Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe what Mystic is doing here is proselytizing...Perhaps he is trying to found a new cult? I see him doing the same on other subforums.
You know that isn't what he's doing. Not cool at all sans!
That is uncalled for dude. Cut it out.
He's right...you wanna pin his posting his synthesis on someone...pin it on me. I pestered the poor old guy for months to do it--So...it's MY fault. Hey...it's not like it's gonna change your opinion of me!
Post some more pictures of your cute dog or something...quit busting on a guy for doing someone a big favor.
I believe what Mystic is doing here is proselytizing...Perhaps he is trying to found a new cult? I see him doing the same on other subforums.
I don't think it's quite that. He has a theory and he's pushing it. Though I believe it is more religion/philosophy, it is reasonable to post it as:'what about that, eh, atheists?'
I think that it is now clear that his theory is speculation and the discovery of Anti matter matter makes it no less speculation.
That the default is on the nature/no - god side, because we have natural processes and no sound evidence for anything other than that.
That consciousness is accepted but that is natural too. Assuming no more than we know is a logical default and, since science is logical, it is a scientific position, too. We are too canny to let Mystic's trick of saying that no assumption is an assumption fool us.
Attempts to pin 'godlike' on natural immensity is in fact trickery, not logic or science, and holding up the discovery of Quarks, Anti - matter, dark matter or any other sub atomic as some sort of evidence that nature is 'conscious' and using that as a leap of faith to Mystic's admitted personal beliefs is as Theistic as C34's attempts to misuse history and geology as evidence for young earth creationism.
With the greatest respect for Mystic's erudition, he is as unsound as Plantinga, because the theory is at base, Faith -based. The arguments presented in a format of lacunae (inviting us to leap to conclusions Mystic deals in) are actually just the familiar theist tricks. Gldrule's shrill abuse on his behalf is doing him no favours, either.
Gldrule's shrill abuse on his behalf is doing him no favours, either.
Please show me what it is you define as this "shrill abuse" I have put upon you in support of Mystic...beyond occasionally telling others to quit insulting his efforts to graciously fulfill my request for him to post his synthesis.
If what I post is "shrill abuse"...what do you call some of the posts by TAC telling people they don't agree with that they are ignorant, uneducated, delusional, believing in fairy tales, and even going as far as telling them they shouldn't be allowed to live? And let's not forget the mock deities along with the vicious insults and incredible disrespect, of the Deities and Sacred Writings themselves.
Furthermore, I don't initiate abuse...I respond to it.
I don't think it's quite that. He has a theory and he's pushing it. Though I believe it is more religion/philosophy, it is reasonable to post it as:'what about that, eh, atheists?'
I think that it is now clear that his theory is speculation and the discovery of Anti matter matter makes it no less speculation.
That the default is on the nature/no - god side, because we have natural processes and no sound evidence for anything other than that.
That consciousness is accepted but that is natural too. Assuming no more than we know is a logical default and, since science is logical, it is a scientific position, too. We are too canny to let Mystic's trick of saying that no assumption is an assumption fool us.
Attempts to pin 'godlike' on natural immensity is in fact trickery, not logic or science, and holding up the discovery of Quarks, Anti - matter, dark matter or any other sub atomic as some sort of evidence that nature is 'conscious' and using that as a leap of faith to Mystic's admitted personal beliefs is as Theistic as C34's attempts to misuse history and geology as evidence for young earth creationism.
It is only "natural" for me not to be surprised that you "naturally" just dismiss my assertions without any "scientific" explanations . . . just your "natural" euphemisms. "Naturally," you avoid presenting the logic that produces consciousness from non-consciousness and "naturally" you try to associate my views with your favorite "natural" foils on the religious side.
Quote:
With the greatest respect for Mystic's erudition, he is as unsound as Plantinga, because the theory is at base, Faith -based. The arguments presented in a format of lacunae (inviting us to leap to conclusions Mystic deals in) are actually just the familiar theist tricks. Gldrule's shrill abuse on his behalf is doing him no favours, either.
. . . And "naturally" . . . ending with a confirmation of GldnRule's charge of religious bias against the base position of God.
Logic is the key here . . . it is impossible to logically get to a predicate of the existence of consciousness when starting with a premise of the non-existence of consciousness. It is your screen name. Try it. You cannot circumvent this illogic by claiming ignorance of the premise . . . which is what you essentially are doing.
What don't you understand about "I don't know"?
Quote:
Nevertheless . . . there is sufficient Godliness in what we know about the power, scope, ubiquity, and importance to the creation and existence of life . . . as well as the properties that enable science to investigate and understand our reality . . . to warrant the label God even if "we don't know" about its conscious state scientifically yet.
This opinion of yours is just an opinion; you know that. Most people (including you) reserve the term "God" for a conscious being, so this opinion of yours is not very popular except when boosted by theistic faith in a god consciousness. But seriously, it's just a word. Who cares what name you choose to call this world we experience.
It is only "natural" for me not to be surprised that you "naturally" just dismiss my assertions without any "scientific" explanations . . . just your "natural" euphemisms. "Naturally," you avoid presenting the logic that produces consciousness from non-consciousness and "naturally" you try to associate my views with your favorite "natural" foils on the religious side.. . . And "naturally" . . . ending with a confirmation of GldnRule's charge of religious bias against the base position of God.
Since you fail to accept the logic of a don't know position as a logical default, there is no point in discussing logic and since you fail to understand that 'perhaps, and possibly' make for a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory (I credit you with at least knowing the difference between 'hypothesis' and scientific theory') there is no point is discussing science.
It is only to be expected that, now your own Theist bias is known and Glnrule after long dissimulation, has been detected as a theist in agnostic's clothing, you would see any other position than gullibly accepting as biased against the 'God' (personal capital noted - you give yourself away every time) position.
Since you fail to accept the logic of a don't know position as a logical default, there is no point in discussing logic and since you fail to understand that 'perhaps, and possibly' make for a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory (I credit you with at least knowing the difference between 'hypothesis' and scientific theory') there is no point is discussing science.
It is only to be expected that, now your own Theist bias is known and Glnrule after long dissimulation, has been detected as a theist in agnostic's clothing, you would see any other position than gullibly accepting as biased against the 'God' (personal capital noted - you give yourself away every time) position.
When I first came to this site, I was "searching"...but very shortly I found what I was looking for.
Since that time, I have plainly presented, as not only a Theist...but a Gnostic Theist. I don't just "think there might be the possibility of a God"...I KNOW God exists. And I don't try to muddy the waters relative to my viewpoint. So, I don't know where you get I'm a "Theist in Agnostic's Clothing".
On second thought...I DO know where you get that...since it's typical of TAC to label what is clearly one thing, as something else. It's your "natural" inclination.
Unless you ain't the same Gldrule you arrived needling the atheists and pretending that was just your way and there was no religious aspect to it, in fact (and I am relying on memory here) you were not too decided on the matter of god - belief.
I was willing to give you benefit of doubt but eventually it came out that you were theist and you found Mystic's scientific basis for a god of sorts something to make you shed your camouflage. I don't doubt that you were actually a theist from the start and were not being honest with us.
Now we all know and I doubt that any of us see anything much worth responding to. Mystic at least does have something worthy of discussion, though it tends to be just the same thing and the same response and the same counter... but it has to be done or he just gets away with it.
Yup! Them danged lacunaedo stick in Mystic's craw, that much is obvious. I present the bigger question:
Why bother with an unsupportable Godly interpretation? It's more and more (and painfully, for many...) obvious that...
1) the evidence for such a wildly improbable entity is no more convincing than that available for the FSM, tho' that friendly pal is certainly less evil and vengeful in intent. And far more digestible!
2) As honest, diligent research (according to a well-evolved and self-monitoring process that even Mystic must acknowledge is meritorious and defensible) continues unabated minute by minute, it's accumulated status and integration leads inexorably to some greater true understanding.
This is of course currently hampered by the limits of our intelligence. Which may be transient.
Nonetheless, that particular limit is the only fly in the ointment, and is thus what stops us hominids, for the present, from understanding some (probably) vastly logical and valid synthesis. Mystic claims to have found it all on his own, and is flustered by the relative stupidity of his audience, who have not glomed on to his "obvious" concepts. Trouble is, his requires belief in a non-existent intelligence that refuses to show itself. As one-them highly edu-mah-kaytud sy'yun'tists muh-self, yet apparently more worldly than our hero, I remain skeptical, frankly....
I still wonder WHY the relentless need to try to explain it all with mental gymnastics and hair-tearing shrill lambasts and insults. Such an other-worldly explanation is simply not necessary for many, atheists prime among that calm and thoughtful cohort. As well, when such attempts to wrap modern proofs and mis-quoted techniques and results around ancient fables, the results can get absolutely ugly.
As a calm alternate, I for one (I'm not alone in this...) do not need a fake God in my life, certainly when He offers me nothing in return.
lacunae: gaps in knowledge or information. Of those who linger in that no-man's land, there are those "self-centered in opinion, with curious lacunae of astounding ignorance" (Frank Norris).
God IS THE natural force, existed before the Big Bang, has existed ever since, and will always.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but it has to be done or he just gets away with it.
Lacunae rear their ugly heads!
