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.
Creator, therefore a god, lol. Why do you insist on this very weak question-begging? I have pointed out the obvious flaws in this argument (Bayesian, our existence is not mythical, your cherry-picking of traits means other alleged gods are not gods), so it amuses me that you still insist on this sad argument.
The shallowness of your thinking would disappoint your philosophical Greek forefathers. The STATUS of creating us automatically renders whatever it is a God RELATIVE TO US, our ignorance about what it is notwithstanding and no question-begging or cherry-picking involved.
Your obsession with and fixation on the myriad mythical BELIEFS ABOUT God have no bearing on that simple undeniable fact! Your preference for the name "Nature" changes nothing nor does the successful sequestering of my panentheistic view by the forum.
True dialogue doesnt fabricate false claims about what another poster said , so your friend blew that out of the water from the start. I am simply calling out a poster for continually making stuff up about what I supposedly said, and Im not much concerned whether you like it or not.
This post shows you are not here to do much but stir stuff up, since you choose to try and razz me for simply pointing out that things have been attributed to me I didnt say. Obviously correcting another poster for inventing falsehoods isnt high on your to do list, just kvetching.
True dialogue also does not exclude calling out the crap for what it is, though for some with the thinner skins, calling out the crap just leads to more crap...
Perhaps a little distracting from the more adult, civil and intelligent discussion we all claim to prefer, but when every effort to have that kind of discussion fails as well, then in no time it's mud fight time yet again!
I am not being absurd at all, just quoting you. Those are your exact words from post 99, I simply bolded the relevant part I was referring to. And they do know what they are discovering in the 5% part , just not the 95% part as of yet.
And you are welcome to call it God, but others are not required to acknowledge it as such merely because you apply this name to it .
And you are welcome to call it Nature, Universe, or Multiverse, but others are not required to acknowledge it as such merely because you apply those names to it. It is still responsible for our existence, our life, and our consciousness. That is pretty darn Godly, IMO.
"True dialog" is also not necessarily positive and upbeat. Truth is not always pretty.
Truth often "hurts" as a matter of fact...
And so it sure seems for some who refuse to stick with the truth. Might actually be that it's exposure of the nonsense that hurts the most. Hard to tell with more than a few folks here, but one thing is for sure. Making a good case for what is truth and what is not. Fact versus fiction (and/or personal speculation) always seems to be bring all sorts of grief from the same cast of characters...
Don't be absurd! Scientists have no way to determine whether what they are discovering is evidence of God or not. They do not KNOW what it is they are discovering evidence about. In my panentheist view, everything they have discovered is about God and that is less than 5% of what exists, whatever the scientists choose to call it evidence of. Since we simply DO NOT KNOW, it remains a moot issue.
What is the more important question here I wonder...
What is absurd and what is not, or WHY one person's absurd is another persons sound, reason and logic?
Second question. Is it more absurd to attribute the unknown to God (and/or a second unknown) or should we not simply accept what we can establish as truth, fact. Then too simply recognize what we don't know and understand as exactly that?
Say for example we're given a birthday present without any real way to determine what is inside the box wrapped in birthday paper. Sure it's fun to guess, but ultimately we've got to admit we don't know what is inside the box, because there is simply no way to know. We've all been there, but then someone comes along and claims what is in the box is something that is supernatural. Time to stop drinking the birthday punch at that point I think...
Not exactly, and this issue of proving a negative has been discussed too many times in every way possible over the course of a long time in this forum. As you are well aware...
If you were a new-comer here, I'd better understand this comment, but that you don't understand the nature of this dichotomy seems odd to me given your general self-described ability to understand complicated issues. After all these times around this block, what's up with that?
The puerile rationale that has been advanced to support the so-called default belief that is not a belief but a lack of belief is too preposterous to credit intellectually. It is symptomatic of an inability or obliviousness to the "givens" that underly the unconscious presumptions in your stated positions.
There seems to be no remedy for this intellectual deficiency in support of the desire to impose a non-existent burden of proof on theism while exempting atheism from the same requirement.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 10-26-2021 at 10:49 AM..
True dialogue also does not exclude calling out the crap for what it is, though for some with the thinner skins, calling out the crap just leads to more crap...
Perhaps a little distracting from the more adult, civil and intelligent discussion we all claim to prefer, but when every effort to have that kind of discussion fails as well, then in no time it's mud fight time yet again!
Most of the time, most things ought to be able to be settled with "civil" discussion (even though various christian chruches seem unable to accomplish that).
But there are other times, as my uncle would have said, "ya gotta break a few eggs". For decades...no, make that centuries...the only voices in the Western world that were allowed to speak were christian voices. That's no longer true thanks, to a large degree, to free-access media. And that -- finally -- free thought and free speech doesn't go down well with the people who used to be in control. I guess my uncle would have said that their eggs are cracked and broken now.
Atheists are in the ring because our ideas hold up, we only see natural forces, never some intelligent god guiding anything.
We are not just ganging up on people, we are pointing out why religious arguments fail, and why we do not believe religious claims. We have a universe full of natural forces, and the theist's arguments fail because they do not provide the extra evidence for something more.
And the jargonauts have to run away because they know they are faking their alleged expertise.
You could get rid of all atheists and it would make no difference...
What science can establish as fact, truth, remains and is entirely independent on what any of us individuals might happen to believe outside the sort of reason and logic that the scientific method relies upon. That method instead of individual say so that can't be verified in any generally acceptable manner.
And you are welcome to call it Nature, Universe, or Multiverse, but others are not required to acknowledge it as such merely because you apply those names to it. It is still responsible for our existence, our life, and our consciousness. That is pretty darn Godly, IMO.
Brilliant! Tell us. Just what are we all "required to acknowledge?"
Not a trick question given all we can well acknowledge without any debate. Nothing really "required" along those lines. Otherwise...?
The puerile rationale that has been advanced to support the so-called default belief that is not a belief but a lack of belief is too preposterous to credit intellectually. It is symptomatic of an inability or obliviousness to the "givens" that underly the unconscious presumptions in your stated positions. There seems to be no remedy for this intellectual deficiency in support of the desire to impose a non-existent burden of proof on theism while exempting atheism from the same requirement.
You need to find a new word, because puerile is getting old too...
Are you denying this issue of proving a negative has been discussed from every angle already?
Or are you not understanding the dichotomy inherent with regard to making claims versus proving a negative?
Can't speak for everyone, but the "burden of proof" falls on anyone who wants to make a claim in a convincing manner. Back to a bit of reason and logic, my learning from reading a good amount of history is that the scientific method has slowly but surely cleared much of the unknown attributed to a god and in it's place provided us knowledge we now all accept as fact. Stands to reason the trajectory will continue, and more and more theological "givens" will give way to the actual truth of these matters.
Again for me personally, I'm perfectly content to wait and see what more there is to learn in this way as opposed to contemplating all the personal claims about god that have been going on since we were offering human sacrifices to please them.
Thank goodness we're making this sort of progress. What I like to call the slow maturing of man, regardless all the personal claims to the contrary still going on today. The truth ultimately prevails, and I am a strong believer the "truth will set us free!" From all the nonsense we're otherwise called to believe for all manner of other less worthy reasons.
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.
