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)
 
Old 04-15-2010, 10:27 AM
 
37,648 posts, read 25,348,785 times
Reputation: 5864

Advertisements

There is a standard disreputable tactic that is currently being applied to the Tea Party movement. Adversaries join and pretend to be members. Then they engage in the most extreme discrediting behavior to bring the group into disfavor by association (racist bigotry, absurd beliefs, outrageous behavior,etc.) It has been successfully used against all groups. Sometimes the discussions here that have real potential to plumb the issues seriously seem invariably to be derailed by the least credible extremists. I am not usually paranoid . . . but this is quite a consistent pattern.

The atheists here routinely criticize, use ad hominems trying to attack credentials NOT the merits, and call for "proof"of the unprovable but never engage in real debate about it. They seldom present ANY material or evidence that they have any real knowledge (except for rifleman). . . and the ones who do . . . do not defend it they merely assert it. Creationism, ID, Discovery Institute, Hovind, etc. are frauds and kooks who present easy targets for lazy intellectuals. So they are uniformly taken as the assumptive targets and any existing "definitions" are defended as dispositive because they are likewise easy to refute . . . effective for dismissal . . . but useless and intellectually dishonest in debate.

Deep philosophical thought seems to be assiduously avoided by atheists as . . . "irrelevant, there is no proof" . . . no different than Santa Claus, tooth fairy, FSM, etc. Yet the proof that there is SOMETHING (WHAT/WHO) is brushed off as "unknowable," "God of the Gaps," and equally stupid assertions . . . when ALL scientific hypotheses address "Gaps." Philosophy also synthesizes knowledge in attempts to do the same using reason and logic. All that the atheists encountered here so far seem capable of is derision and dismissal . . . (with the exception of rifleman) . . . who focuses entirely on the extremist kooks and religious nutjobs of Christianity..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,073 posts, read 4,976,563 times
Reputation: 2480
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
There is a standard disreputable tactic that is currently being applied to the Tea Party movement. Adversaries join and pretend to be members. Then they engage in the most extreme discrediting behavior to bring the group into disfavor by association (racist bigotry, absurd beliefs, outrageous behavior,etc.) It has been successfully used against all groups. Sometimes the discussions here that have real potential to plumb the issues seriously seem invariably to be derailed by the least credible extremists. I am not usually paranoid . . . but this is quite a consistent pattern.

The atheists here routinely criticize, use ad hominems trying to attack credentials NOT the merits, and call for "proof"of the unprovable but never engage in real debate about it. They seldom present ANY material or evidence that they have any real knowledge (except for rifleman). . . and the ones who do . . . do not defend it they merely assert it. Creationism, ID, Discovery Institute, Hovind, etc. are frauds and kooks who present easy targets for lazy intellectuals. So they are uniformly taken as the assumptive targets and any existing "definitions" are defended as dispositive because they are likewise easy to refute . . . effective for dismissal . . . but useless and intellectually dishonest in debate.

Deep philosophical thought seems to be assiduously avoided by atheists as . . . "irrelevant, there is no proof" . . . no different than Santa Claus, tooth fairy, FSM, etc. Yet the proof that there is SOMETHING (WHAT/WHO) is brushed off as "unknowable," "God of the Gaps," and equally stupid assertions . . . when ALL scientific hypotheses address "Gaps." Philosophy also synthesizes knowledge in attempts to do the same using reason and logic. All that the atheists encountered here so far seem capable of is derision and dismissal . . . (with the exception of rifleman) . . . who focuses entirely on the extremist kooks and religious nutjobs of Christianity..
I'm curious as to why you think the claim that it is is currently unknown is a stupid assertion. I wouldn't say that it's completely unknowable, just that presently we don't have an empirically verified explanation for the origins of the universe, so it's better to say I don't know until there is an empirically verified explanation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:32 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,961,290 times
Reputation: 909
And to note that the existence of something does not mean the existence of an intelligent creator being. That is your assumption and "god of the gaps" argument. Answers of "we don't know" are entirely fine.

Everything else you say on these threads turns into giant arguments of semantics over what does and does not constitute nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:37 AM
 
37,648 posts, read 25,348,785 times
Reputation: 5864
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier View Post
I'm curious as to why you think the claim that it is is currently unknown is a stupid assertion. I wouldn't say that it's completely unknowable, just that presently we don't have an empirically verified explanation for the origins of the universe, so it's better to say I don't know until there is an empirically verified explanation.
That is NOT what is done. This undeniable aspect of reality cannot be shunted aside as "unknown" and then categorically dismiss any and all hypotheses about it as if they were completely unfounded (Santa, FSM, Unicorns, Fairies, etc. ad nauseum). There is a reason the universe is comprehensible and intelligible via scientific investigation. It has fixed and knowable parameters established by SOMETHING (WHAT/WHO) that creates the universal field within which every action/interaction is mandated to conform.

Any hypothesis that establishes a plausible scientific basis for the existence of the field is a valid hypothesis . . . NOT equivalent to the FSM, Santa or tooth fairy, etc. The consciousness of God is such a hypothesis . . . since consciousness cannot exist absent such a field to contain it. Any attempts to explain (or analogize) this inevitability has failed to elicit the necessary philosophical sophistication to even engage the issues . . . let alone understand them. Immediate dismissal seems to be the modus operandi of those confronted with these assertions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:42 AM
 
2,893 posts, read 5,178,580 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The consciousness of God is such a hypothesis . . . since consciousness cannot exist absent such a field to contain it.

Then who created the field of consciousness that god's consciousness exists in?

After all, it can't be "unknowable". Since God is conscious, there MUST be a consciousness that created it, since consciousness cannot "just exist", by your assertation.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Out of Memory Exception
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:50 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,961,290 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarmig View Post
Then who created the field of consciousness that god's consciousness exists in?

After all, it can't be "unknowable". Since God is conscious, there MUST be a consciousness that created it, since consciousness cannot "just exist", by your assertation.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Out of Memory Exception
Computer joke, I get it.

And of course, there in lies the problem. Mystic has failed to present convincing evidence of said consciousness. An intelligible universe does not mean something intelligent created it. As I stated a few posts ago, the fact that something existence itself does not mean that some intelligent being created it, as Mystic clearly wants to believe.

When the universe is clearly so hostile to life, you'll have a hard time making an argument that it was created for it--especially human life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:53 AM
 
37,648 posts, read 25,348,785 times
Reputation: 5864
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarmig View Post
Then who created the field of consciousness that god's consciousness exists in?

After all, it can't be "unknowable". Since God is conscious, there MUST be a consciousness that created it, since consciousness cannot "just exist", by your assertation.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Out of Memory Exception
This "Turtles all the way down" BS does NOT apply. There IS this universal field. Every field has to be established by SOMETHING (WHAT/WHO). It is supremely irrelevant what else may or may not be necessary to this undeniable reality. It is an EMPIRICAL requirement that is currently unknown . . . but NOT speculative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:58 AM
 
37,648 posts, read 25,348,785 times
Reputation: 5864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Computer joke, I get it.

And of course, there in lies the problem. Mystic has failed to present convincing evidence of said consciousness. An intelligible universe does not mean something intelligent created it. As I stated a few posts ago, the fact that something existence itself does not mean that some intelligent being created it, as Mystic clearly wants to believe.

When the universe is clearly so hostile to life, you'll have a hard time making an argument that it was created for it--especially human life.
You are arguing about the ATTRIBUTES of the source of the field I propose (consciousness) which inevitably implies intelligence. You are free to suggest another source for it that does NOT imply intelligence . . . but you have none. That is a significant problem for you . . . but does not in any way undermine my hypothesis or make it equivalent to FSM, Santa, etc. as you so nauseatingly insist on implying.

Last edited by MysticPhD; 04-15-2010 at 12:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,073 posts, read 4,976,563 times
Reputation: 2480
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
This "Turtles all the way down" BS does NOT apply. There IS this universal field. Every field has to be established by SOMETHING (WHAT/WHO). It is supremely irrelevant what else may or may not be necessary to this undeniable reality. It is an EMPIRICAL requirement that is currently unknown . . . but NOT speculative.
I'm curious as to what you mean by a universal field.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 12:08 PM
 
2,893 posts, read 5,178,580 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
This "Turtles all the way down" BS does NOT apply. There IS this universal field. Every field has to be established by SOMETHING (WHAT/WHO). It is supremely irrelevant what else may or may not be necessary to this undeniable reality. It is an EMPIRICAL requirement that is currently unknown . . . but NOT speculative.

Maybe this is yet another of your redefinitions of common terms, but when you say, "Every field", that means every field to me. Including the "universal field".

Every field has to be established by something.

There is a universal field.

Therefore, the universal field has to be established by something.


This is simple logic applied to your own words.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 33, 34, 35 - Top