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 keep confusing the preference and assumptions of science with its scientific conclusions. Naturalism is NOT a scientific conclusion. It is an a priori assumption. definition, and preference, period because there is no scientific way to determine what the Hell "Nature" (aka Reality) actually IS or IS NOT!!
You've mentioned quite frequently of late that we can't know "what the hell" nature / reality is or is not. When in fact we can and do know a great deal about what it is and isn't. Not everything, but jeez louise, if we didn't know anything about reality we wouldn't be communicating right now via inconvenienced electrons, or doing any of the other things we do via technology (applied science). If nature was just some random stuff we couldn't be sure about or that had no patterns, then we'd still be living in caves.
You've mentioned quite frequently of late that we can't know "what the hell" nature / reality is or is not. When in fact we can and do know a great deal about what it is and isn't. Not everything, but jeez louise, if we didn't know anything about reality we wouldn't be communicating right now via inconvenienced electrons, or doing any of the other things we do via technology (applied science). If nature was just some random stuff we couldn't be sure about or that had no patterns, then we'd still be living in caves.
The only attribute of Reality that matters to the theism/atheism debate is NOT measurable by science so we can NOT know whether or not it IS or IS NOT conscious. We are conscious so it is an existing attribute of Reality that can NOT be assumed away as the "Nature" label presumptuously does. IOW, consciousness is NOT an inconsequential issue regarding what Reality actually IS.
Consciousness is the defining attribute and science currently is NOT able to directly measure its presence or absence. Since our Reality is comprised of 95+% of "something" we cannot directly measure the presence or absence of, the current atheist assumption is beyond moot.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 07-21-2022 at 06:03 PM..
Since our Reality is comprised of 95+% of "something" we cannot directly measure the presence or absence of, the current atheist assumption is beyond moot.
And since your reality is even less measurable, less detectable, and wholly indistinguishable from imaginary, it is WAY BEYOND moot.
You keep confusing the preference and assumptions of science with its scientific conclusions. Naturalism is NOT a scientific conclusion. It is an a priori assumption. definition, and preference, period because there is no scientific way to determine what the Hell "Nature" (aka Reality) actually IS or IS NOT!!
Wrong, naturalism is the conclusion, and has been for over 2000 years. Natural forces without the need for an intelligence behind it to explain anything, and the theists inability to provide credible evidence for some unexplained intelligence behind it all.
The only attribute of Reality that matters to the theism/atheism debate is NOT measurable by science so we can NOT know whether or not it IS or IS NOT conscious. We are conscious so it is an existing attribute of Reality that can NOT be assumed away as the "Nature" label presumptuously does. IOW, consciousness is NOT an inconsequential issue regarding what Reality actually IS.
Consciousness is the defining attribute and science currently is NOT able to directly measure its presence or absence.
As you said, too little knowledge is a dangerous thing (especially for a PhD).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Since our Reality is comprised of 95+% of "something" we cannot directly measure the presence or absence of, the current atheist assumption is beyond moot.
And as that 5% is explainable by naturalism, all the way down, you need to provide the extra evidence there IS intelligence behind it all, otherwise YOUR claim is moot.
I'm not affiliated with any religious denominations, atheism or agnosticism, or scientific organizations. I grew up in an agnostic household.
Atheists: Is your interesting stance about "God", a dis-belief in a higher power, the biblical version of God you don't want or is it you don't have respect for Holy Bible itself?
My thoughts are that a scientific lab wouldn't be able to prove or disprove the words of the ten commandments regardless of who wrote them, because it's self-evident. The same for Jesus's Golden Rule, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them".
When I found out that the old church had omitted books from the Holy Bible when they were outlining the the King James version, I could not trust fully in the Bible anymore and questioned inconsistencies in it, like this:
God=Love? I thought Love is unconditional but that's not true with God, according to the Bible's description of the Lake of Fire. Under the threat of hell, fire and brimstone, you have to obey. Isn't it contradictory to say we are God's children, have God's everlasting love but he will toss us into a fire pit where we scream in pain forever.
I'm not affiliated with any religious denominations, atheism or agnosticism, or scientific organizations. I grew up in an agnostic household.
Atheists: Is your interesting stance about "God", a dis-belief in a higher power, the biblical version of God you don't want or is it you don't have respect for Holy Bible itself?
My thoughts are that a scientific lab wouldn't be able to prove or disprove the words of the ten commandments regardless of who wrote them, because it's self-evident. The same for Jesus's Golden Rule, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them".
When I found out that the old church had omitted books from the Holy Bible when they were outlining the the King James version, I could not trust fully in the Bible anymore and questioned inconsistencies in it, like this:
God=Love? I thought Love is unconditional but that's not true with God, according to the Bible's description of the Lake of Fire. Under the threat of hell, fire and brimstone, you have to obey. Isn't it contradictory to say we are God's children, have God's everlasting love but he will toss us into a fire pit where we scream in pain forever.
First of all, you hardly sound 'neutral'.
As for me and your second paragraph: I am open-minded about the possibility of 'god'; I just no longer see the evidence that there is one (and remember, I have been both a methodist (while being raised) and then a catholic. So I'm not going to believe in a 'maybe'/'it's possible'. If there is a god, my guess is that he is deist in nature. I've long believed in the mantra that wisdom is where you find it. It don't care who or what says something; if it's wise, it's wise, if its stupid, it's stupid. There are wise things from the bible, particularly the NT, but wicked things too, particularly in the OT. But I can say the same for scriptures from other religions, novels, and hicks on the street. The idea that the bible is the font of all wisdom is laughable. Those who believe that need to get out more.
I'm not affiliated with any religious denominations, atheism or agnosticism, or scientific organizations. I grew up in an agnostic household.
Atheists: Is your interesting stance about "God", a dis-belief in a higher power, the biblical version of God you don't want or is it you don't have respect for Holy Bible itself?
My thoughts are that a scientific lab wouldn't be able to prove or disprove the words of the ten commandments regardless of who wrote them, because it's self-evident. The same for Jesus's Golden Rule, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them".
When I found out that the old church had omitted books from the Holy Bible when they were outlining the the King James version, I could not trust fully in the Bible anymore and questioned inconsistencies in it, like this:
God=Love? I thought Love is unconditional but that's not true with God, according to the Bible's description of the Lake of Fire. Under the threat of hell, fire and brimstone, you have to obey. Isn't it contradictory to say we are God's children, have God's everlasting love but he will toss us into a fire pit where we scream in pain forever.
Gnostism is about knowledge of god
Theism is about belief in god
Since NO ONE has genuine knowledge (vs believing in having knowledge), everyone is a-gnostic
A-Theism is simply recognizing that since there is no demonstrable evidence proving a god/any gods exist, it means we reject the evidence as insufficient to conclude any gods exist.
It does not intrinsically mean taking an absolute position that no gods exist, as again, there is no way to present evidence supporting that claim. Anti-Theism would be a belief only.
An Analogy using automatic vehicle transmissions
Theism = Drive
Athesim = Neutral
Anti-Theism = Reverse
As you've mentioned in your own discovery, when you genuinely study both the origin and journey of the current bible(s) to modern times, it's really impossible to accept it as the "infallible" word of god. It has some good stuff, some history, poetry, etc., and some really awful things in it.
I did the same thing, starting my journey with a christian mother, and after years of careful review, discovered all the reasons I had believed had simply slipped away as unsustainable.
The only attribute of Reality that matters to the theism/atheism debate is NOT measurable by science so we can NOT know whether or not it IS or IS NOT conscious. We are conscious so it is an existing attribute of Reality that can NOT be assumed away as the "Nature" label presumptuously does. IOW, consciousness is NOT an inconsequential issue regarding what Reality actually IS.
Consciousness is the defining attribute and science currently is NOT able to directly measure its presence or absence. Since our Reality is comprised of 95+% of "something" we cannot directly measure the presence or absence of, the current atheist assumption is beyond moot.
Some aspects of consciousness can be measured.
Brain activity can be measured and can actually be controlled now to a certain extent.
Brain stimulation is used to treat mood disorders and stress, and help with things like Parkinson disease. Is that consciousness? I'd say yes.
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.
