If the natual world is all there is?

There are reasons, but like many things in this life you put up blinders that prohibit you from looking at them.

I tend not to believe in things I find fanciful but if you'd like to present what you claim is 'evidence', please knock yourself out  😊

I told you that your belief, your statement about what occurs after death is not a fact, because you don't know. You find that fanciful, amazing!

I only claimed to believe that we all end utterly when our brains die. I did not claim it to be a fact.

What I said was a fact is that I believe that we all end utterly when our brains die.

When I find no evidence for believing in something, I simply disbelieve it. When I can see no mechanism by which something might even be possible, I disbelieve it & regard it as fanciful.

Okay, your right and I'm wrong, you said you believe that, that doesn't mean its true. That is what I have been saying along and missed it myself when it was right in front of me. My apologies.

Thankyou for the gracious admission but maybe that confusion arises from not thoroughly understanding what it is for something to be true & talking about 'the truth' in somewhat vague terms?

Actually no that cannot be correct. I had to admit I was wrong, because truth isn't vague.

Of course it isn't but that's not what I was suggesting. I was saying that you're understanding of how to use the term was somewhat confused, I think?

How so?

You were confused about the difference between something believed in relation to a matter of fact & what might be the actual fact of the matter itself?

Example: We used to have a member in OD who sincerely believed that the Earth is flat! Now it's a fact that he believed (& does to this day) that the Earth is flat but is there any reason to suppose that this is the fact of the matter?

Please use an example of my confusion as you see it, I have never spoken about the earth being flat. Right now I have believe I have given you sound reasons for the things I believe, and I have stated what I believe is a matter of faith, and when I use the word truth it is only for what can be a fact not a matter that could change with the addition of new information. Please be specific.

No of course you haven't ever posted about the earth being flat & I haven't claimed you did! That you seem to misunderstand what I meant above is an indication of the problem.

I was using an analogy, a linguistic method of illustrating some point, namely that the fact of a person believing something as fact, may be quite separate from the fact of the matter itself.

No one who examines the available evidence in a rational & balanced way should come to the conclusion that the earth is flat. The earth is not flat. But it may be a fact that some people do believe that the earth is flat.

Make sense?

Rather than claiming to believe in 'truth' (much too vague), it may be better & more helpful to make what you believe are true statements regarding what you believe?

Are there any true statements that you wish to make?

I believe every word I have said to you went right over your head, or was completely ignored.

So that's a no?

If I accept what you say about reasoning to find out the truth of a matter, it doesn't matter to you.

What? If you apply good reasoning to establish most reliably what the fact of some matter is, I'd be very pleased. It would matter to me.

I've been giving you something to look at in DNA from the beginning, that is informational instructions, and that these types of things are only found when they are written for a cause. What you do not see is a happenstance set of complex functional complexity written out.

More correctly you've made various unsubstantiated assertions in support of a creationist cause.

When I hear of reputable researchers in this field raising the same objections to abiogenesis, I'll think about changing my mind but not before.

You are speculating again on truth.