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.
You do not know that they are unique and, in fact, continue on to say "It is NOT likely that it is limited to us".
Until you or anyone else can show me anything as unique as thinking, caring and knowing in a supposedly dead and material universe . . . my opinion stands. Find me a Sun, planet or rock that possesses those things or the 95% of our reality that is dark energy and dark matter that does and you will make my point for me.
Quote:
You also mention "in our reality" which easily translates into "all we know" which,as time goes by, proves to be not very much.
This can be said about absolutely everything . . . since ALL our knowledge and experiences are ultimately subjective and limited . . . that is the point. We do not withhold judgment because of it and most of us do tend to credit those things we personally experience/witness over other sources. I repeat . . . I am witnessing to my understanding and explaining the reasons. YMMV.
Quote:
When, eventually, consciousness is proven to be a completely 'material' process, your speculation will have been shown to be faulty.
Actually, I think it will prove my ultimate conclusion that our reality is consciousness and that makes it God, IMO.
Quote:
Obviously, my opinion as opposed to your opinion.At least I can admit it's my opinion, not indisputable fact.
Because our subjectivity can not be overridden . . . it is ALL opinion. Some things just have more consensus.
Translation: . . . You won't or can't answer my questions. You have no cogent rebuttals to my well-reasoned points So you wisely decide to withdraw!
Well now c'mon, Mystic: Really? Your ideas are not exactly how the majority of us thinkers here might interprete Grandstander's commentary. You indeed only have your own experiential basis upon which to make your "absolute" comments, is that not right?
Which "absolutely" does mean that whatever worked or works for you alone , does not and indeed has not EVER worked for myself and many others, even as I categorially and thoroughly, for >> 10 years, evaluated Christendom and it's mythical cast of mythical cartoon characters, those who also refused to EVER show up, be held accountable for any good (or even bad...) deeds.
The sadly late Dr. Christopher Hitchens (and may his eternally wondrous soul rest in some sort of peace, one prays...) presents an interesting and v. humorous segment in which he notes that only in the most god-forsaken, rocky, dehydrated, philosophically moribund geographic locale, populated by utter & demonstrable illiterates; the most utter logically backwards, oft-magic-ridden and oil-free place in this world, could the entire concept of Christianity have evolved without endless peals of unstoppable laughter!
Not with the Chinese (as he funnily says, because they could read and document their history, with no global fludds, no world-wide parasites, no healing hands, no BS, and so on..). Nor with the equally erudite and historically documenting Egyptians, nor the Greeks, who developed logical thought centuries before the sheep-herders got it together, if that's what we desperately want to validate Christianity.
Nope. It could only happen in the most likely place for a banal protocol to "Poof!" appear, at the beck and call of diseased, brain-damaged starving minstrels! Built-upon & designed to frighten, purely by fear of an unsaved death, or to escape the twinges of a non-existent Hell... could this one have ever hoped to get any traction.
The odd thing is that intelligent folk like you still happily and willingly buy into it. Because, if I were you, if, for instance, and your Holy God actually came to dinner one night and left His holographic biz card on the table, I'd still have to talk to myself as to why this HAD TO HAVE BEEN a totally transient delusional escape, aká, possibly a psychotic break from reality. Dangerous, IMHO!
Well, my condolences! In cases like this, I do, yes, feel distinctly superior! And I didn't even have to do much of anything to achieve that superiority except think for a bit about the mystical alternatives and the illogic of a God in this, the 21st Century, the age of science, logic and evidential, repeatable and documented proofs.
Unless, as has been noted, religion simply amounts to a near-desperate NEED for that sense of salvation!
Your translations skills are evidently no better than your analytical ones.
I am required by the forum's code to treat you with respect, I am not required to treat your theory of mystic cosmos personal truths as anything other than the nonsense which it appears to be.
Actually you are required to support your otherwise arrogant assertions with your own. The ubiquitous "we don't know" that you use is in no way dispositive and does not eliminate the need for you to back up your arrogant assertions.
Quote:
I withdraw because I have given up on the ideas of 1) You grasping how foolish the idea of asserting odds for a unique and unknown phenomena must be, and 2) You provide only assertions without providing any reason for anyone to think that you have any special insight into the matters, and 3) Using CAPS to post in a discussion forum is the equivalent of screaming in an argument and I have no interest in your emotional state.
Waa, waa, waa . . . try actually providing intellectual reasons to support your views over mine instead of whining about CAPS . . . which I use for emphasis . . . NOT emotional expression.
There may or may not be a building a mile away from you. There may or may not be a way to enter the building. There may or may not be a room in the building with a red door. There may or may not be a table inside that room. There may or may not be a box on that table. There may or may not be a picture of a cat inside that box.
Tell us, Mystic, what are the odds that the cat in that picture is wearing a black beret?
There may or may not be a building a mile away from you. There may or may not be a way to enter the building. There may or may not be a room in the building with a red door. There may or may not be a table inside that room. There may or may not be a box on that table. There may or may not be a picture of a cat inside that box.
Tell us, Mystic, what are the odds that the cat in that picture is wearing a black beret?
Miniscule to Zero. Cats hate hats or any other kind of apparel. Is there some point to your games? If you desire to use a comparative . . . you must establish that they ARE similar. You have not established that the information about God is as ambiguous as you set in your lame illustration. You just assume it. Remember, you are excluding all personal sources of information and then applying those general conditions to the ability of a specific person (who has personal knowledge) to make assessments.
Very well. You claim to have the power to set the odds when not only are not all the variables known, not even how many variables there might be are known.
However you are apparently unable to demonstrate this power even in a hypothetical situation far less complex.
Everyone on this board can now recognize that your claims are false.
Very well. You claim to have the power to set the odds when not only are not all the variables known, not even how many variables there might be are known. However you are apparently unable to demonstrate this power even in a hypothetical situation far less complex.
You are making the assumption about what is and is not known . . . but have presented no compelling reason to accept your assumptions about God (or any of your other illustrations). The knowledge about cats and hats establishes the unlikelihood in your silly example. My estimates are not mathematical or specific . . . they are ballpark . . . something we all do routinely in life about all manner of situations with minimal information. Your attempt to nitpick this process as if it were a mathematically precise probability exercise is laughable.
Quote:
Everyone on this board can now recognize that your claims are false.
Except you.
Again assertion without substance or supporting evidence. You are tenacious . . . but not remotely credible.
Remember, you are excluding all personal sources of information and then applying those general conditions to the ability of a specific person (who has personal knowledge) to make assessments.
He is excluding unverifiable, untestable personal anecdote, as well he should! You claim objective knowledge through a subjective evaluation of a subjective experience (You had a vision, and you have a feeling that the vision is true), which you cannot prescribe the steps to reproduce, nor can you measure test or observe it. It is quite literally no different than you making something up!
I enjoy working through the philosophy and logic of things with you, but with garbage like this you are showing yourself worse than the most dogmatic fundies, because at least they claim to have an objective source (the Bible). You have set yourself up like the next Jesus or Muhammed. There is no god but the universal consciousness and MysticPhD is its prophet. You have made your subjective experience the sole and final arbiter of truth. Once you start going down this path, you are doing nothing but proselytizing, proclaiming your personal gospel to the masses.
I enjoy discussing philosophy, consciousness, physics and all the other issues that your ideas bring up, but when you have to abandon rational discourse to preach, perhaps that is a sign that you should post that particular post in a different forum.
Until you or anyone else can show me anything as unique as thinking, caring and knowing in a supposedly dead and material universe . . . my opinion stands. Find me a Sun, planet or rock that possesses those things or the 95% of our reality that is dark energy and dark matter that does and you will make my point for me. This can be said about absolutely everything . . . since ALL our knowledge and experiences are ultimately subjective and limited . . . that is the point. We do not withhold judgment because of it and most of us do tend to credit those things we personally experience/witness over other sources. I repeat . . . I am witnessing to my understanding and explaining the reasons. YMMV. Actually, I think it will prove my ultimate conclusion that our reality is consciousness and that makes it God, IMO.Because our subjectivity can not be overridden . . . it is ALL opinion. Some things just have more consensus.
Development of the scientific method has made the possiblity of actually *proving* God exists utilizing the means provided to us within the physical world practically an impossibility (though definitely not an absolute; since God created the world, he can absolutely do within it whatever it is he wishes to). If I am remembering my anatomy and physiology correctly, the physical reason for which we have such advanced thinking and a conscience is due to the advanced development of the frontal cortex (if I'm recalling the correct name of that part of the brain); though I may be off on that--it's been so many years (the amygdala I believe also has something to do with emotions, which perhaps can also relate to the attachment we have to certain moral structures).
Science is concerned with objectivity. Things which can be proven in the context of repeatable experiments. It cares nothing at all for subjective facts. Believers can never make the unbelievers understand their point of view by means of reason--faith is just that: belief without any proof. It is also not something which can be freely done without that person receiving the gift of faith through God's Holy Spirit.
Some people's hearts are so hardened by the facts presented to the world through the sciences that they are not yet reached by God (sometimes I wonder how many of these far-reaching experiments they have actually physically done themselves, or just read of it; though, of course I do not intend to make any like-wise far-reaching statements of skepticism). But they very well might some day. If God can turn my heart, the ability to love and believe in him is not beyond the reach of anyone at all.
(I am responding more to several posts beyond the quote I chose, and hope I do not come across as argumentative or disrespectful to those whose beliefs are different from mine; it saddens me that it seems that some of them do not love him, but it is just the will of God that they do not do so at this time).
Just like to reassure you that I find your posts enjoyable and I for one, will be unlikely to take offence at what you say, even if you strongly disagree with what I say.
P.s "Development of the scientific method has made the possiblity of actually *proving* God exists utilizing the means provided to us within the physical world practically an impossibility".
Yes, that is the problem. According to science and logic what is unknown is evidence for nothing other than some things being unknown. If any of the 'unknowns' are understood, explained and proven, they become science. It is hard to know just what sort of validated evidence of 'God' or the 'supernatural' would not be science.
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.
Translation again...
, does not and indeed has not EVER worked for myself and many others, even as I categorially and thoroughly, for >> 10 years, evaluated Christendom and it's mythical cast of mythical cartoon characters, those who also refused to EVER show up, be held accountable for any good (or even bad...) deeds.
