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.
OK . . . why is attribution to the Universe different from attribution to God? They are exactly the same existentially . . . but you have a problem with the one and not the other. Why is one more legitimate in your eyes than the other?
For the same reason I would likely pull you up if you called my kettle an airplane.
You could easily say "Well look you know I am talking about that thing - so whats the problem - I am just using a word arent I - whats it to you which one I use".
But the kettle already has a word for it. Kettle. The universe already has a word for it. Universe. So why use different ones?
And "airplane" means something else to many people so calling something that is not an airplane by that label will only confuse and bamboozle. So does god have a meaning to many people. You simply call the universe "god" so you can slip in those extra things that people already associate with that word. You choose god rather than universe or kettle or spoon or "all of everything" for the very obvious reason that the metaphysical etymology of the word serves your ends.
Why is pretty clear. It allows you to sneak in all kinds of other things after using the word. You do not just call everything god - you then assume based on nothing but a feeling you had while sitting around one day - that god is concious - Jesus was something more than human - that human conciousness survives the death of the brain - and more.
So while you can call anything by whatever label you want - that is your right - let us not pretend you are not doing so deliberatley to mislead - bamboozle - and slip in after the fact nonsense such as intelligent entities - souls - and after lives. Ideas you then back up with little but informing people how ignorant and biased and incapable you personally find them - and how you seem to see persecution, conspiracies and "campaigns" against you by such people and their "cohorts".
And all for what? A feeling you had one day while sitting around which you then - by your own admission - spend decades in a confirmation bias campaign with yourself trying to validate and verify.
For the same reason I would likely pull you up if you called my kettle an airplane.
You could easily say "Well look you know I am talking about that thing - so whats the problem - I am just using a word arent I - whats it to you which one I use".
But the kettle already has a word for it. Kettle. The universe already has a word for it. Universe. So why use different ones?
Because it disingenuously negates the actual power, scope and import of the very existence of our reality. To suggest that the Source of everything is not God by calling it a mere universe is to call the airplane a kettle.
Quote:
And "airplane" means something else to many people so calling something that is not an airplane by that label will only confuse and bamboozle. So does god have a meaning to many people. You simply call the universe "god" so you can slip in those extra things that people already associate with that word. You choose god rather than universe or kettle or spoon or "all of everything" for the very obvious reason that the metaphysical etymology of the word serves your ends.
I understand your concerns about the BELIEFS about God . . . but they are and remain beliefs . . . not existential reality . . . unlike God/universe.
Quote:
Why is pretty clear. It allows you to sneak in all kinds of other things after using the word. You do not just call everything god - you then assume based on nothing but a feeling you had while sitting around one day - that god is conscious - Jesus was something more than human - that human consciousness survives the death of the brain - and more.
Yes it is clear why you rail against the existence of God . . . but you cannot discredit existence on the basis of BELIEFS about it. They vary immensely across people. That you do not credit the philosophical reasons for consciousness as a prime characteristic of existence can justify your personal rejection of the beliefs about it. But you cannot say my assertions are baseless. They have a strong philosophical basis and are consistent with the extant science. That may not be incontrovertible evidence . . . but it is hardly baseless.
Quote:
So while you can call anything by whatever label you want - that is your right - let us not pretend you are not doing so deliberately to mislead - bamboozle - and slip in after the fact nonsense such as intelligent entities - souls - and after lives.
Let's agree, shall we . . . that I will stop asserting an adversarial campaign if you will stop asserting a desire to bamboozle. I am simply explaining and supporting my views, period.
Because it disingenuously negates the actual power, scope and import of the very existence of our reality.
No it does not. It simply does not accept the powers, scopes and imports you simply made up.
That is all just Circular Argument from you.
The "powers and scopes and imports" are the very things I just pointed out you are wheeling in the back door by using your word salad trick. You then act like to do otherwise would be to negate the existence of those things you just wheeled in and assumed and so it is actually the people who do _not_ do the same as you who are engaged in falsification and denial.
A more circular argument I have never witnessed in fact.
Really it boils down to little more than doing the old "shifting the onus of proof to proving a negative" by use of linguistic tricks. You simply claim that every thing is god and that after lives exist and that everyone else who does not do so has to evidence that denial of your mystical and magical "source of everything" and your idea there is an after life and that conciousness survives death of the brain. In reality you have no evidence for a god of any intelligent, designing, intellectual, soul creating sort - so you just call everything "god" and act like that is enough.
The "powers and scopes and imports" are the very things I just pointed out you are wheeling in the back door by using your word salad trick. You then act like to do otherwise would be to negate the existence of those things you just wheeled in and assumed and so it is actually the people who do _not_ do the same as you who are engaged in falsification and denial.
A more circular argument I have never witnessed in fact.
Really it boils down to little more than doing the old "shifting the onus of proof to proving a negative" by use of linguistic tricks. You simply claim that every thing is god and that after lives exist and that everyone else who does not do so has to evidence that denial of your mystical and magical "source of everything" and your idea there is an after life and that conciousness survives death of the brain.
I will take that as a "No . . . we will not agree" and you will continue your adversarial campaign against my BELIEFS by denying the existential reality of God by calling it a universe. I however, will continue to just witness to my views and the reasons for them without desire to bamboozle or deceive anyone.
I will take that as a "No . . . we will not agree" and you will continue your adversarial campaign against my BELIEFS by denying the existential reality of God by calling it a universe.
And I will take that as a "No... I have no evidence there is a god at all so I will just keep calling things god instead... and if anyone disagrees I will accuse them of being part of this dark invisible personal conspiracy and campaign against me".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I however, will continue to just witness to my views and the reasons for them without desire to bamboozle or deceive anyone.
And I however, will continue to point out that when you claim there are things like a god - an after life - or that conciousness survives the death of the brain that you are doing so based on literally no evidence except a feeling you had one day which you then admit to spending decades engaged in a confirmation bias campaign in an attempt to validate.
I think most people realize science is seriously investigating such matters -- the hadron collider, for example. However, the idea that we can accurately determine the universe's beginning from ~14 billion years ago with a high degree of certainty still stretches credulity.
The quarks are a favorite of those who support the idea of spontaneous generation. But having a whole giant universe pop into permanent existence is a WHOLE LOT different than these tiny particles that come and go in well under a split second.
Jumping from split second quark appearance to a billion year old universe is a leap of faith, certainly, yes?
I suspect the "learning process" will persist for quite some time.
Still, going back to one of your questions in another thread - "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Where philosophy has failed us, science appears to give an answer: because there always has to be something.
The very nature of existence is that there cannot be nothing. Humanity's previous concepts of emptiness, void or nothingness do not agree with the facts.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 04-26-2012 at 10:20 AM..
And I will take that as a "No... I have no evidence there is a god at all so I will just keep calling things god instead... and if anyone disagrees I will accuse them of being part of this dark invisible personal conspiracy and campaign against me".
And I however, will continue to point out that when you claim there are things like a god - an after life - or that conciousness survives the death of the brain that you are doing so based on literally no evidence except a feeling you had one day which you then admit to spending decades engaged in a confirmation bias campaign in an attempt to validate.
The original experience was admittedly unparalleled . . . but it is not the basis for my BELIEFS. I have over 40+ years of continued experiences in deep meditation and extensive study that confirm (TO ME) the validity of the existence of God.(Note the "TO ME" . . . to allay any bamboozlement concerns). The philosophical and empirical bases of the HYPOTHESES that constitute my explanations (TO ME) of how it is possible for this to be . . . are sound (if controversial). It grieves me that you and others insist on characterizing them as entirely and completely baseless and unsupported. And as much as it grieves you for me to note that your assertions seem to be the result of deficiencies in your existing knowledge base . . . it is hard to ignore the evidence of it.
Still, going back to one of your questions in another thread - "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Where philosophy has failed us, science appears to gives an answer: because there always has to be something.
The very nature of existence is that there cannot be nothing. Humanity's previous concepts of emptiness, void or nothingness do not agree with the facts.
Note I enjoy our dialogue because you respond in a reasonable and pleasant manner. Others here of a "less agreeable nature", I will continue to ignore henceforth.
Back the subject:
Why does there HAVE to be something? Who or what decreed that?
Will the Universe last forever? Will there always be stars? Or will they burn out one day?
The idea that there has to be something is interesting. But again, who issued that mandate? If there are immutable laws, seems to me someone or something had to create those. Otherwise they wouldnt exist.
The very nature of existence is that there cannot be nothing. Humanity's previous concepts of emptiness, void or nothingness do not agree with the facts.
It focuses on science and God. Authored by a theist, (just in unliky case you are not famiiar with it)
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.
