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.
Selfishly, I'm glad you weren't worried about saving yourself the trouble, Mystic.
Ah Pleroo . . . you and so many others who follow my posts are among the reasons I am glad I listened to GldnRule and put my Synthesis out here. I was content in my own right and certain about its validity . . . but it is an especially good feeling when it touches others positively. The love and joy I experienced was so awesome and life-changing, it has to be shared . . . even if it is only secondhand. There is no other reason for our existence than Love of God and each other, period. It is so simple.
Let me apologize for any offense you have taken to my descriptions of why we have difficulty communicating. My "professoritis" (life-long habit) is the reason I directly attribute the lack of understanding to you and the others. I know you understand the concepts . . . but the issue resides in the philosophical reasons why the assumption of naturalistic materialism is flawed.
As I said, I wasn't offended at all, though offence might have been justified, because the accusation was so blindingly unfair. And it wasn't about the validity of the materialistic default, but about accusing me of not understanding what a premise was.
Quote:
It is there that we disagree because such inscrutable premises can ONLY be justified philosophically . . . and yours fails miserably on the existence of consciousness. It also only seems to have some possibility of traction with abiogenesis because of the impoverished chemical definition of life being used . . . that ignores any explanation for the survival/competition/cooperation motives which philosophically border on intent. The central issue is consciousness and you can say we don't know for sure . . . but then you can NOT say the default is no consciousness. That denies what we know exists using our own meager consciousness as evidence. Ergo . . . if reality itself must be conscious . . . how is that NOT a God? As I pointed out earlier, philosophy is the ONLY way to substantiate otherwise inscrutable premises . . . and philosophy is where your naturalism fails to pass muster.
And here again, you seem to have trouble in getting your head around our position. We do NOT say that the 'default' is no consciousness, by which I suppose you mean that we deny that nature can have consciousness (by which you apparently mean the undoubted animal consciousness being part and parcel of the Cosmic aka 'God' -mind operating through Dark matter aka the universal field) and must be materialistic only.
Given that the definition of materialistic naturalism looks alarmingly like just such a denial, I think it sets out the default as the present view of 'nature' based on our present evidence and in fact we (or I) do not deny consciousness -indeed I said once (though I can't blame you if you forgot) that consciousness is essentially based on the physical properties of matter and that is of course the entire universe. That is why the question was whether the universe was 'intelligent' beyond just the laws of nature and the forces of evolution; which is why I require evidence of forward planning before i will entertain the 'God' label.
And that is what we or I deny - not that it cannot be true but that there is no good evidence for it and no good reason to believe it. Which is all that the materialistic/naturalistic position is saying and all that atheism says, too.
As you say (I am surprised that I need to point it out) "if reality itself must be conscious . . . how is that NOT a God?" If reality is conscious (and I reiterate that it must be a plan -ahead consciousness or it ain't 'God') then, yes, you are right, but is it? That has been the problem all along, mate, that you say 'If' and can't apparently understand that the 'evidence' you present to turn possibility into even probability is nothing like good enough.
First cause argument isn't good enough
the Hard question isn't good enough
Mythology as a fossil spiritual record isn't good enough
Experiences through meditation are not good enough
And what's in the Bible sure as hell isn't anything like good enough.
I know and can see that you are trying very hard to marshal all your philosophy to make 'God' a theoretical probability, but that is never going to work without testable, checkable scientific evidence - and your use of science is in a speculative hypothetical construct which is, as I said, ingenious and not implausible, but there is no good evidence for it.
It is 'If' all the time. And it doesn't help your case when you treat any science that doesn't suit your theory like it was something the cat dragged in, nor when you get your logic back to front and then pretend its the other fellow who has it wrong.
Not the least bit offended, as I say I don't do Miff in fact I'm enjoying it. It is just the ongoing hope that you will come to see that what you have is religious Faith and the remarkable hypothesis you have constructed as a mechanism is no more than that.
And if he hadn't begun by peddling his beliefs, hypotheses and opinions which he expected us to take as fact because he said so in post after post and, since all objections were met with references to us not understanding him correctly, someone got his to explain just what hi hypothesis was. Which he did.
You levy legitimate criticism of my early efforts, Arequipa and I apologize. My personal certainty should not have governed my responses because SOME aspects of my views are just hypotheses . . . but NOT without philosophical and scientific support and grounding. It is their grounding in solid science and plausible relationships that drove my frustration at the thoughtless and literally mindless associations with Santa Claus, Fairies, Unicorns, and the like. The No God default is particularly aggravating because it is the opposite of supported by what we KNOW about reality and the implications that the existence of life and our consciousness raise.
Quote:
It did indeed clarify a lot, but makes no difference to the fact that Mystic is persistently telling us that we are wrong because we don't see this or that point, all of which is based on his God -belief of which the Synthesis tries to make scientific feasibility.
I understand why you see it that way, Arequipa . . . but I seem unable to breach the gap in our understanding of science, philosophy and reality to change it.
. It is their grounding in solid science and plausible relationships that drove my frustration at the thoughtless and literally mindless associations with Santa Claus, Fairies, Unicorns, and the like. The No God default is particularly aggravating because it is the opposite of supported by what we KNOW about reality and the implications that the existence of life and our consciousness raise.
The only difference between the arguments for existence of the above and those for your brand of god is that your arguments are more prolix. Why should your brand enjoy any more of a default state than the Unicorn? The reality for all is exactly the same. The fact that you may embrace the objects of your meditations more than you embrace Unicorns has no impact on the level of existence of either.
It is their grounding in solid science and plausible relationships that drove my frustration at the thoughtless and literally mindless associations with Santa Claus, Fairies, Unicorns, and the like.
How's the work coming on finding peer-reviewed scientific references which back up your claims that the universe is determined to be god by the attributes it has?
The only difference between the arguments for existence of the above and those for your brand of god is that your arguments are more prolix. Why should your brand enjoy any more of a default state than the Unicorn? The reality for all is exactly the same. The fact that you may embrace the objects of your meditations more than you embrace Unicorns has no impact on the level of existence of either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
How's the work coming on finding peer-reviewed scientific references which back up your claims that the universe is determined to be god by the attributes it has?
It is clear from the above that there are other motives behind the insistence on Unicorn BS and a refusal to separate my ultimate conclusions from the solid science beneath them. KC you want my ultimate conclusions to be found in peer reviewed science. It isn't happening anytime soon. That has NOTHING to do with the solid peer reviewed science upon which my hypotheses are based. Cosmic you have not progressed beyond the shallow and insipid denial and refusal to sincerely consider the science and the basis for my views . . preferring instead to retain the asinine and bogus comparisons to Santa,, et al. That shows a shallowness of intellectual inquiry that bears little promise for achieving any understanding. Anyone who still maintains that God is on equal footing with Unicorns simply hasn't a clue.
As I said, I wasn't offended at all, though offence might have been justified, because the accusation was so blindingly unfair. And it wasn't about the validity of the materialistic default, but about accusing me of not understanding what a premise was.
And here again, you seem to have trouble in getting your head around our position. We do NOT say that the 'default' is no consciousness, by which I suppose you mean that we deny that nature can have consciousness (by which you apparently mean the undoubted animal consciousness being part and parcel of the Cosmic aka 'God' -mind operating through Dark matter aka the universal field) and must be materialistic only.
Given that the definition of materialistic naturalism looks alarmingly like just such a denial, I think it sets out the default as the present view of 'nature' based on our present evidence and in fact we (or I) do not deny consciousness -indeed I said once (though I can't blame you if you forgot) that consciousness is essentially based on the physical properties of matter and that is of course the entire universe. That is why the question was whether the universe was 'intelligent' beyond just the laws of nature and the forces of evolution; which is why I require evidence of forward planning before i will entertain the 'God' label.
And that is what we or I deny - not that it cannot be true but that there is no good evidence for it and no good reason to believe it. Which is all that the materialistic/naturalistic position is saying and all that atheism says, too.
As you say (I am surprised that I need to point it out) "if reality itself must be conscious . . . how is that NOT a God?" If reality is conscious (and I reiterate that it must be a plan -ahead consciousness or it ain't 'God') then, yes, you are right, but is it? That has been the problem all along, mate, that you say 'If' and can't apparently understand that the 'evidence' you present to turn possibility into even probability is nothing like good enough.
First cause argument isn't good enough
the Hard question isn't good enough
Mythology as a fossil spiritual record isn't good enough
Experiences through meditation are not good enough
And what's in the Bible sure as hell isn't anything like good enough.
I know and can see that you are trying very hard to marshal all your philosophy to make 'God' a theoretical probability, but that is never going to work without testable, checkable scientific evidence - and your use of science is in a speculative hypothetical construct which is, as I said, ingenious and not implausible, but there is no good evidence for it.
It is 'If' all the time. And it doesn't help your case when you treat any science that doesn't suit your theory like it was something the cat dragged in, nor when you get your logic back to front and then pretend its the other fellow who has it wrong.
Not the least bit offended, as I say I don't do Miff in fact I'm enjoying it. It is just the ongoing hope that you will come to see that what you have is religious Faith and the remarkable hypothesis you have constructed as a mechanism is no more than that.
Well stated and clearly presents your objections, Arequipa. It is clear why you agreed to disagree on so many occasions. There is no basis upon which to agree since my reasons are insufficient for you. I have no problem with that as it clearly indicates that you DO understand my views and have no need of any further explanation. I am content. Peace and thank you for your participation. I know many others have benefited from our back and forth and would continue to do so. Clarification often comes in small steps after repeated explanations.
You levy legitimate criticism of my early efforts, Arequipa and I apologize. My personal certainty should not have governed my responses because SOME aspects of my views are just hypotheses . . . but NOT without philosophical and scientific support and grounding. It is their grounding in solid science and plausible relationships that drove my frustration at the thoughtless and literally mindless associations with Santa Claus, Fairies, Unicorns, and the like. The No God default is particularly aggravating because it is the opposite of supported by what we KNOW about reality and the implications that the existence of life and our consciousness raise.
I understand why you see it that way, Arequipa . . . but I seem unable to breach the gap in our understanding of science, philosophy and reality to change it.
Ok. I shall keep my eyes open in case I get some insight, as I hope you will, but I doubt that either of us will shift our viewpoints very much. Nevertheless..there may have been an improvement in mutual understanding - I hope so.
Cosmic you have not progressed beyond the shallow and insipid denial and refusal to sincerely consider the science and the basis for my views . . preferring instead to retain the asinine and bogus comparisons to Santa,, et al. That shows a shallowness of intellectual inquiry that bears little promise for achieving any understanding. Anyone who still maintains that God is on equal footing with Unicorns simply hasn't a clue.
That's it? When the trumpet sounds, that's your Dis Irae, "Cosmic simply hasn't a clue"? For one who has complained and sniffled about the slightest scrutiny to your bizarre, unfounded, unsupported and watered-down Grape Kool Aid of a god, you are finally wont to reveal the Mystic we all know and love.
Don't blame me if the most simple of the debunking techniques knocks your fraudulent and hallucinatory god off of her pilings and into the unfriendly sea of reality. Your condescension is only mildly annoying, your hypocrisy is not unexpected, your bluster is vacuous, and your god remains nowhere to be found.
Ok. I shall keep my eyes open in case I get some insight, as I hope you will, but I doubt that either of us will shift our viewpoints very much. Nevertheless..there may have been an improvement in mutual understanding - I hope so.
Shifting is unnecessary . . . understanding has been achieved and that is more than enough, my friend. Break out the tea . . . no milk, cream or sugar.
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.
in fact I'm enjoying it. It is just the ongoing hope that you will come to see that what you have is religious Faith and the remarkable hypothesis you have constructed as a mechanism is no more than that.