U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2018, 12:27 PM
 
10,781 posts, read 12,013,464 times
Reputation: 7775

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Wrong. What you call Nature IS God because there is nothing BUT God.
::Sigh:: Deny, disbelieve, misunderstand my views as you must, Arq, but stop lying about me or my motives. More lies about debunking that you do NOT have the requisite knowledge to comprehend let alone judge. Nothing I presented has been debunked by anyone ever. Your ignorance and desire to reject my views are what drives your confirmation bias. Stop lying about what you apparently do not have the mental capacity to comprehend.
so then it sounds like what you are saying is that you don't know the difference between nature and God.

if that is not so, then explain for us Mystic the difference between nature and God.

Transponder's views and posts are sound, Mystic. Yours are not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2018, 08:52 PM
 
35,058 posts, read 23,053,581 times
Reputation: 5637
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
You don't flatter yourself or do yourself any favors presenting your opponents as mentally incompetent. You know Arq is quite capable.

No one is ever going to disprove an un-disprovable hypothesis. That is why virtually all god hypotheses are un-falsifiable. You say yours is falsifiable by a long and disciplined process of personal experience, but that is simply a variant of the common theist insistence that we must simply give ourselves over to dogma or to some personal subjective experience to attain belief, which is an entirely circular argument.

It is fine to have your beliefs, it is not fine to claim that those who don't share them are just too dumb to get it.

I've not said this in probably a year or two, but occasionally it bears repeating: your academic background really trips you up here. Living as I do next to an ivy league university, I see it all the time. One of my neighbors is an accomplished professor of marine biology but is basically incapable of writing coherently. They have People to do that for them. Another is a respected oncology researcher and comparative biology expert who is so handicapped socially that you can't get her to make eye contact, unless she perceives you as someone to suck up to politically -- in her world, doubtless, a vital survival skill, but in most people's world, a small-minded and supercilious character flaw.

By contrast, I had a pleasant and respectful conversation with some guy a while back who showed genuine interest in me and my work, and only later discovered that he's a super high muck-a-muck theoretical physicist. My guess is he wouldn't be caught dead flashing his credentials and proclaiming how brilliant he is. Now THERE's an academic I respect -- as a human being first and foremost.

Being an academic does not make you right or unassailable, or put anyone else at the slightest inherent disadvantage. Quit acting like it does.
I do not claim that those who disagree with my views are too dumb to get, but those who assert that my science has been debunked ARE too dumb to get it. To assert that someone's scientific claims have been debunked, the asserter MUST have the requisite knowledge to understand the science and the issues. Arq does NOT, period, yet he repeatedly and annoyingly asserts this debunking nonsense about my science knowledge that he clearly does NOT understand. IF you want to defend such indefensible actions go ahead, but I will not tolerate it.

My screen name is just a sign that I have both academic and mystical knowledge and experience, not braggadocio. I let the content of my posts speak for themselves. I tire of the disdain and disrespect that some of you on both the theist and atheist sides seem to consider is your God-given right to spew at those you disagree with. I have absolutely no doubt about the veracity of my science knowledge and the plausibility of my views in defense of God. I have plenty of posts that display that knowledge in detail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2018, 08:08 PM
 
10,781 posts, read 12,013,464 times
Reputation: 7775
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
...I have both academic and mystical knowledge and experience, not braggadocio. I let the content of my posts speak for themselves.... I have absolutely no doubt about the veracity of my science knowledge and the plausibility of my views in defense of God. I have plenty of posts that display that knowledge in detail.
You repeatedly boast of your "credentials" regarding science and the Divine. And yet you say things like "nature is God" which seem to indicate you equate the two and cant differentiate between them.

Are you able to answer these questions:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
...What you call Nature IS God....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
so then it sounds like what you are saying is that you don't know the difference between nature and God.

if that is not so, then explain for us Mystic the difference between nature and God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2018, 11:02 PM
 
35,058 posts, read 23,053,581 times
Reputation: 5637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
You repeatedly boast of your "credentials" regarding science and the Divine. And yet you say things like "nature is God" which seem to indicate you equate the two and cant differentiate between them.
I will repeat my answer from another thread to this same question. There is nothing BUT God and we are just a part of His consciousness. God thought our reality into existence and we are part of the reproduction of His consciousness under the guidance of Jesus - His firstborn among humans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2018, 12:00 AM
 
10,781 posts, read 12,013,464 times
Reputation: 7775
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I will repeat my answer from another thread to this same question. There is nothing BUT God and we are just a part of His consciousness. God thought our reality into existence and we are part of the reproduction of His consciousness under the guidance of Jesus - His firstborn among humans.
You still haven't answered the question. What's the difference between God and nature? It appears you don't know the difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
13,686 posts, read 7,593,060 times
Reputation: 5861
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I do not claim that those who disagree with my views are too dumb to get, but those who assert that my science has been debunked ARE too dumb to get it. To assert that someone's scientific claims have been debunked, the asserter MUST have the requisite knowledge to understand the science and the issues.
Actually all that is needed is for the asserter to be under the impression that you have not published a scientific paper that has survived peer review.

Since you have a scientific claim, you must have a falsifiable hypothesis on offer, and must have published your findings in a reputable journal. Please cite this and all will be rescinded.

I also was not aware that theology or mysticism were scientific fields subject to the scientific method; they usually are the province of non-falsifiable, scientifically invalid hypotheses (to the extent there are even coherent hypotheses). What field are you a qualified expert in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:16 PM
 
35,058 posts, read 23,053,581 times
Reputation: 5637
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Actually all that is needed is for the asserter to be under the impression that you have not published a scientific paper that has survived peer review.
Wrong. What is subject to verification is the existing science from which my plausible hypotheses and extrapolations are drawn. When we are dealing with these issues of God and the composition of reality that is the best we currently can achieve. My claims are that my Synthesis is plausible, internally and logically consistent, and my hypotheses are entirely consistent with extant science even though they currently are NOT falsifiable. The disputes about debunking are over the veracity of my knowledge of the extant science which I have demonstrated repeatedly. The belief claims remain just that belief claims.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top