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.
The pigheadedness abides in the refusal to acknowledge the Godliness of what is accepted as default AS IF it is NOT Godly. Natural is not an explanation . . . it is an appeal to God as the explanation since we do not have the foggiest idea what makes it "natural" or what it is.
Natural is not intended as an explanation, it is intended as a description. That description is both wider and narrower than the conventional definition of God.
The conventional definition of God is an entity, and that entity does NOT include rocks, fish, or any of the other things found in nature. Yours may, but you do not have the conventional definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That is absurd . . . a cricket does not account for the very existence of our reality that we explore with our science . . . God does whether or not you call God "Nature."
God is not nature, by definition, anymore than a cricket is.
There are certain criteria that must be met before you can call something a God, and neither a cricket nor nature meets that criteria.
The concept of nature is both over inclusive and underinclusive to be used as a substitute for the word God. It contains some things which are not part of God simply by definition, and it does not contain some things that are God simply by definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Nonsense. On what basis do you determine that a rock or fish is not part of the distinct being with a Will? They are merely vibratory energy events with spherical standing wave patterns (as are we) . . . that we identify as separate by their interference patterns with the vibratory energy of our sensory systems. The separateness is illusion. it is all the same vibratory energy.
Because the fish has it's independent will, and the rock has no will at all.
The Hawk strives to eat the rabbit, while the rabbit strives not to be eaten.
The soldier tries to kill the enemy, who tries not to be killed.
Two dogs fight over the right to breed the female.
Two distinct wills, in opposition, demonstrating why nature is not a single entity with a single will.
to worship nature, or our general reality, or the all-everything, or whatever, could be the biggest mistake and blunder made...as historically "god" has (and is) always been defined as an above-human, age-immortal, and worshiped, epitome. A god who's will doesn't atleast appear separate from our own, and doesn't disclude us from it's part, is most certainly an irrelevant one. and science has a pet-peive of irrelevant hypothesis.
Must you be so arrogant and offensive, MysticPhD? Not that I will lose any sleep over it. In fact, I rather enjoy seeing you blow your cool.
It's Faith. However he thinks he is pulling the wool over our eyes, he has had some kind of mystical experience which naturally linked up with all the God indoctrination and that is what he thinks it is. All his very complicated but speculative theory is based on the assumption that this god of his is a thinking mind which he foists on nature and is pleased to call 'god'.
I admit that his expertise in philosophy has allowed him to make the most of the unknowns such as cosmic origins, what consciousness actually is and a bit if ID thrown in, but he is incapable of seeing that he is basing it all on Faith.
He also thinks that we haven't seen him over on the Christianity boards preaching his own whacky brand of Christianity as though it was obvious.
to worship nature, or our general reality, or the all-everything, or whatever, could be the biggest mistake and blunder made...as historically "god" has (and is) always been defined as an above-human, age-immortal, and worshiped, epitome. A god who's will doesn't atleast appear separate from our own, and doesn't disclude us from it's part, is most certainly an irrelevant one. and science has a pet-peive of irrelevant hypothesis.
A good observation, but of course it could be quite right in which case it could be the biggest blunder not to do so.
The fact is that we don't know. Not me, not Plantinga, not Mystic, not Dawkins. All we know is something about how nature works and that attempts to try to foist a human god - myth onto it does not have any good evidential support.
The pigheadedness abides in the refusal to acknowledge the Godliness of what is accepted as default AS IF it is NOT Godly. Natural is not an explanation . . . it is an appeal to God as the explanation since we do not have the foggiest idea what makes it "natural" or what it is.
God is the perfect excuse for those who do not want to look for explanation but must assume God(s) to fit their whim. What exactly is it that requires presence of a God, that also can't be explained with the absence of such personified object?
You bastards are tiresome. Your obsession with Biblegod and the myriad other religious BS has NOTHING to do with the existence of God . . . but you are too obtuse, pigheaded, arrogant and ignorant to get it. Try piling on AFTER you get an education and actually know something useful . . . your ignorance exceeds my tolerance.
Our obsession? Our's? Hmmm.....
Oh my #1... Did we forget our Plaxil meds today? Now surely you're not suggesting that I, the grandiloquent and obfusive moi, go back for ANOTHER 20 yrs? Suffering under pig-headed university profs who have finally found their dark dank cave to peer out of until they expire, unnoticed? Been there, done that, pal. Just like, I'll assume, you!
That endless parade of panting, salivating co-ed "seekers" for your sacred knowledge"? It IS, I'll grant you, a powerful drug to wean yourself from....Too bad for you we here don't offer the same mewling reaction to your highness-ness here, huh? (Tho' some have been a bit too effusive in their giddy praise; a bit sickening, frankly.)
Nope: I think I got quite enough of that stultified and rarefied ego-stroking formal education environment to last me for the foreseeable future, Mystic. And not only could I not stand it, but the costs these days? Staggering.
And for what? Soz I could claim, with yet another post hole digger, to out-gun YOU? As I constantly quip, Mystic, and as it also applies to YOUR "Godity"; "It simply ain't necessary" Neither do I need to reload my gun.
While I purposefully ignored the higher-level philosophy classes ("Obviously!", mutters, Mystic...), I equally obviously took on few of the more detailed purely empirical and biologically theoretical investigations, including some of my own, into areas your college seems to have similarly ignored.
But... enough about me. And you. Back to the endless fray! It's too much fun to stop now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
God is the Source of all that is and has been created. God establishes the universal field that provides the "laws," constants, physical and chemical processes that govern our reality. God is the Source of Life and the provider of all that is necessary for it to flourish. God is the Source of consciousness and its capabilities. God is the Source of the DNA helix and the codes that define how life has and will evolve and develop. I guess none of that is sufficiently magical for your conventional God, Box? Until the multiverse is scientifically established . . . God IS a single sapient entity . . .
your belief that God is NOT sapient is just that a belief . . . not science.
Our consciousness cannot be accounted for in a reality that is not conscious . . . unless you have somehow surpassed the greatest minds who have tried to explain it. So all your preferred attributes are mere beliefs . . just as are the other religious beliefs about God that trouble you so.
"your belief that God is NOT sapient is just that a belief . . . not science."
Oh My #2: so very wrong, and sadly, you know it!
Again, when we test and re-test even the most basic of His achievements, darned if we don't find good, sound, probable and predictably repeatable alternatives. Ones that fit into an hypothesis that grows in it's overall complexity but also in it's stimulating efficiency and ability to predict.
When we've accumulated enough alternate optional endings, and some of them also neatly fit into a far more explicable and ordered universe (albeit carrying some gaping holes yet to be explained by our nonetheless slowly gathering intellect and fact-list.)
Oh my #3: your total presentation, above, is reminiscent of some of your Christian sub-commentaries, where your true colors do indeed show through. You DO fit in over there, to my initial astonishment. Just when I thought I'd found someone who pointed out the gaudy hubris and blindered mentality that typifies those Christian fundy guys and girls over there. Their quick and effortless abandonment of facts, their insistence on glamorizing the staid and obvious, and their insistence on giving all accolades to a very unnecessary entity? That's their loss, but for you? Sad.
You're right up there, stubborn-ness wise, with the late C34. You've just thought it through a bit longer, and you have, of course, denounced the absurdities of fundy literalism, but you've just moved on to a more etherial version where, it seems, you can scuttle about like a land crab amongst it's self-created crevasses, über-big words and a truly pedantic presentation, as if THAT will suffice.
T'ain't necessary for lfe, or us, to go on, Mystic. It's all a ruse to "guarantee" yourself some sort of level of internal and eternal peace. Ah yes, that ever-present dream of some eternal cosmos-wandering. I'll see yah out there mayhaps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The pigheadedness abides in the refusal to acknowledge the Godliness of what is accepted as default AS IF it is NOT Godly. Natural is not an explanation . . . it is an appeal to God as the explanation since we do not have the foggiest idea what makes it "natural" or what it is. That is absurd . . . a cricket does not account for the very existence of our reality that we explore with our science . . . God does whether or not you call God "Nature."
Nonsense. On what basis do you determine that a rock or fish is not part of the distinct being with a Will? They are merely vibratory energy events with spherical standing wave patterns (as are we) . . . that we identify as separate by their interference patterns with the vibratory energy of our sensory systems. The separateness is illusion. it is all the same vibratory energy.
Your sub-atomic and wave theory physics assumptions are SO obvious! That you alone know the internal secrets, the correct positions of those branes & membranes, and that perhaps you can even physically see the Higgs particles floating in front of your eyes! Impressive, but otherwise, it's just speculation in support of your necessary personal deen.
I'm reminded of this concept (below) by your various "insistencies":
"The Prophet Muhammad asserts this meaning;
“The intelligent person is the one who has authority over himself and works for the Hereafter"
This means that the intelligent believer is the one who has subjugated himself and made himself obedient to Allah."
Hmmm. Yeah; I can see that in you! Different God-moniker, but essentially the same guy, according to our intolerant friends. And with the same end-result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
It's Faith. However he thinks he is pulling the wool over our eyes, he has had some kind of mystical experience which naturally linked up with all the God indoctrination and that is what he thinks it is. All his very complicated but speculative theory is based on the assumption that this god of his is a thinking mind which he foists on nature and is pleased to call 'god'.
I admit that his expertise in philosophy has allowed him to make the most of the unknowns such as cosmic origins, what consciousness actually is and a bit if ID thrown in, but he is incapable of seeing that he is basing it all on Faith.
He also thinks that we haven't seen him over on the Christianity boards preaching his own whacky brand of Christianity as though it was obvious.
Agreed, ARE! One has but to read his thoughts when he's sitting amongst his spiritual cohort, like a group of 'yotes up on the hill, looking at their spiritual moon.
It seems a common outcome; to conflate some timely but intense spiritual event, esp. one that may be extremely unlikely, but also one that occurs when one's spirits are down, with some equally fortuitous alter-event. This is then proof.
√ The phone rang for Tom34 , and he instantly got the job he'd prayed for (even though he'd also prayed for that job for weeks without any Godly reaction).
√ A particularly nasty infection responds to a new antibiotic, and the wound heals. Praise God. (Ignoring the other guy sharing your hospital room, who expired last night despite the endless yowling entreaties to God by his family...)
√ One finds a meaningful philosophical paradigm that seems to provide previously elusive understandings; the lights go on, or at least, "up", a bit, and, by heck: that MUST be IT, eh? The Golden Light hath been lit off!
But, but, but.... oh well; hang them darned inconsistencies, or those new-fangled and completely viable alternate explanations. Or even worse, the lack of a complete and all-encompassing explanation*. So far .
(But then, I'm a patient man, even if I am ever-closer to the end of my life this morning, as we all are...)
Well, I've got some empirical work to do here. Oh and a glass of champs might go down well today! Thx, catman. You made my day!
_______________________________
*Bottom Line:re: a complete and all-encompassing explanation: Absent a comprehensive God theory and belief, the answers to all questions will be eternally elusive. There will always be troublesome unanswerables, unless we just throw our naturally inquisitive minds out the window, fall uselessly, to our knees (ouch!) and buy into the Grandé Latté of spirituality: Theism. Mono- or a far more entertaining poly- version.
GofurIt, friends. Whatever your soul needs.
Mystic, peace be with you! Apparently I'm surely doomed to die of pigheaded-ness!
You bastards are tiresome. Your obsession with Biblegod and the myriad other religious BS has NOTHING to do with the existence of God . . . but you are too obtuse, pigheaded, arrogant and ignorant to get it. Try piling on AFTER you get an education and actually know something useful . . . your ignorance exceeds my tolerance.
Obsession isn't a bad thing. Some people will obsessively defend Bible God (or a myriad of similar Gods) or Science, but it takes a special kind to be obsessed with such personal attacks. The kind that has absolutely no logical argument left and feels cornered. It doesn't take much to use the kind of words you do, the favor can be easily returned. But that is not why we're in a discussion forum. If you can't handle it, you might as well avoid situations that make it uncomfortable.
Having said that, I don't think anybody would disagree that Science has its limitations, that being the knowledge base. And nobody should disagree that Science grows by the day, as we acquire greater knowledge and answer to questions... as "Why", "When", "How"... are fundamental to Science. How about any religion... does it have limitations, or is there at least one immune from it?
Perhaps we're not connecting. I understand you to be asserting that all secularists decide, think, act in precisely the same fashion. If that's the case, isn't it obvious as to why I would disagree?
I think we probably agree more than disagree on this point. We've been discussing 'labels' (secularists, atheists, theists). And, that's the problem with labels; to discuss the standpoint of each, requires that you use absolutes that don't actually conform to the all variations among those who identify themselves with the labels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
That would depend upon what each one (secularist) determines the evidence to be pointing towards wouldn't it? I'm referring to a person of the secularist mindset who is honestly searching for answers to life's ultimate questions without a preconceived bias, or, at least a limited amount of bias. Possessing the willingness to accept evidence that may cut against their secular (non-God) leanings.
I agree, but it should apply to everyone, from all labels. However, I contend that the bias will generally run the opposite way. I think, in general, people receive a theistic bias from childhood. Even those who come from non-religious households are likely to develop a theist bias based solely on societal mores and traditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...and why would I need a foxhole? Are you gunning for me?
No, just a little playful antagonism on my part, nothing offensive intended by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I anticipated that this might probably strike a cord with you. It must seem totally unbelievable that someone would make an honest search for answers to life's ultimate questions and eventually arrive at Christianity. However, I do try to keep an open mind. If convincing reason actually exists for chucking Christianity I won't hesitate to do it.
What about you? Are you prepared for the possibility of conversion?
Absolutely. However, I came from a bias toward theism and my search has never led me closer to a god as defined by any religion. My search has always uncovered a path that leads away from all available religious definitions of God. But, I remain open to all possibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
"Substantiated speculation is extremely important and not at all subjective."
Is that your assertion?
No. I'll try to clarify; if speculation is substantiated, it is done so through objectivity. Can you have a subjective experience regarding a speculation (i.e. a personal experience you believe confirms your concept of God)? Yes. Can you substantiate that speculation based solely on your own subjective experience? I contend, no you can't.
This continues to hit on what I feel is a root problem; differing standards for substantiation of god speculations. The theist has a subjective experience that's "real for them".
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
It seems to me that if part of the reason for using the scientific method is to correct previous SM acquired knowledge, then logically, it's possible to have SM acquired knowledge that is incorrect. Validated knowledge that is later found to be incorrect. By extension, the possibility of substantiated knowledge that may later be demonstrated as unsubstantiated. By further extension, evidence that may later be demonstrated as false evidence.
It seems to me that there may also be certain instances where epistemological considerations would apply. I can't think of any examples right off hand, but I do see this as a possibility.
Sure, we could find flaws with anything that we discuss, especially if our only point is to find fault with speaking in absolutes. But, compare the track record of objective analysis through the SM against anything and let me know what you think comes close.
Truth be known, what you've described is still one of the strongest arguments for the SM. If the SM uncovers acquired knowledge that is incorrect, it will 'debunk' it and proceed to correct it with the best possible information using the best available methods. Religious doctrine and/or speculation won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Would the examples presented by Dr. Craig suffice?
I have to call this one as it is. Considering that the topic of this thread is "Science has it's limitations"... and since I said, "I am, however, open to your expanded thoughts on the kind of evidence that is off limits to the method"... I have to say that a single general reference to Dr. Craig's extensive list of objections is a bit of a cop-out from someone who otherwise seems to be fairly reasonable and open-minded. I'm not feigning interest in your thoughts on this specific point. I'd really like to know.
I'll ask like this; What do you think is Dr. Craig's most compelling argument? Is there a single argument that you feel substantiates your speculation in a god, or are there multiple? Specifically, which ones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You've acknowledged that secularism qualifies as a belief structure. By extension, wouldn't atheism also qualify as a belief structure?
Again, there's a caveat with 'labels'. Yes, in general, I agree it can, depending on whether the label is chosen to reflect beliefs or strictly a lack of belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Nice try. The "everyone" in my assertion would also apply to atheists. ...or perhaps you would consider atheism to be a religion?
Actually, if it's a flavor of atheism that incorporates doctrine similar to religion, then it's the functional equivalent as far as I'm concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Sounds good. Please begin a new thread or resurrect an old one and I'll meet you there.
Ok, but this thread already seems to be the appropriate place for it as I commented above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Thanks...much appreciated.
I think we probably share more in common than is apparent in this discussion. Our single largest difference is likely to be our position on currently available evidence and it's implications on speculations regarding any specific definition of God.
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.
You jest, surely? Take a pill, man!
. 
just a little playful antagonism on my part, nothing offensive intended by it. 
