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.
so..... I spend quite a bit of time starting with the provided link and then branching out to others discussing panentheism and pantheism and more.
All it did was lead me to Occam's Razor.
Unless one has the need to believe there is some life after death and/or a reason/need for salvation, I see no reason why to complicate the whole issue .
Mystic has said he rejects the concepts of god promoted by religions ( all or some?) and apparently doesn't agree with my 'kindergarten' examples of what purpose a conscious nature would serve,other than to satisfy one that he has found the answer to the mystery of life, if one needs to believe there is something superior to us to explain it.
(All this by not knowing what Mystic may have claimed in any of his other 8000+ posts that refutes some or all of the above as to what his concept of a god might be)
Science is the first to acknowledge they don't have all the answers.
Believers get all pizzy and offer only insults or attacks if anyone even suggests they don't have all the answers, when in fact they have none of the answers.
NO . . . they are the first to reject an obvious answer given the attributes they know about. They assert a distinction they cannot provide . . . other than to baldly claim "Nature" is not conscious . . . despite the existence of consciousness in nature." IF you wish to reject affirmatively that which is KNOWN to exist in nature . . the burden IS on you to do so by specifying HOW you know there is a difference. The "we don't see it or can't "measure" it as more ubiquitous than in specific species" excuse is NOT a refutation that can be supported when what we DO SEE and CAN "measure is clearly so Godlike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
Anyway, in post 2, MysticPhD basically claims that "God" (i.e. a conscious being that is the universe) is a given and we have to scientifically disprove it if we choose not to accept what he says - which is merely trying to shift the burden of proof from the one with the claims to the skeptics of those claims.
When will you get it right, Logic. . . I claim it is conscious by personal experience. I KNOW it is God from the attributes we CAN measure and verify.
Quote:
The funny thing is, he even admits that he has no scientifically validated test results to prove to us that what he says is true. Yet he expects us to take his word for it because we can't disprove it. Typical theist tactic from a very atypical theist.
More misrepresentation . . . everything we know and can verify is more than sufficient to "prove" the Godhood of your "Nature" to an objective and unbiased observer . . . but my claim of consciousness is verified ONLY by personal experience
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
The first step is to provide evidence that any of these claims correlate to real events. There's no point trying to explain the reality of something which exists only in your imagination, and it's not a failing of others to fail to explain something which isn't real in the first place.
Everything in those questions is undeniable scientific fact.
Quote:
It's especially strange to make this kind of request after just admitting that this whole idea is just your private belief backed up by nothing but mystical visions.
::Sigh:: More misrepresentations. You guys are hopeless.
Quote:
This kind of "logic" is just another god of the gaps : if non-believers can't explain <insert random physical phenomenon here> it must be <insert god(s) name(s) here>.
More reading comprehension problems? The problem is you can't justify WHY these OBVIOUS Godlike features that we can verify are NOT Godlike!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid235
Nature's existence is verifiable; God's existence is not verifiable.
What the hell is the difference?
Quote:
The very reason atheists renounce the idea of God is its non-verifiable, permanent myth nature of God. Theists can not understand this because they think atheists just worship some alternative Gods unknowingly.
The only one referencing myths here is you. If you want to debate with the religions do so. We are talking about the EXISTENCE of God . . . NOT the BELIEFS ABOUT God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
so..... I spend quite a bit of time starting with the provided link and then branching out to others discussing panentheism and pantheism and more.
All it did was lead me to Occam's Razor.
That Friar's principle is NOT scientific and it has been shown to be false numerous times . . . so it has no applicability in this discussion of the EXISTENCE of God that can be seen in the verifiable attributes of your "Nature."
Quote:
Unless one has the need to believe there is some life after death and/or a reason/need for salvation, I see no reason why to complicate the whole issue .
Mystic has said he rejects the concepts of god promoted by religions ( all or some?) and apparently doesn't agree with my 'kindergarten' examples of what purpose a conscious nature would serve,other than to satisfy one that he has found the answer to the mystery of life, if one needs to believe there is something superior to us to explain it.
(All this by not knowing what Mystic may have claimed in any of his other 8000+ posts that refutes some or all of the above as to what his concept of a god might be)
Energy is conserved . . . once our physical energy is converted into pure consciousness energy it will continue to exist in that form until it encounters some transformative process that changes it into something else. I know of nothing that can transform "old_cold" consciousness energy into anything else. That certainly suggests a permanent existence as the cumulative "moments" of old_cold consciousness (thoughts and feelings). You would serve your curiosity (if it is that and not merely a desire to refute or ridicule my synthesis) by reading my prior posts. I suspect you do not have any such interest, however.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 06-18-2010 at 11:41 AM..
Science is the first to acknowledge they don't have all the answers.
Believers get all pizzy and offer only insults or attacks if anyone even suggests they don't have all the answers, when in fact they have none of the answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
NO . . . they are the first to reject an obvious answer given the attributes they know about. They assert a distinction they cannot provide . . . other than to baldly claim "Nature" is not conscious . . . despite the existence of consciousness in nature." IF you wish to reject affirmatively that which is KNOWN to exist in nature . . the burden IS on you to do so by specifying HOW you know there is a difference. The "we don't see it or can't "measure" it as more ubiquitous than in specific species" excuse is NOT a refutation that can be supported when what we DO SEE and CAN "measure is clearly so Godlike.
WOW, I should have included that they get all pizzy and offer only insults or attacks, to include they can also respond with utter nonsense. Guess they are using the principal that if you scream nonsense often and loud enough somewhere some fool will actually believe it.
Again science freely admits they don't have all the answers, but christians go off the deep end of reason if you even suggest they don't, when in fact they ain't got squat, as exhibited above.
WOW, I should have included that they get all pizzy and offer only insults or attacks, to include they can also respond with utter nonsense. Guess they are using the principal that if you scream nonsense often and loud enough somewhere some fool will actually believe it.
Your modus operandi is to claim that this or that is utter nonsense and then proceed to support the allegations with . . . NOTHING! Do you actually have any knowledge to back up your assertions about anything . . . or is it a reading comprehension problem?
Quote:
Again science freely admits they don't have all the answers, but christians go off the deep end of reason if you even suggest they don't, when in fact they ain't got squat, as exhibited above.
More categorical accusations instead of dealing with the specifics of my arguments . . while claiming to speak for science. You probably have developed this false sense of superiority and misunderstanding of the diversity among theists by dealing with the likes of YEC fundies. Either show us some intellectual knowledge or go back and play with the kiddies.
When will you get it right, Logic. . . I claim it is conscious by personal experience. I KNOW it is God from the attributes we CAN measure and verify.More misrepresentation . . . everything we know and can verify is more than sufficient to "prove" the Godhood of your "Nature" to an objective and unbiased observer . . . but my claim of consciousness is verified ONLY by personal experience
When will YOU get it right?
"God" = conscious. You even admitted it. For something to be "God", it has to be conscious. You agree. It can have every other "Godly" trait but if it's not conscious, it's not "God".
Thus, since a universal "Godly" consciousness is not included in 'everything we know and can verify', it is not prudent to say that the universe is conscious.
I'm sorry that your ego can't handle this fact after you've spent so much time denying it.
"God" = conscious. You even admitted it. For something to be "God", it has to be conscious. You agree. It can have every other "Godly" trait but if it's not conscious, it's not "God".
WRONG. I said I beliieve God has to be consciousness . . . NOT that God HAS to be conscious to EXIST. To have EVIDENCE that this inscrutable wondrous thing called God EXISTS we do NOT have to prove consciousness . . . just have a preponderance of the attributes that we CAN verify be Godlike. Our ignorance about any other attributes does NOT justify claiming there is NO EVIDENCE for God . . . THAT is an appeal to ignorance. To establish any OTHER attributes, like mindlessness, consciousness, or personal interventions or . . . whatever is a matter for BELIEFS or further investigations. There are many phenomena we do not know everything about that we accept the existence of. You and your ilk are being biased and bigotted against this particular one in the face of a preponderance of the evidence because you don't BELIEVE it is conscious . . .NOT because you can prove it is not conscious or that the evidence against it gives you any certainty about it whatsoever (just the opposite is true). You still want to discount ALL the other attributes. THAT is bigotry . . . NOT science.
Where does this idea crop up. It has been said by a couple of members that atheists believe in a nature god and that using the word nature is no different than saying it was god. Also, why is it that saying nature is not god is seen as arrogant by the folk who claim we believe in a 'nature god'? What evidence do these folk have for claiming saying something is natural/nature is no different than saying it is god? All it does is make it a matter of useless semantics. Instead of calling it god why not just use the proper word-nature. The fact that we don't know what nature is made of doesn't mean it is the same as saying it was god. It seems that those folk are making personal biases then trying to purport them as empirical fact. The cosmos also doesn't show any evidence of being guided by a purposeful intelligence.
I would like to commend you for starting the thread and, in line with your OP, I see Mystic as making some very good points in his opening post (#2).
I, for one, would be very interested to see you post a point by point response.
WRONG. I said I beliieve God has to be consciousness . . . NOT that God HAS to be conscious to EXIST.
Well this is different. Before you were saying that the term "God" implies consciousness. Now, you are saying that the universe is "God" whether or not it is actually conscious (i.e. it doesn't imply consciousness, it is neutral, as the terms "Nature" and "Universe" are).
Which is it? Can you think in hypotheticals? Step outside your zealous certainty that you are correct and think from anyone else's perspective? if you had no idea whether the universe is conscious, no 'personal experiences', would you still call it "God"?
Quote:
To establish any OTHER attributes, like mindlessness, consciousness, or personal interventions or . . . whatever is a matter for BELIEFS or further investigations. There are many phenomena we do not know everything about that we accept the existence of.
I completely agree.
But we must be able to observe something that necessarily leads to the existence of a phenomenon before we can accept that phenomenon as true (at least I "and my ilk" choose to accept nothing less). This 'universal consciousness' is a discrete phenomenon that is not proven by any other attributes of the universe - which you admit by saying that there is no way for us to scientifically verify it.
If, by your definition, "Nature" is "God" whether or not it turns out to be conscious, then by your definition, "God" exists whether or not it (nature) is conscious - because clearly we all agree that nature exists.
Fine. I can discuss using your definitions. Just so you know I'm not going to adopt them at the end of the day - "God" necessarily means a conscious being to me.
Quote:
You and your ilk are being biased and bigotted against this particular one in the face of a preponderance of the evidence because you don't BELIEVE it is conscious . . .NOT because you can prove it is not conscious or that the evidence against it gives you any certainty about it whatsoever (just the opposite is true). You still want to discount ALL the other attributes. THAT is bigotry . . . NOT science.
Huh?
I'm "biased against" any claim that cannot be verified. Everyone should be. Universal consciousness is the only unverifiable claim that I'm aware of in this discussion... What "other attributes" am I "and my ilk" discounting?
Your modus operandi is to claim that this or that is utter nonsense and then proceed to support the allegations with . . . NOTHING! Do you actually have any knowledge to back up your assertions about anything . . . or is it a reading comprehension problem?
The quoted post above is the proof, and I see you slipped in an attempt to insult in the process.
The proof that science understands they don't have all the answers, is proven because science continues to look for answers, vs. the believers that have completely slammed the door on asking questions, or become outraged when challenged to provide any support for the nonsense they have decreed as the final answer.
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.
