referencing web of interdependent definitions.  And circular arguments, are fallacious.  Therefore all arguments using language, are fallacious.  So why do we argue?  Not for epistemology ... for psychology.

[Sorginak]

Every thought, every word spoken or written, every interpretation by you of the words of others, or as evidence of the thoughts of others ... is based on your personal history.  You are not different from your personal history.  There is only historical bias, there is no objectivity ... except what is artificially created by specialists, like mathematicians ... and even they disagree at times.  What is a dictionary?  A giant self referencing web of interdependent definitions.  And circular arguments, are fallacious.  Therefore all arguments using language, are fallacious.  So why do we argue?  Not for epistemology ... for psychology.

Do you include yourself in that historical bias, recognizing the faults in your own arguments against others?

[Baruch]

Do you include yourself in that historical bias, recognizing the faults in your own arguments against others?

In Mahayana Buddhism .. people suffer because of delusion.  And the Buddha must use a counter-delusion (counter spell, as in magic) to undo it.  Of course both the spell and counterspell have no effect on anyone who doesn't share the same delusion.  This is called "upaya".  It is the Buddhist way of psychotherapy.  How are you enjoying your group encounter so far?

The truth is .. falsehood and truth aren't opposites.  Binars (a species from one episode of Star Trek Next Generation, of which Ensign Crusher was particularly fond) would not be able to grok it.  Falsehood is acting without integrity, truth is acting with integrity ... hence faith being related to justifiable trust.  It isn't propositional or even predicate.  We actually can't determine if something is so or not .. we can only determine relative consistency, in a shared community (see scientists and mathematicians).  What appears to the common man, as a large body of relative consistency ... is taken to be factual.  But we don't really know for sure, just as we don't know for sure who shot Lincoln.  We have a shared narrative that Booth did it.  But did you know that Booth's brother saved Lincoln's son (the one who made it to adulthood), from a fatal accident at a train platform, earlier?  It is much easier to determine mathematical consistency, a bit harder to do it in physical science ... nearly impossible in the social sciences like history.

[Sorginak]

We actually can't determine if something is so or not

Actually, we can.

Buddhism has its good points, but overall it is quite misleading.  It is merely another means of indoctrination that leads to inner comfort and absolute denial of the problems of the world.

[Baruch]

Actually, we can.

Buddhism has its good points, but overall it is quite misleading.  It is merely another means of indoctrination that leads to inner comfort and absolute denial of the problems of the world.

You can't pull the pebble from my han'.  But please keep trying until you can.

[Sorginak]

You can't pull the pebble from my hand.  But please keep trying until you can.

Therefore you admit defeat?

[Baruch]

Therefore you admit defeat?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2yIkDVs0cA

There is no defeat, or victory, where there is no contest.

[Sorginak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2yIkDVs0cA

There is no defeat, or victory, where there is no contest.

All I need to be wise is to understand that I always have more to learn; that I will never know everything.

[fencerider]

we don't know for sure who shot Lincoln

conspiracy theory says Lincoln made a move to protect the people from the Banksters. When they found out what he was doing, they decided to get rid of him.

[Baruch]

All I need to be wise is to understand that I always have more to learn; that I will never know everything.

Yes, but worse yet, we can't even know anything (that requires omniscience).  We can only try to understand, and can only do that with another human being, that we share something with (like we have both been fishing).  Epistemology is megalomania.

[Sorginak]

Yes, but worse yet, we can't even know anything (that requires omniscience).  We can only try to understand, and can only do that with another human being, that we share something with (like we have both been fishing).  Epistemology is megalomania.

Are you inferring that your personal definition of omniscience, "all knowing", is simply knowing in its rawest form?

[Baruch]

conspiracy theory says Lincoln made a move to protect the people from the Banksters. When they found out what he was doing, they decided to get rid of him.

Not the only theory.  Another says that Sec Stanton (Sec of War) was part of an earlier conspiracy to kidnap Lincoln, if the conference between Lincoln and the Southern representatives (hosted by Grant) had gone badly.  And that the Booth conspirators were part of that earlier conspiracy.  The most interesting thing about it, was the attack on Sec of State, Seward.  What did they hope to gain by that?  Or was that due to jealousy between cabinet members??

Lincoln did piss off the bankers, and they made a mighty profit, even though Lincoln printed Greenbacks to escape their interest rates.  The Duponts made the gunpowder for the Union ... and were later involved in the plot against FDR in 1933.  The Duponts are French royalist exiles.