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.
You are applying human beliefs about the tooth fairy. This is about the "Tooth Fairy" as a label applied to reality.
If you want to call the Source of our reality The Tooth Fairy . . . be my guest, Arq. It is neither more nor less informative or useful than "Nature."It is your PREFERENCE. Mine is God.
Quote:
In which it is as good a label as "God". No, I know what you mean. You are talking about a spiritual element to reality which we don't so much mind as see no reason to believe. It is just as likely - more so - to be just something that our bodies and minds do to us.
Our preferences will always be driven by our knowledge and experiences . . . so they will constitute the basis for any SPECIFIC beliefs added ABOUT the Source of our reality . . . whatever label we use. You should be more than familiar with what accounts for my use of God and the attributes I assign. You have your preferred label also based on your knowledge and experiences. What NEITHER of us can do is assert that our label and beliefs about the Source of our reality is the default . . . without making an unsubstantiated positive claim.
String theory advocates have hypothesized the source of our reality are oscillating, multi-dimensional membranes that every so many billions of years come in contact to produce a universe. If this hypothesis is true, would you call the membranes gods? If whatever process that produced this universe turns out to be unintentional, would you call that a god? Are you claiming to know what this "Source" is?
IF you want to call the Source of our reality Strings . . . be my guest. What you still cannot do is assert that your Strings are the default for the Source of our reality without making an unsubstantiated positive claim.
If you want to call the Source of our reality The Tooth Fairy . . . be my guest, Arq. It is neither more nor less informative or useful than "Nature."It is your PREFERENCE. Mine is God.
Yes, you are right of course. About the label. You are not, about 'nature'. As already explained there are scientifically demonstrable reasons to see nature working without a God. There is no reason to propose a "God" nor indeed, a "Tooth Fairy".
Quote:
Our preferences will always be driven by our knowledge and experiences . . . so they will constitute the basis for any SPECIFIC beliefs added ABOUT the Source of our reality . . . whatever label we use. You should be more than familiar with what accounts for my use of God and the attributes I assign. You have your preferred label also based on your knowledge and experiences. What NEITHER of us can do is assert that our label and beliefs about the Source of our reality is the default . . . without making an unsubstantiated positive claim.
Yes, I do understand your reasons for your 'preference'. And I recall that, in what I had hoped was an understanding, I suggested that, if you accepted that your interpretation of what happened to you was a 'preference' we would have nothing to argue about. But the dismissal of the evidential case to take the materialist default as the right one - based on what we can prove, not on what we believe or prefer - just to make the God -claim look equally valid, is wrong and cannot be allowed to pass.
Yes, you are right of course. About the label. You are not, about 'nature'. As already explained there are scientifically demonstrable reasons to see nature working without a God. There is no reason to propose a "God" nor indeed, a "Tooth Fairy".
When you can positively show me WHAT Nature IS . . . not what it consists of or how it works . . . THEN you can attribute the workings we identify as being FROM Nature.
Quote:
Yes, I do understand your reasons for your 'preference'. And I recall that, in what I had hoped was an understanding, I suggested that, if you accepted that your interpretation of what happened to you was a 'preference' we would have nothing to argue about. But the dismissal of the evidential case to take the materialist default as the right one - based on what we can prove, not on what we believe or prefer - just to make the God -claim look equally valid, is wrong and cannot be allowed to pass.
Ther can be no materialist default without positive proof for your positive claim about the state of reality. It can only be a preference, period.
There is no actual existing thing that tooth fairies or Santa would be explanations FOR. That is not true about God.
So what? Aside from your need to protesylise on the atheist forum I do not see the point of the above comment. An invented entity - is an invented entity. That you invented it to explain something to yourself does not make it less invented - or less imagination. Fantasy is fantasy - regardless of the context you do it in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You PREFER no explanation.
That is a misrepresentation of the user that you engage in often. YOu jump from thread to thread claiming we prefer no explantion or prefer ignorance. You are just being willfully dishonest and you have been corrected on this many many times now. But it does not stop you trotting it out in every new thread you find.
We do not prefer ignorance or no explanation. We merely acknowledge it where it exists. If we are ignorant of something - or have no explanation - then we ADMIT that. Admission of it does not mean we prefer it. We want those answers. We want to find the explanations.
The only thing we "prefer" is honesty. We are honest where we are ignorant or lack explanations. We do not simply make stuff up to pretend we are not ignorant when we are. We do not play the god of the gaps game you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I tire of hearing such illogical tripe.
Then find a bed and have a lie down - because the point being made is a valid one - no matter how much it displeases you to admit it or wears you down. The point is not going away just because you can not handle it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
it doesn't change the fact that God is the Source of our reality
Calling something you simply made up a "fact" does not turn it into one any more than me calling you a woman will change your sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You are playing the rhetorical game
Nope. It is still you. And repeatedly accusing others of what you and you alone are doing is not going to absolve you of the guilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
But the existence issue IS devoid of any specifics other than the Source of our reality.
That your god exists IS a belief about your god. You keep trying to pretend it is not - that the existence of god is a fact from the outset. But your imgination does not make fact. Take your insults like "Semantic tomfoolery" and turn them on who actually deserves them. Yourself.
When you can positively show me WHAT Nature IS . . . not what it consists of or how it works . . . THEN you can attribute the workings we identify as being FROM Nature.
Mystic, I don't need your permission to attribute anything to anything else. If I can see to my satisfaction that the reality we call 'nature' works without the need for a god, then I can say it is 'nature' not 'God' and consider your arguments to be wrongheaded and your input as irrelevant as your crafty, deceptive and bamboozling rhetorical 'what is it?' question.
Quote:
There can be no materialist default without positive proof for your positive claim about the state of reality. It can only be a preference, period.
I was thinking about this last night (anticipating such a response) and I would argue evolution through natural selection. I believe that you accept the evidence that this happens through a natural physical process without the need to the input of a god. That is one positive proof of the claim of naturalistic materialism. There are (I am satisfied) others in cosmology, nuclear physics, medicine and geology. That is all the rationale I need to justify the point I put above.
Here you are giving religion a special dispensation that you do not grant anything else that you don't necessarily believe in.
There are many things that a rational adult does not believe in, like the tooth fairy. Despite this, we COULD argue theoretically that a tooth fairy might exist out there in the cosmos somewhere. After all, we don't know everything that might be out there, right? And we COULD argue that we're just "waiting" for a rational argument for a tooth fairy, any tooth fairy.
But DO we really think that way? No. So why would we think that way about gods?
Why, when it comes to gods, do people suddenly put on the brakes of their disbelief and say, "Weeelllll, I guess MAYBE there's a god out there. I just don't know! Therefore, I'm an agnostic. Because I'm waiting for a rational argument."
I abhor faith based arguments. But both theists and atheists use those. I certainly cannot claim to have knowledge that there is no such thing as a god or any god. If I make that claim at some point the claim reduces down to faith in my instincts, or whatever. I would be guilty of the same sin as the theists. So what I really have is a lack of knowledge about the whole thing which is by definition, an agnostic.
I really fail to see why this is such a big deal. I really don't spend much time at all thinking about gods or the tooth fairy. I just don't like to be thrown into the bucket of "atheist". I have no beliefs at all on the matter.
IF you want to call the Source of our reality Strings . . . be my guest. What you still cannot do is assert that your Strings are the default for the Source of our reality without making an unsubstantiated positive claim.
I'm not calling the source of our reality anything actually nor did I make any positive claims; membranes are purely hypothetical, as I stated. What I'm doing is asking you if you'd consider an unthinking, unintentional material source a god, which you did not respond to? I'd also like to know if you'd consider a material source a god? In other words, something that is composed of matter/energy?
This is simply a fact finding mission to discover what you believe this god thing is. Nothing more.
Like I've said countless times in other discussions such as this, it doesn't matter what you want to label yourself as, or even if you want to label yourself at all. But the fact remains you either believe one or more gods exist or you do not.
Do you perhaps have any comments on my three qualifiers for what it would take to make something a god? I'll list them again so you wont have to page back.
1. It must be worshipped.
2. It must be intelligent and act with intent.
3. It can not be natural/material, IOWs, it can't be composed of matter or energy.
This is open for anyone to comment and expound upon, including and perhaps especially Mystic.
I was thinking about this last night (anticipating such a response) and I would argue evolution through natural selection. I believe that you accept the evidence that this happens through a natural physical process without the need to the input of a god. That is one positive proof of the claim of naturalistic materialism. There are (I am satisfied) others in cosmology, nuclear physics, medicine and geology. That is all the rationale I need to justify the point I put above.
Yes, there are indeed countless processes such as these happening every instant in our observable universe. Very well said, sir. Every time a bit of space debris smashes into our planet or moon (or one of countless others), the unthinking, unintentional natural process of accretion continues unabated.
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.
You are applying human beliefs about the tooth fairy. This is about the "Tooth Fairy" as a label applied to reality.
Mystic, I don't need your permission to attribute anything to anything else. If I can see to my satisfaction that the reality we call 'nature' works without the need for a god, then I can say it is 'nature' not 'God' and consider your arguments to be wrongheaded and your input as irrelevant as your crafty, deceptive and bamboozling rhetorical 'what is it?' question.
