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.
Think about how many atoms there are in the universe. I believe it's 10^80 atoms. Let's say each atom in the universe represents one year. Even after 10^80 years, that's absolutely nothing in terms of eternity!
We are aware of that, which is why you must really be unable to understand what it would be like for a human mind to exist eternally, especially in a 'sin' - free environment. Your mind would crack after the first billion years. You would have to be 'not you' to stand it, and that wouldn't appeal to me.
Mystic will say - with some validity - that those are Beliefs about "God" (by which he means the One creative Mind). He still has to prove that this Mind exists and so far he has been reduced to the Big Three: Cosmic origins and Consciousness, which are the best. He has used origins of Life in the past (just once, as i recall), but the evidence for a natural Abiogenesis is just looking too good these days.
Mystic will say - with some validity - that those are Beliefs about "God" (by which he means the One creative Mind).
Except that is just an ad hoc excuse to get around the the fact that different ideas of gods do not agree with the idea of one god.
It also ignores the fact that the different gods is evidence that all gods are invented, and that there is something that makes people want to invent gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
He still has to prove that this Mind exists and so far he has been reduced to the Big Three: Cosmic origins and Consciousness, which are the best. He has used origins of Life in the past (just once, as i recall), but the evidence for a natural Abiogenesis is just looking too good these days.
He hints at the origins of life several times by his use of the creationist argument of life coming from none life, as if the two are separate. As I have pointed out (and backed up with a link to a biology PhD), life is a subset of chemistry.
Which is why science here is banned, because one side does use science.
So maybe we will now get more spiritual (and interesting) questions.
Mystic's 'Synthesis' is not just using 'First Cause' as an excuse to get Biblegod on the board. It really does stop more at this rather more credible firstcause god. Mystic rejects a great deal of the Bible, though he does fiddle Jesus in as a practical exhibition of Love, though why yet another Roman execution out of a few hundred thousand from Spartacus to the Jewish war should be obvious without several hundred years of theology to work it out is not made clear.
Yes - we have a lot more in common than we do differences, but (as is often the case), intolerance of anyone who does not use Faith instead of evidence makes any meaningful dialogue ( or even dialog) very difficult.
In fact I argued that abiogenesis and the demonstrable Fact of 'emergence' (in the practical/mechanical sense) not only accounted for Life but also for consciousness , which is an instinctive reaction in lower animals and is just a more complex development of chemical reaction, encodes into DNA as 'instinct'. So, which I can understand why the human problem -solving faculty that we call 'reasoning' has a lot of Mystique about it, in principle, is is as Explainable in Natural/Mechanical terms as Life.
I remember that Mystic got very annoyed once when i showed that he was using the same arguments as Creationists. Now, I'm not sniping at Mystic (no ..really, I'm not) but explaining the hypothesis that he doesn't explain very much himself. He will refer to his 'Synthesis', but that impalpable thesis hardly explains the religious dimension of his 'spiritual fossil record' or as i call it, the 'learning curve' theory where religious evolution is God's spiritual training course for humans.
Mysic can be awfuly cagey about the details.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-20-2019 at 10:27 AM..
Your criticism only undercuts the myriad beliefs ABOUT God, NOT the existence of God, period. Whatever those people believe ABOUT God does NOT invalidate their experiences of God regardless of who or what they believe is God.
Your criticism only undercuts the myriad beliefs ABOUT God, NOT the existence of God, period. Whatever those people believe ABOUT God does NOT invalidate their experiences of God regardless of who or what they believe is God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Gods. They experience other gods, plural.
Wrong. They simply believe different things about the one and only God there is, but their beliefs ABOUT God are NOT controlling.
Wrong. They simply believe different things about the one and only God there is, but their beliefs ABOUT God are NOT controlling.
Except that is just an ad hoc excuse to get around the the fact that different ideas of gods do not agree with the idea of one god.
It also ignores the fact that the different gods is evidence that all gods are invented, and that there is something that makes people want to invent gods.
Your criticism only undercuts the myriad beliefs ABOUT God, NOT the existence of God, period. Whatever those people believe ABOUT God does NOT invalidate their experiences of God regardless of who or what they believe is God.
We've tried in the past.
I suggest you think carefully about the sentence that I underlined.
I have no psychic powers.
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.
