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.
Don't you see I am not disagreeing with that . . . just talking about the practical reality that enables the asshats to misconstrue as science what is NOT science by attributing everything to nature and natural and demanding evidence when there already exists sufficient evidence of EXISTENCE . . . if not anything else. My view has a superior position scientifically with a plausible theoretical Source . . . yours does not. NEITHER should be used . . . but since they will be . . . the default cannot be "Nature" is true prove God exists. At the very least . . . it can only be prove the BELIEFS ABOUT God that you hold are true . . . NOT the EXISTENCE issue.
Don't you see I am not disagreeing with that . . .
I see you tell me that you don't disagree.. Then I see you tell us that "God" should be the default word for everyone to use.
Quote:
just talking about the practical reality that enables the asshats to misconstrue as science what is NOT science by attributing everything to nature and natural and demanding evidence when there already exists sufficient evidence of EXISTENCE . . . if not anything else.
Then you don't understand the way those "asshats" are using the words. They are clearly talking about proof of the existence of a "God consciousness", not proof of the universe's existence.
Quote:
My view has a superior position scientifically with a plausible theoretical Source
SPECULATION. Speculative opinion is not scientific. Sorry.
Quote:
. . . yours does not.
Does not have speculation? That seems like a good thing to me.
Quote:
NEITHER should be used . . . but since they will be . . . the default cannot be "Nature" is true prove God exists. At the very least . . . it can only be prove the BELIEFS ABOUT God that you hold are true . . . NOT the EXISTENCE issue.
'Neither should be used, but since they will be, you must adopt my speculative opinion - you are not allowed to have your own.'
Yes, if they used the ad populum the way you are using it here, to prove to us that we should follow the crowd like sheep and believe in a "God consciousness".
Then you would be WROOOOOONG. I suggest "Remedial Reading".
I didn't say, "Follow the crowd"...I said, "Here is the factual reality as to what the crowd follows, take it for whatever you think it's worth".
YOU are drawing your own inference to assign beliefs (It's your MO...you do it to Mystic all the time) to me...that you only assume I hold.
On that note--In case you didn't notice, the "God Consciousness Crowd" aren't sheep...they're "The Mighty Shepard"....they RULE! Doesn't matter whether you like it, or don't...or whether I like it, or don't--THAT'S THE FACT, JACK!! You need to get hip to that.
Then you would be WROOOOOONG. I suggest "Remedial Reading".
I didn't say, "Follow the crowd"...I said, "Here is the factual reality as to what the crowd follows, take it for whatever you think it's worth".
YOU are drawing your own inference to assign beliefs (It's your MO...you do it to Mystic all the time) to me...that you only assume I hold.
So, you do see that this has absolutely nothing to do with whether a "God consciousness" actually exists?
Coulda fooled me with this quote you made earlier: "The Champion (God Exists Platform) needs to prove NOTHING..."
Meaning you accept it as fact by default - that just because it's "the champion" (ad populum) it is valid proof in itself.
Quote:
On that note--In case you didn't notice, the "God Consciousness Crowd" aren't sheep...they're "The Mighty Shepard"....they RULE! Doesn't matter whether you like it, or don't...or whether I like it, or don't--THAT'S THE FACT, JACK!! You need to get hip to that.
I'm well aware, or "hip to", the fact that there are a lot of people who believe in a "God consciousness". That's not the point here - the point is whether that "God consciousness" actually exists, and ad populum has no bearing on that.
So, you do see that this has absolutely nothing to do with whether a "God consciousness" actually exists?
Coulda fooled me with this quote you made earlier: "The Champion (God Exists Platform) needs to prove NOTHING..."
Meaning you accept it as fact by default - that just because it's "the champion" (ad populum) it is valid proof in itself.
I'm well aware, or "hip to", the fact that there are a lot of people who believe in a "God consciousness". That's not the point here - the point is whether that "God consciousness" actually exists, and ad populum has no bearing on that.
The issue of "The Champion (God Exists Platform) needs to prove NOTHING..."...had to do with what side the "burden of proof" is on, after the incessant demand for "proof" from the "No God" side. Reread my post...I said, "absent proof from either side, other factors had to necessarily be taken into consideration".
AGAIN...I never said ad populum was "formal proof"...I said it determined what/who ruled in this world. That IS the reality! I know you don't like that in this context...because your position is the small minority and has been dominated by the majority for thousands of years. I don't like when I'm in the minority on an issue...and subjugated by the majority...who does? Hey...I didn't vote for Obama...but I have to ENDURE him as the incompetent leader of my country of residence...because the MAJORITY thought otherwise.
What is your problem admitting that logic and reason are inconsequential to majority rule? You can HOPE logic and reason prevail...but the majority will prevail, regardless. That you don't like that fact, doesn't change it. You need to get hip to that.
I'm well aware, or "hip to", the fact that there are a lot of people who believe in a "God consciousness". That's not the point here - the point is whether that "God consciousness" actually exists, and ad populum has no bearing on that.
I guess Goldn is trying to tell us that we should go along with the fact that there is a god because the supposed majority states that it is so (even though she gave an example how the majority is 'wrong' on the issue of abortion)
OOOOOOOK.
and because Mystic has a name/explanation(god) for the unknown and we don't (admitting we don't know) his is the superior position.
I hate to say it but somehow his position sounds an awful lot like what has been said by theists forever.
The more he posts the more this sounds like the same old same old.
It reminds me of Ryrge being enamored of the combination of words for his concept of god....
the necessary maker of everything with a beginning
...and thinking it means anything more than what has always been said....'god created everything'
I see you tell me that you don't disagree.. Then I see you tell us that "God" should be the default word for everyone to use.
OR SPECIFY WHY YOUR SPECULATIVE OPINION should be the default word for everyone to use.!!!
Quote:
Then you don't understand the way those "asshats" are using the words. They are clearly talking about proof of the existence of a "God consciousness", not proof of the universe's existence.
That it is MERELY a MINDLESS UNIVERSE IS SPECULATIVE OPINION!
Quote:
SPECULATION. Speculative opinion is not scientific.
We agree . . . but you want to except YOUR speculative opinion and consider it the default.Sorry . . it is pure speculation.
Quote:
Does not have speculation? That seems like a good thing to me.
Show me the support for your mindlessness, non-existent Source of the universal field and it will be more scientific. Otherwise it is pure speculation . . . and NO evidentiary possiblity of an explanation.
Quote:
'Neither should be used, but since they will be, you must adopt my speculative opinion - you are not allowed to have your own.'
Because mine has a prayer of being found correct as phsyicists are focused on universal field theories. Who is working on your non-existent theory?
and because Mystic has a name/explanation(god) for the unknown and we don't (admitting we don't know) his is the superior position.
I hate to say it but somehow his position sounds an awful lot like what has been said by theists forever.
The more you post the lower my opinion of your perspicacity goes. Mine is superior ONLY because there is a scientifically PLAUSIBLE and perhaps eventually testable hypothesis for the unknown. That's all we ever have for the unknown . . . but you don't have a clue. Consciousnesses exist in a field . . . therefore the existence of a ubiquitous consciousness field is NOT unsupported speculation based on nothing. It is based on an existing phenomenon and exceeds your "we don't know what it is or what it could possibly be" non-hypothesis or theory. Very disappointing.
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.
