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 04-19-2010, 12:54 AM
 
37,507 posts, read 25,238,629 times
Reputation: 5856

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
You can scream, shout, insult and repeat all you want...It doesn't make your suppositions or opinions true...You have not supplied one bit of evidence except your word...No good enough..
By the way ....Insults are the last resort of the incompetent ...Can't remember who said that, but it's so true.
Since you seem to be oblivious to the facts . . . replace God in my assertions with your "Nature" and see if anything begins to sink in. BTW . . . There are no insults in my posts . . . just factual observations and suggestions to correct them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2010, 04:23 AM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 3,638,628 times
Reputation: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Since you seem to be oblivious to the facts . . . replace God in my assertions with your "Nature" and see if anything begins to sink in. BTW . . . There are no insults in my posts . . . just factual observations and suggestions to correct them.
I still don't see how you can call known mechanisms "god".

Don't point at something we don't know and claim it is a god. Argument from ignorance fallacy is getting old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2010, 07:30 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,783,582 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Since you seem to be oblivious to the facts . . . replace God in my assertions with your "Nature" and see if anything begins to sink in. BTW . . . There are no insults in my posts . . . just factual observations and suggestions to correct them.
For starters you get a strange problem where someone's asserting that nature created itself. That doesn't make any sense so it's obvious that train of thought went off the rails somewhere early on in the process.

But if you can get past that, you end up with a lot of claims of teleology in nature that aren't backed up by evidence.

So basically pretending that nature and god are the same thing case all sorts of problems both logically and compared with what we observe. They're clearly different and anyone pretending that they're the same needs to do a lot of work to justify that assumption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2010, 08:06 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,951,912 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
How do you suppose it happened?
If existence must be existence must always have been.

1 Cause is movement or change.
2 Everything requires a cause.
3 If everything requires a cause, necessarily there must have been a "first cause."
4 Something cannot come from nothing.
5 Necessarily, there was always "something."
6 If there was always something, and everything needs a cause,
7 Necessarily, something was always being "caused," i.e., always moving or changing.
8. Therefor, something always changing requires no causing entities to cause.

Quote:
It is here and must be accounted for . . . creation is the only option.
To you, possibly, but you run into your problem of "turtles all the way down" as you like to say it.

Quote:
Do you have ANY education at all. These constant childish "Why, Daddy, What Daddy, Where Daddy" questions of yours indicate zero knowledge or intelligence and attempt to place the burden of your education on me. ::Sigh:: You are so childish and being deliberately obtuse. If you have any legitimate intellectual purpose for these asinine childish queries . . . Man up and address them directly.
Perhaps this will help you understand the need for common definitions.

Quote:
Consciousness.
Opinion.

Quote:
ALL your "natural" ones . . . asshat.
Doesn't address the question.

Quote:
See above. Pathetic.Why the hell would God have to be different from energy?
If God isn't different from energy, you're guilty once again of just ad hoc redefinition of terms to fit your theism.

Quote:
Since all that actually exists is energy . . . it is the very substance of God.
If all that exists is energy, God is energy and nothing more. In which case, let's just call it energy.

But you belie your own statements by saying "[energy] is the very substance of God" which suggests that God is more than just energy.

Which again--what is God?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2010, 09:30 AM
 
37,507 posts, read 25,238,629 times
Reputation: 5856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
I still don't see how you can call known mechanisms "god".
Because you apparently believe that nonsense that God is completely unknowable. We are learning more about HOW God works every day.
Quote:
Don't point at something we don't know and claim it is a god. Argument from ignorance fallacy is getting old.
This would stop science in its tracks . . . since every scientific hypothesis develops from what is known and points to what is unknown (Gaps). I agree this silly Gaps argument is tiresome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2010, 09:43 AM
 
37,507 posts, read 25,238,629 times
Reputation: 5856
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
For starters you get a strange problem where someone's asserting that nature created itself. That doesn't make any sense so it's obvious that train of thought went off the rails somewhere early on in the process.
Only because you insist on delving into the unobservable as if it were the same as the observable (Turtles BS). ALL we have to account for is what we observe . . and all THAT requires a Creator.
Quote:
But if you can get past that, you end up with a lot of claims of teleology in nature that aren't backed up by evidence.
I make no claims here about God("Nature") that aren't backed up by evidence . . . the subjective and disputable ones proliferate throughout society and have no bearing on the EXISTENCE issue.
Quote:
So basically pretending that nature and god are the same thing case all sorts of problems both logically and compared with what we observe. They're clearly different and anyone pretending that they're the same needs to do a lot of work to justify that assumption.
NO . . . those who artificially proclaim there is a difference need to do a lot of work to justify that assumption . . . because there is NONE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2010, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Georgia
897 posts, read 1,416,114 times
Reputation: 610
I believe God created everthing out of nothing. I'm a Christian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2010, 10:49 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,951,912 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Moderator cut: Orphaned
What we observe is existence. We have to ask, is non-existence possible? If it is not, then existence has, by definition, always been. Voila--no need for a God to create existence.

If non-existence is possible, than whatever was in existence prior to our existence itself would have, at some point, been non-existence. It begs the question, what created that existence which created ours? Answering "we don't know" is a cop out by your philosophical standards, and answering "it always existed" is Special Pleading.

So, address the proof or get off the stage.

Quote:
WE have common definitions for what we OBSERVE. You want to artificially make distinctions among things we cannot observe . . . like the source of all we observe . . completely without any scientific basis for it.
And the word for the world we observe around us is nature. God is distinctly something that is not observed around us--and frequently concerned the creator of nature. That distinctly separates God from nature.

Quote:
Hypothesis based on known phenomena.
Evolution is a continuing process--the assertion that consciousness is the end result of evolution is entirely opinion.

Quote:
Yes it does . . . reading comprehension problems?
Your claimed God is the determiner of life spans and reproductive cycles. I asked you to clarify which, and you replied with my natural ones. I never defined natural life spans or reproductive cycles. Ergo, the question was not answered.

If you want to state that the life spans and reproductive cycles that we claim are natural are actually God's, I win. Those cycles have defined as natural are simply repurposed to fit your view of theism. Ad hoc redefining at its best.

Quote:
You do have trouble distinguishing between observables and the unobservable . . don't you. Wrong . . energy is the observable part of God, period.NO . . . God has unobservable parts . . .like our very own consciousnesses. We can observe their impact and effects . . but not them directly. So is it with God consciousness.
Then define what the unobservable parts are. Failure to do so shows that you are indeed redefining terms to fit your theism: energy is God, nature is God, consciousness is God--terms that describe distinctly concepts and phenomenon.

Quote:
::Sigh::Go ask your Daddy.
If you can't define God as a different concept than already establish definitions, don't assert that it has meaning when it doesn't.

Last edited by june 7th; 04-20-2010 at 08:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2010, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,066,557 times
Reputation: 3717
Default alternate universii....

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Moderator cut: Orpahned
Mystic, you surprise me with this line of non-reasoning. But otherwise, I'd have to say others here are covering the opposing arguments very well.

I will say you seem to be contradicting yourself though; you cannot prove your ideas which are based on feelings and assumptions and hopes you claim to be real but that we're too low on the IQ scale to begin to see them, they being otherwise obvious to the intellligencia. Our limited beliefs are based on observables. If we can't come to reasonable conclusions, we leave the question unanswered. And happily.

You denigrate the more base Christian fundamentalist concepts, rightfully so since they are demonstrably simplistic and nut-ball, but then you wander off into unknown territory where no-one else has ventured, and claim full and absolute knowledge. Based on undefined, vague concepts you claim are identical to our concepts of "Nature".

Have you considered starting your own religious sect? See: L. Ron Hubbard. He thought it alll out quite well, I'd say. It's convinced, literally, millions!

"Nature" as I define it, is only what I can see, feel, smell, touch or prove, perhaps mathematically. My definitions and conclusions do not require the inclusion of ethereal, untouchable and unsubstantiated entities to fill in the gaps of knowledge. Nor to give it a broader, more spiritual context. Why not? Because that element is not a key element, thankfully. My ideas can and do exist all on their own, absent some causative spirit-icon. My definitions list is limited to what has been honestly substantiated. Yours? Well, not so much.

Therein lies a major structural difference, wouldn't you agree?

Last edited by june 7th; 04-20-2010 at 08:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2010, 11:47 AM
 
37,507 posts, read 25,238,629 times
Reputation: 5856
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Mystic, you surprise me with this line of non-reasoning. But otherwise, I'd have to say others here are covering the opposing arguments very well.
i likewise have been disappointed in your obvious limitations in philosophical discussions . . . especially your evaluation of the arguments presented.
Quote:
I will say you seem to be contradicting yourself though; you cannot prove your ideas which are based on feelings and assumptions and hopes you claim to be real but that we're too low on the IQ scale to begin to see them, they being otherwise obvious to the intellligencia. Our limited beliefs are based on observables. If we can't come to reasonable conclusions, we leave the question unanswered. And happily.
This is your obsession talking, rifleman . . . not once during these discussions have I entered my personal experiential views as evidence. I have limited these discussions of EXISTENCE to what we can observe and that we have established scientifically . . . including the effectiveness of our science itself as evidence. Neither you nor your compatriots leave the "don't knows" unanswered. You resort to your artificial distinction . . . "Nature" for the unobservables without ANY scientific rationale for doing so. I establish mine on known phenomena with a scientific rationale (universal field)
Quote:
You denigrate the more base Christian fundamentalist concepts, rightfully so since they are demonstrably simplistic and nut-ball, but then you wander off into unknown territory where no-one else has ventured, and claim full and absolute knowledge. Based on undefined, vague concepts you claim are identical to our concepts of "Nature".
The essential observables are identical . . . the explanation of their source is not. Yours has no scientific rationale . . . mine does.
Quote:
"Nature" as I define it, is only what I can see, feel, smell, touch or prove, perhaps mathematically. My definitions and conclusions do not require the inclusion of ethereal, untouchable and unsubstantiated entities to fill in the gaps of knowledge.
More of your obsession with the existing speculations and attributing them to my hypothesis. You have a real problem there, rifleman.
Quote:
Nor to give it a broader, more spiritual context. Why not? Because that element is not a key element, thankfully. My ideas can and do exist all on their own, absent some causative spirit-icon. My definitions list is limited to what has been honestly substantiated.
Have you ever even tried to explain to yourself what your cognitive "ideas and concepts" actually are, phenomenologically? How and where do they exist and in what form (energy)?
Quote:
Yours? Well, not so much.
Therein lies a major structural difference, wouldn't you agree?
You have it all backwards, rifleman.
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