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, 12:21 PM
 
37,615 posts, read 25,312,999 times
Reputation: 5860

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarmig View Post
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.
::Sigh:: I propose the source of it . . . you then start the idiotic "Turtles all the way down" BS about what is the source of THAT source . . . ad nauseum. As you atheists try to say ONLY what is empirically obvious needs any explanation. An obviously existing field NEEDS a plausible source . . . the rest is BS distraction and games.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2010, 12:30 PM
 
2,893 posts, read 5,175,171 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
::Sigh:: I propose the source of it . . . you then start the idiotic "Turtles all the way down" BS about what is the source of THAT source . . . ad nauseum. As you atheists try to say ONLY what is empirically obvious needs any explanation. An obviously existing field NEEDS a plausible source . . . the rest is BS distraction and games.

Can you not see the recursion problem?

1 Consciousness can only exist by a conscious universal field: goto 2

2 Only consciousness can create a conscious field goto 1


We poor humans are faced with a quandry. Either something is required to create. Or something is not.

Scientifically, people err on the side of things "not" until they are proven. Religiously, people err on the side of things "are" until they are disproven.

Ergo, if you are a science-minded person, you will prefer the explanation that there is not a creator until one has been proven. If you are a religious person, you will prefer the explanation that there is a creator until one is disproven.

And that's really it. It boils down to the way to categories of people view and discern "truth". And ultimately the perception of truth is relative to the individual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 12:57 PM
 
37,615 posts, read 25,312,999 times
Reputation: 5860
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarmig View Post
Can you not see the recursion problem?
1 Consciousness can only exist by a conscious universal field: goto 2
2 Only consciousness can create a conscious field goto 1
YOU put in the ONLY in #2. I proposed A plausible source . . . if you have an alternative . . . what is it?
Quote:
We poor humans are faced with a quandry. Either something is required to create. Or something is not.

Scientifically, people err on the side of things "not" until they are proven. Religiously, people err on the side of things "are" until they are disproven.

Ergo, if you are a science-minded person, you will prefer the explanation that there is not a creator until one has been proven. If you are a religious person, you will prefer the explanation that there is a creator until one is disproven.

And that's really it. It boils down to the way to categories of people view and discern "truth". And ultimately the perception of truth is relative to the individual.
More dissembling BS. When faced with the irrefutable reality of "creation" . . . you cannot then assert that there was no "creator" and claim ignorance is the justification for it. The evidence of creation IS the evidence for a creator. The only issue that remains is identification . . . NOT existence. Equating all manner of implausible BS "identifications" with no scientific basis as if they were equal is bogus gamesmanship and an admission of failure to account for the creation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 01:04 PM
 
1,492 posts, read 2,227,257 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by methodmatriarch View Post
Sure... but what does that have to do with the fact that his answers are true?..and from the same science you hear everyday??? Did you know they targeted him with law because all the evolutionists he debated saw how embarrassingly wrong they were?... and the only thing they could 'conjure' against him had nothing to do with the truth in his debates...
(the blind does not want to see, because if they do, they will no longer have an excuse.)


Creation Science Evangelism | Browsing Media Categories (http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10 - broken link)
I think the gov't was after him,too...just wanting to shut him up for speaking out against them.
That is not to say I believe all of his theories,though.But I do think they were after him for a reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 01:07 PM
 
37,615 posts, read 25,312,999 times
Reputation: 5860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC122 View Post
I think the gov't was after him,too...just wanting to shut him up for speaking out against them.
That is not to say I believe all of his theories,though.But I do think they were after him for a reason.
Hovind is a fraud and his so-called knowledge of science is virtually non-existent. Take this claptrap to the other absurd creationist debates and stop derailing this serious philosophical discourse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,084,286 times
Reputation: 3717
Intellectually, we all run into some philosophical walls here. We're all incapable of determining what occurred prior to some possible Big Bang event, which is closer and closer to being proven as at least one element in our original formation. Perhaps we're just a re-wind of a previous universe or existence. We have actually now seen, up until about 0.00001 second after the BB event, what has occurred, with predictions of events after that coming true more and more often, in ever-greater accuracy. And that Higgs boson-type particle islooming as yet another supporting factoid.

But anyone who claims to have some greater knowledge beyond that, and who fabricates unknowable theories beyond what can be known, is either delusional or unknowingly giving in to his or her emotional or imaginary side.

There are far too many imaginable and unimaginable but potential different explanations to center just on the one that conveniently congratulates and acknowledges one specific but otherwise implausible (some would say impossible) Godly deity. Mob acknowledgment? Feeding-frenzy philosophical models? Emotionalism masquerading as knowledge? That smacks of the limits of human intelligence or creativity, frankly. I'd rather assume and acknowledge that we just aren't capable of knowing right now, and thus be far closer to the unknown truth, than to develop a evidence-bending model that ignores all the physical and theoretical evidence that we DO have.

Perhaps that's because I don't feel any great and pressing NEED to have an answer for everything.

Last edited by rifleman; 04-15-2010 at 01:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 02:21 PM
 
2,893 posts, read 5,175,171 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
YOU put in the ONLY in #2. I proposed A plausible source . . . if you have an alternative . . . what is it?More dissembling BS. When faced with the irrefutable reality of "creation" . . . you cannot then assert that there was no "creator" and claim ignorance is the justification for it. The evidence of creation IS the evidence for a creator. The only issue that remains is identification . . . NOT existence. Equating all manner of implausible BS "identifications" with no scientific basis as if they were equal is bogus gamesmanship and an admission of failure to account for the creation.

Whoa now. You're mixing up words again.

"Creation" is the something that was "created". Created being the verb. By using the word "creation" you are assuming that existence was created, instead of merely existing. That assumes facts not in evidence.

Existence itself is not evidence of how it came to be, or if such a prerequisite is even necessary.

In order to prove that existence was created, you have to provide evidence that there was a prior state of "not existence". Only be demonstrating that there was a difference can the creation, and the methods of creation, be studied.

Of course you can see the problem with that. If we did not exist, we could not possibly be aware of any non-existing we have done. Ergo, there is no way to provide evidence. Which is why I am calling you on "facts not in evidence". The supposition of non-existence prior to existence cannot be proven. It's an assumption on your part.

Also, if you don't like me tearing apart your bad logic, don't post bad logic. I'm a programmer. I spot faulty logic patterns for a living. If you claiming that it is possible for consciousness to be created by something that is not a conscious universal field, then you have effectively opened the door for consciousness to occur spontaneously, which is exactly what we have been arguing, and you have ceded the point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 02:54 PM
 
37,615 posts, read 25,312,999 times
Reputation: 5860
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarmig View Post
Whoa now. You're mixing up words again.

"Creation" is the something that was "created". Created being the verb. By using the word "creation" you are assuming that existence was created, instead of merely existing. That assumes facts not in evidence.
Existence itself is not evidence of how it came to be, or if such a prerequisite is even necessary.

In order to prove that existence was created, you have to provide evidence that there was a prior state of "not existence". Only be demonstrating that there was a difference can the creation, and the methods of creation, be studied.
Of course you can see the problem with that. If we did not exist, we could not possibly be aware of any non-existing we have done. Ergo, there is no way to provide evidence. Which is why I am calling you on "facts not in evidence". The supposition of non-existence prior to existence cannot be proven. It's an assumption on your part.
OK . . . must we assume that our consciousness always existed from the very beginning in the minutest single cell organism? Must we assume that life always existed from the very beginning of the existing universe? Are you really suggesting that everything existed from the very beginning? Or has there been "creation?"
Quote:
Also, if you don't like me tearing apart your bad logic, don't post bad logic. I'm a programmer. I spot faulty logic patterns for a living.
Ooooohhh . . . I'm terrified.Moderator cut: flame
Quote:
If you claiming that it is possible for consciousness to be created by something that is not a conscious universal field, then you have effectively opened the door for consciousness to occur spontaneously, which is exactly what we have been arguing, and you have ceded the point.
Ooops . . . your prowess is slipping. You misundertood my point. It is the fact that our consciousnesses require a field within which to manifest that makes consciousness a plausible and viable source for the universal field that establishes our reality. It was the falling apple and our subsequent evidence that made the existence of gravity plausible even before we had any useful explanatory theories for it.

Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-16-2010 at 07:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 03:21 PM
 
2,893 posts, read 5,175,171 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
OK . . . must we assume that our consciousness always existed from the very beginning in the minutest single cell organism?
No, but then that's not your claim. We'll get to that below.

Quote:
Must we assume that life always existed from the very beginning of the existing universe?
Not at all. But then, you didn't say "life", you said "creation". Again, you playing the semantic slip'n slide.

Quote:
Are you really suggesting that everything existed from the very beginning?
Not everything. Well, not everything in it's current form.

Quote:
Or has there been "creation?"
There has been transition. Energy to mass. Mass to energy.

Quote:
Ooooohhh . . . I'm terrified. Bring it on, Junior . . . I haven't seen any evidence of your prowess yet.
Other than, oh, a few posts ago when I pointed out the impossibility of your own logic and you went scampering into your semantic bag o' tricks again? "See, I didn't really mean 'fields' I mean existence. No no, I didn't mean 'existence' I mean 'creation'! Squirrel!"

Quote:
Ooops . . . your prowess is slipping. You misundertood my point. It is the fact that our consciousnesses require a field within which to manifest that makes consciousness a plausible and viable source for the universal field that establishes our reality.
It is an assumption on your part that consciousness exists without existence. Which goes back to my very conciliatory point before about how each type of individual decides which assumption he prefers.

But despite that, even if your universal consciousness exists, if it requires a field in which to manifest, then it is, for all practical intents, non-existent. I mean, of the consciousness cannot manifest itself without a field, then how did it manifest itself to create the field it needed to manifest itself?

And if it was able to manifest itself to create the field, then what field does it exist in that enabled it to manifest?


I see what you are trying to pull, and it does not make sense. You have lots of pretty rivets in your Titanic, but your assumptions are an iceberg. I'm more than willing to say that I assume there is no consciousness (since that is what we are calling "god" in this thread, apparently), but you can't get past the idea that others do not share that assumption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 04:18 PM
 
1,838 posts, read 1,934,357 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Intellectually, we all run into some philosophical walls here. We're all incapable of determining what occurred prior to some possible Big Bang event, which is closer and closer to being proven as at least one element in our original formation. Perhaps we're just a re-wind of a previous universe or existence. We have actually now seen, up until about 0.00001 second after the BB event, what has occurred, with predictions of events after that coming true more and more often, in ever-greater accuracy. And that Higgs boson-type particle islooming as yet another supporting factoid.

But anyone who claims to have some greater knowledge beyond that, and who fabricates unknowable theories beyond what can be known, is either delusional or unknowingly giving in to his or her emotional or imaginary side.

There are far too many imaginable and unimaginable but potential different explanations to center just on the one that conveniently congratulates and acknowledges one specific but otherwise implausible (some would say impossible) Godly deity. Mob acknowledgment? Feeding-frenzy philosophical models? Emotionalism masquerading as knowledge? That smacks of the limits of human intelligence or creativity, frankly. I'd rather assume and acknowledge that we just aren't capable of knowing right now, and thus be far closer to the unknown truth, than to develop a evidence-bending model that ignores all the physical and theoretical evidence that we DO have.

Perhaps that's because I don't feel any great and pressing NEED to have an answer for everything.
do you think that if God did do it that He cant leave His mark-He's been here many times you know-...........and what if someday you find out that your wrong-and all the theist's you thought were just living in a dream world were actually the ones who were closer to the truth(o.k. not all theist's because we know some of them can be either fundamentalist's or extremists or eternal hell preacher's or money grabbing swindler's)ther is alot of BS out their too but you cant blame God on that-God is misrepresented bye many......it would be like the difference in- lets say -someone explaining the anatomy of dog-do i listen to someone who know's or someone who pretends they know or beleives they know but were never educated properly on the subject-......you'r not goin to get a clear understanding,but that dosent mean the subject cant be known,you just have to find a good teacher
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