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 added words don't change anything. Just because I suspect that there is probably no such thing as a God fitting the descriptions you provide, there is no rational basis for asserting that I can't conceive of such a being. I'm reminded of that classic line, repeated over and over again by a character in "The Princess Bride." Anytime anyone says anything even the slightest bit surprising, he responds "Inconceivable!"
I suppose there are such people, but I am not one of them. I'm not "uncomfortable" with the idea. Why would I (or anyone, for that matter) be uncomfortable with there being a Divine Creator who is all-loving and who makes sense of everything, etc.? What you're describing is, in fact, potentially very comforting. But I can't believe in something just because it would be comforting to believe it.
These are some very adamant-sounding assertions. Anybody can make strong-sounding assertions about virtually anything. How is this for a strong assertion: "There are people who make strong assertions about things they obviously know very little about." Example: There are people who make strong assertions about what I think, or what I feel, or what I am unable to conceive, or how I am unable to experience true love, etc. In all cases, these are people who don't know me at all. In virtually all cases, these are people who have never even met me. So how do they know these things about me? When I inquire into the sources of their knowledge about me, it often leads to many posts digging deeper and deeper into the groundwork upon which they have built their seemingly profound knowledge of my mind, heart, and soul. And, when all is said and done - when the curtain is finally drawn back to reveal the Great and Wonderful Oz - the answer becomes clear: It's because I don't agree with them.
Did I ever say, or even remotely imply, that I "can't see beyond it?"
So we come back to this again. I suspect that you don't really know what these people can conceive, or what they don't like, or what they are uncomfortable with. If I could place a bet, I'd bet that a majority of them simply don't agree with your beliefs.
Yes. Exactly. And in my case, for me to believe in things, they must meet a certain minimum level of rationality and evidence. And if I have a personal experience that I can't really explain, then I don't expect that evidence to count as rational evidence for anyone but me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Neither does anyone else.
That's the whole point of being in relationship with God.
It's a relationship. Not a science experiment.
That's why the whole premise of using science to validate God is.....absurd.
The use of science is NOT to validate God but to see if there is any conceivable way to support the existence of God using what we know about reality.
I've rather enjoyed reading the last few pages of posts, but I have to say here that the use of science is to try to find any pretext for propping up Godfaith. It is to test evidence, with a good deal of skepticism and if it does no come up with anything verifiable to support guesswork and speculation, to leave them as guesswork and speculation.
I've rather enjoyed reading the last few pages of posts, but I have to say here that the use of science is to try to find any pretext for propping up Godfaith. It is to test evidence, with a good deal of skepticism and if it does no come up with anything verifiable to support guesswork and speculation, to leave them as guesswork and speculation.
lmao. just deny the science that doesn't support a belief statement. same thing fundy's do. they have my go only at all cost and you have deny everything because you feel religion is so bad.
science gets the shaft by the two ends of a boob stick.
Act civil and learn how to comprehend what you read vs. tossing around what you "think" is being stated and perhaps you will be able to see this through.
The personal attacks are what they are. I have issues and you clearly have issues. I will prove it again.
I use the word "religion" very loosely with your practices. I do point out; your reaction to the word is an indicator for me. I call that stuff you do, and other spirituality stuff, woo woo choo chooing. I was given a time out for saying that to you before so I changed the word to "religion". religions have them, spiritual practices have them, and you have them. They are all the same to me.
I will not say anything "uncivil" to you first, but I will reply instantly to your incivility. If English isn't your primary language, then make sure you know day to day connotations for the east coast USA.
I am addressing what is the possible explanation for the "spiritual feelings" (like yours) to their surroundings. Saying the words "a living biosphere" explains a lot but I truly think you are so anti religous you don't care much past that. You must deny it, thats your dogma.
so, to the meat: applying the scientific method.
1) the question:
What is the best way to describe the biosphere's interactions when taken as a whole compared to the volume it occupies.
2) hypothesis:
Some spiritual people do not understand that what they are feeling is the connections to the life around them. People, being just a more complex protein, react to their surrounding and can interact with their surroundings using more degrees of freedom than less complex proteins.
3) testing:
Well, we have to use the best instruments we have. the device we use is all we have. I will certainly entertain the discussion on its limits and the limits to the conclusion(s) based on it. they are a important considerations.
Yes, time and size scale are important. So complexity vs volume ratio will be an indicator for us. Ratio's offer a way to measure "alive" and lesson people's misunderstandings using math instead of written language..
Einstein used math and thought for his conclusion. He also used very tangible examples: For example, his take on "equivalence". Well, in this case we can use thought, math, and physical measurements so that the conclusion can be more reasonably discussed between people.
The experiment:
Using Instrument measuring to lesson error and personal bias. (comparison to knowns): Put a living cell on one end of a meter stick. Put a virus "tweener" in the middle of the meter stick. Put some volume that we classify as non life on the other end of the meter stick. I use a computer for non-life.
Thought experiment: Imagine sitting on the moon, looking at earth. Specifically you are looking at the biosphere's interactions over time. Hold the meter stick at arm's length and move it left and right until you feel the biosphere's interactions match the register marks on the instrument for life, non life, and teenier.
lmao. just deny the science that doesn't support a belief statement. same thing fundy's do. they have my go only at all cost and you have deny everything because you feel religion is so bad.
science gets the shaft by the two ends of a boob stick.
As the recipient of criticism from both the religious fundamentalists and the atheist fundamentalists, I can validate this criticism, even though it is not very clearly stated.
I've rather enjoyed reading the last few pages of posts, but I have to say here that the use of science is to try to find any pretext for propping up Godfaith. It is to test evidence, with a good deal of skepticism and if it does no come up with anything verifiable to support guesswork and speculation, to leave them as guesswork and speculation.
Why use the pejorative word "pretext" when a more objective and neutral one would suffice? The science is used to determine if the existence of God is supportable with known science through plausible hypotheses and extrapolations of the science. As long as there is no science to directly disprove the hypotheses and extrapolations then leave them as plausible hypotheses and extrapolations.
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.
