How does God keep track of 7.3 billion people?

I just turned to the person I'm with and asked them if they remembered what we ate for dinner...they did, bam!

Stop deflecting...

Who are you talking to? LMAO 

You're too stupid to get what I was doing...keep deflecting

Rostos

Deflecting, that's what's happening here. 

I am going to go ahead and assume that you have not studied logic or had a philosophy class. 

This to me is not a winnable situation. Or even a decent discussion.  You have two guys. One apparently doesn't understand philosophy and is trying to use it to make his argument and gets lost and yells, 'prove it'.  The other has never heard of the Pascalian Wager---or for sure doesn't understand it.  Neither is using logic or philosophy correctly either.  

I think you are spinning your wheels here, mate. 

Like the man said---you cannot reason someone away from something, when reason is not what took them there in the first place. 

So just to go back and forth with---prove it ---and ---you don't have I prove it, that's the point.  Don't see any way to advance a discussion when it is being discussed on two different levels altogether.  

These are always good discussions---when held by the same standards. This one seems to be with folks that simply have rote talking points they have heard or read.  And there I no acknowledgment at all.  Which makes for an inconvenient discussion on either side. 

At any rate I was passing through and would've been more interested if a more capable person had been arguing the opposite side. I have seen it done and know it can be done.  It then is more interesting to me. 

At any rate. Y'all carry on.  

'Prove it!'  

dude,this didnt even start out as a debate over philosophy or perceptions so stop trying to sound superior,like youre the smartest guy in the room or longing to live out your "good will hunting" fantasy...save all that bullshiit for another day and another thread.

cos all youre doing is trying to turn it into sumthing that has parameters whereby you can argue round and round in circles and make it into sum "chicken or egg" debate....so,youre the same as rostos cos clearly thats his favourite thing to do in the whole,wide world.

all we were asking of the guy,and any person of faith for that matter(and thats the key really cos in the end all they have is faith,not one iota of tangible evidence watsoever),is wat brought him to believe in the existence of a creator in terms of sum sort of verifiable,hard evidence..even if it is sumwat subjective....and so far surprise surprise surprise!!! hes offered absolutely nothing nada zero zip.(oh except for a whole bunch of sidetracking,deflecting and classical circular arguments of course)...just like every other damn religious person ive ever come across in my lifetime.

for sumthing as totally and utterly absurd and ridiculous as the existence of an all-knowing,all seeing,omni-present,eternal creator all the likes of myself,system and others are asking is just a skerrick of sumthing to support such lunacy.....like seriously,how the fu.kkkk can there be NOTHING over a period of thousands of years??...this god character never shows his face,says a thing,leaves a trail of bread-crumbs??....nothing???

and please dont feed me no horse-shiit about speaking to people in dreams or wat-not..theres all kinds of crazy folk that have all kinds of dreams about all kinds of stuff...catch sumthing on film at least,shiit theres more evidence of frickin big-foot than there is of a god.

as for the ridiculous line of questioning about the origins of time,the universe and everything in it....well WE DONT KNOW.thats why we cant answer,but we dont just go and make a whole pile of fairytales and shiit up to try and explain it away to make ourselves feel better and more secure about our place on the earth.

and on the balance of probability and beyond all reasonable doubt we accept that other minds exist,anyone who suggests otherwise is being a semantic,petty,argumentative p.rick....as system clearly explained there is ample evidence all around every day that wat we classify as a thinking,feeling mind exists inside the skull of most...(i said most,rostos,most!!..not ALL)

so anyhow if you are a religious person,raiders 22,which is highly likely judging by the circuitous way you have gone about opposing the viewpoint offered here and the fact that you mite be the only person on the planet to identify with rostos in any way,shape or form........then wat leads you to believe in the existence of a god???

i dont wanna hear about how you look at the world,your perceptions or philosophies or any other garbage.....just wat convinces you one way or another

na,hes not cos he was only using that whole line of questioning as a red herring and to be an argumentative,antagonistic twat

I have seen and been in loved with this discussion on a very (to be kind) different level.  

It is alright to ask some one why. That is fine.  But then you cannot disagree with the why because you don't like it. You have to decide if your why is the same reasoning or not. Etc Etc. 

But if you are interested in the discussion at a forum where the name-calling and shouting of prove it is left out---there are very many good places online where that is done. 

There are basically no new points on either side.  But they are throroughly answered on several different levels by scholars, philisophers etc.  Including scientists and elected intellectuals that have changed sides. 

Ranting and raving without valid points is just not my thing. Sorry. 

That is a scientific argument not a philosophical one. I think because the other fellow had turned it philosophical---the guy replied philosophically.  There are many places to find the points on science and the points on philosophy.  

It helps to stay caught up in the discussion. And try to use correct spelling and grammar in a supposedly advanced discussion.  It keeps you from looking silly. 

chopped up english??a lot of mine is to save me time,wats your excuse??read your past posts...in that post alone you just said"i have seen and been in loved with this discussion".

but thats not why you called....why can you not shut up about philosophy for one brief moment,all i am asking for is some REASONING or EVIDENCE as he sees it,that convinced him to subscribe to such beliefs,why is that so frickin hard for you religious people and pseudo-intellectuals to understand???....all i want the dude,or you for that matter,to say is "i believe in a god because........i am convinced 100% that god exists because......."with the last part being sumthing that in sum way tangibly relates to logic,sense,accepted rationale,an actual real life occurance,cause and effect....anything else i couldnt give a flying fu.k about.....ive heard all that crap about spirituality,faith,perceptions of the way the world came about and the "forces" that drive it..cool,ya can have all that mumbo jumbo and repeat it till the cows come home..the likes of system,myself and other reasoned,sane thinking individuals will throw it in the trash where it belongs and we shall just beg to differ and leave it at that.

in this discussion im fishing for one single piece of wat cud be considered hard,concrete evidence or reason for me to come over to your side and believe...ya must have it surely??..to get in behind a notion so mind-numbingly ludicrous.....???

about 5 pages in,rostos is yet to give us a why....so no-one is disagreeing with it because we dont like it...WE JUST HAVENT HEARD IT YET....i'd love to disagree with it if i could only hear it...sumthing,anything,please im feckin begging here

are there rules as to wat can and cant be discussed here??this is GENERAL DISCUSSION isnt it??

well,i obviously havent read everything ever written by every scholar,intelectual etc...but i feel 100% certain in my assertion that the simple question being posed in here has NEVER,ever been satisfactorily answered before....yea,im pretty sure that "evidence of god found!!" wud be headline news the world over....hell,even 

"sumthing that mite,maybe,possibly almost pass sumwat as a little bit of proof of a god!!!" would hit the front pages more than likely.

well.quite clearly giving a strait answer is not your thing either.no-ones asking you to rant and rave....JUST GIVE US A REASON TO BELIEVE...thats why "we" end up doing the ranting and raving,cos its infuriating trying to get thru to people who steadfastly hold onto antiquated old beliefs with no reasoning watsoever and spend every minute of reply deflecting and trying to tie the questioner in knots with semantics and red herrings instead of actually giving a strait feckin answer.........same thing over and over and over...had this discussion so many times and have yet to hear a single coherent,cogent,reasoned,rational response.

I'm not sure that it works the way you want it to on a few levels. But if you are sincere you can do plenty of good research with it.  And if you are honest, will admit there are some good points.  The fellow has touched on some of them. With exactness and so forth of universe. As Paulkinghorn (I promise you that spelling is incorrect) (But the guy at Oxford) has said. The preciseness is so exact. That it would be like aiming at the far end of the universe and hitting a target bullseye. It is just amazing.  That is what had changed a lot of the scientists views on this. Others will point out the earth and life itself.  Many points are made with other scientific things as well. But the guy's point is surely you cannot use this as proof of nonexistence. Sure it is your choice. But as Russell (maybe) and others have said: there wasn't enough evidence.  Always this is countered with Paul and the example of the earth and creatures itself as being self-evident.  This is the point people make when they use the people that have never even heard of the bible, in the middle of the rain forest, that reach the same conclusion.  It is for sure a faith thing more than an evidence thing. You are correct about that. And you are correct that it is not for everyone. But if you seriously study up on it and read some of the intellectuals it will at least give you some things to think about.  Not having proof is not the key.  Always to be completely dismissive of either side is fine if you just want to say nah nah nah nah.  But if you are sincere in studying both sides it is explained in depth from a lot of angles.  Philosophically, scientifically, existentially, and so on and so forth.  A solid reason for one person may not even be enough for another because they will never concede any points along the way, no matter what. Several have addressed this as well. Just as scientists will strive for empiricalness. Then when they cannot achieve it they will use presuppositions. Then when those are knocked out from the foundation.  Where do you go from there. 

There are many, many places to really ask the questions you are asking online that will give you a starting point to this.  Because you are not going to get a guy to say he knows because of this particular fact.  You have to use univocal, equivocal, and analogical ways of speaking in the discussion.  Or else you flounder around.