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 substituted "control" for "existence" . . . not me. It is our existence itself that creates and mandates the individual cellular lives and deaths. Existence itself contains mandates embedded within it that result in my conclusions . . . not mere language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
I think you have that backwards... Our existence cannot and does not create our cells, our cells create and define "us" as entities. I am the collection of my cells, so it is with reality, it is the collection of everything that exists. To say that my existence creates my cells implies a separation between the existence of "Me" and the existence of what constitutes me, and implies the the existence of "Me" is at least causally if not temporally prior to that which constitutes me. Not incidentally, these are both the very things you are trying to prove.
I would argue that we, in some small measure, contribute to the creation of reality, and not the other way around.
-NoCapo
I have this nagging suspicion that we are saying the same things but talking past each other. You want to infer agency and I don't. Existence is existence and it comes with requirements that do not mandate some external agency to impose them. Those requirements define the parameters of our reality. The requirements of my existence define the cellular parameters for the individual cellular lives that comprise me. It is the phenomenon of existence itself that imposes the mandates . . . not some external agency. That in no way makes the mandates less powerful, controlling or Godly to us.
How did this thread become all about Mystic's beliefs ?
Is there something in there about him deconverting from Christianity while married?
Has he even directed any replies to the op ?
How did this thread become all about Mystic's beliefs ?
Is there something in there about him deconverting from Christianity while married?
Has he even directed any replies to the op ?
I understand the desire to remain on topic but the OP has participated in this evolution of the discussion as well. Sometimes I wish they would just let conversations range as they will -- it's what they do in the real world. On another site I used to frequent, moderators would split a thread and move "off topic" messages to a new thread with a new name, in preference to closing it out. I'd love to see more of that here. It respects the fact that some of us just read the most recently posted to threads and respond to the most recent posts, not always even realizing it's off-topic. People don't mean to be disorganized; they just ARE.
That said, this particular rabbit trail should probably be taken elsewhere before it DOES get the original thread closed. It's labor-intensive to split threads and it's understandable if the mods don't want to undertake that or even learn how to go about it. The good news is that we have the ability to start a new thread at any time and we should do that when a conversation branches.
I usually don't mind digression and the only reason I even brought it up now, is because there are already two other threads concurrently running about Mystic's ideas and even those are questionable as far as whether or not they're suitable for this forum.
Only the op can answer as to how he feels about the diversion from the help he was seeking.
How did this thread become all about Mystic's beliefs ?
Is there something in there about him deconverting from Christianity while married?
Has he even directed any replies to the op ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I understand the desire to remain on topic but the OP has participated in this evolution of the discussion as well. Sometimes I wish they would just let conversations range as they will -- it's what they do in the real world. On another site I used to frequent, moderators would split a thread and move "off topic" messages to a new thread with a new name, in preference to closing it out. I'd love to see more of that here. It respects the fact that some of us just read the most recently posted to threads and respond to the most recent posts, not always even realizing it's off-topic. People don't mean to be disorganized; they just ARE.
That said, this particular rabbit trail should probably be taken elsewhere before it DOES get the original thread closed. It's labor-intensive to split threads and it's understandable if the mods don't want to undertake that or even learn how to go about it. The good news is that we have the ability to start a new thread at any time and we should do that when a conversation branches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
I usually don't mind digression and the only reason I even brought it up now, is because there are already two other threads concurrently running about Mystic's ideas and even those are questionable as far as whether or not they're suitable for this forum.
Only the op can answer as to how he feels about the diversion from the help he was seeking.
I'm not happy about the diversion of the original topic. I try not to complain too much because conversations usually tend to choose their own path, but admittedly I saw nothing of immediate relevance to our situation in that little side discussion.
So let's stick to the topic at hand, and if Mystic, NoCapo and others want to relate what they're saying to my original issue of how this could impact my marriage in the later rounds, that's perfectly fine.
I'm not happy about the diversion of the original topic. I try not to complain too much because conversations usually tend to choose their own path, but admittedly I saw nothing of immediate relevance to our situation in that little side discussion.
So let's stick to the topic at hand, and if Mystic, NoCapo and others want to relate what they're saying to my original issue of how this could impact my marriage in the later rounds, that's perfectly fine.
No, that's quite all right, it is indeed a rabbit trail, and is pretty well worn at this point.
Why so hard up on your spouse's religion? I mean if she were fanatical about it that's a different story. When does it come into play anyway? When you debate her about it, that's when.
I grew up Christian but later converted to Buddhism. Now, I gave up all Buddhism, all religions and all beliefs. I just do what the moment calls for according to my instincts at that moment. It works. My wife, for instance, is not Christian but she goes to Catholic church on Sundays just so she can meet friends and network. From the people that she has befriended I would say church is the best place to meet humble, honest and beautiful people. And like I said, my wife (or me) do not believe in Jesus, God, Buddha or whatnot. We just go with the flow.
My wife, for instance, is not Christian but she goes to Catholic church on Sundays just so she can meet friends and network. From the people that she has befriended I would say church is the best place to meet humble, honest and beautiful people. And like I said, my wife (or me) do not believe in Jesus, God, Buddha or whatnot. We just go with the flow.
Yep. It hasn't happened yet but my wife has been talking about going to a liberal church nearby for social purposes and I'll play along if she actually follows through. I don't have something to prove by not going. I'll be no less an atheist. Even a fundamentalist will remind you that you're not a car just because you're standing in a garage. They mean that analogy to disabuse people of the notion they are Christians because they go to church. Well it cuts both ways. I'm not an atheist because I don't go to church, either.
I personally declare that, at least, there WAS a god... because scientifically, mathematically and logically it makes no sense that anything could have come from nothing randomly
Actually there are quite a few arguments showing how something can come from nothing. I recommend you listen to "A universe from nothing" by Krauss on You Tube to explore this.
And another way of looking at it would be to question why you think something came from nothing at all. Why assume "nothing" to be the default here? Why could there not simply always have been something? Then your addition of a "god" to the equation is not required.
The appeal to common sense really makes little head way in showing that any kind of god ever existed - or does now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
It just doesn't make sense from so many angles, and I think I'm qualified to say that because I have a college degree in physics and mathematics.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy for a reason - but appeal to ones own authority tends to take that to a whole other level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The power, control and creative status of reality relative to us is of itself more than sufficient to declare it God
That is nothing more than linguistic trickery that says nothing. You do nothing here but use your own awe at the universe around us - and linguistically relabel that awe "god".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Too simple for you, Mo???
It is not simple. It is simplistic. You are merely defining a god into existence linguistically by simply editing the meaning of "god" from what most people mean by it - to being nothing more than aspects of the universe that personally make you feel small and insignificant. You are simply taking somethings we have a words for already - the universe and existence - and giving it a new label. "god".
And even this "greater than us" nonsense is a trick too - and entirely subjective. It all depends on your notion of "greater". Shirina and a Tsunami would be - in my own definition - much "greater" than you because of how I define "greater". Is Shirina god? You are getting into Robert Heinlein "Thou Art God" territory there now.
But another interpretation of "greater" would be to suggest our consciousness makes us the "greatest" thing in the universe and so we are greater than everything around us. So that would make us "god". It all depends on what you mean by "greater" so not only is your "god" a mere misuse of words - it is built on a subjective foundation of your personal use of "greater" too.
That is all your god is - a mis use of words - coupled with a fetish for anthropomorphism - or is that too simple for you Msy?
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.
