The R&S Pantheism Thread (quote, Christianity, God, Christian)
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.
Yeah! That Spinazzola guy.
I can see where it would be reasonable that you'd question his logic.
After all, he was only endorsed by people like Einstein, and considered one of the most brilliant men to ever live...which, of course, is nothing compared to Peter600.
The entertainment factor of this forum is getting better & better!
If listing famous physicists is your way of giving evidence in support of your religion, that is a battle you will loose. Not that it is a sensible style of argument anyway.
Here are some famous and brilliant atheist physicists for you: Feynman, Bohr, de Broglie, Hawking.
There is a lot of side noise, I will try not to push any of your buttons so we stay focused on a solution (physics style). I tend to be answer like I am speaking to one poster so sometimes I use a shotgun. I ask the same from you.
Its not if I am happy with it or not. But I get your point. Its more that I only look at how consistent with observation the statements are. Remember, I say "Ok, I see that, but I lack belief at this time."
But I think it depends on the person sometimes also. You know, a football coach type vs a a Kindergarten teacher or good caring hospice nurse type person. Actually personality primary color works really good for us here. Its general enough.
The first issue for you and I would be "creator". That is not needed for the argument in anyway. People use it, but in reality it doesn't mean a thing. I say that because nobody knows so it cancels out of both sides of the equation. Just like in physics, its there, but once we cancel it out, its out.
Do you agree with that?
I agree with your first and second paragraph.
I'm not sure what your third paragraph means - are you talking about how people think or about the truthfulness of the beliefs themselves? If you are talking about how different people think differently, then I agree.
I agree with the start of your fourth paragraph, but I'm not sure what you mean at the end of that para.
Just taking your first paragraph Mystic...
You seem to be saying that you think it's possible that god came to exist ie there was a time when god did not exist.
I'm suprised to see you even considering that as a possibility.
In my view, the universe has always existed in some form. I think there is likely something cyclical going on. It's the only thing that makes any rational sense to me.
lol, this is funny to me cruith. I say that because I think much of the discourse is based in misunderstanding or forum setting discussion where we can't pin down the disconnects.
Mystic has told me since day one of me being here that "god", I actually say his belief is not a god, could have started from nothing or from something. He is constantly stating, its his belief based on science (you know what we mean here) and personal experience/emotion. He constantly is saying that personal experience, although we need to use it and its valuable, needs to be crossed checked.
I don't question his science at all. I do his conclusions. In fact, when people do say he is unscientific (totally that is) I know they don't know what they are talking about. Or they are talking about something different than I am.
Then we pick between "form nothing" or "from something"
Then the "somethings" is what we start talking about. To me, we never know. I mean us, as in people alive to day.
I'm not sure what your third paragraph means - are you talking about how people think or about the truthfulness of the beliefs themselves? If you are talking about how different people think differently, then I agree.
I agree with the start of your fourth paragraph, but I'm not sure what you mean at the end of that para.
Right, how people think, not really factual or not. I think we have to consider the people types we are talking to.
slightly off topic ...
I can give you an example I just had the last few days. We were talking about politics and it revolved around telling people they can't smoke. I was arguing from a health, safety, and cost position. The person I was talking to was arguing from the position that "they are chipping away at our freedom".
I said but some people just don't know, for whatever reason. They said if they don't know, to bad. we then went to buyer beware. But I know the real issue was "They can't tell me what to do" really. And when I spoke to that, they are chipping away, the person say "yeah, and I don't care.". For me the discussion was over because I said "I do care".
That's the disconnect ... that can't be closed. We both agreed that it can't be closed. They called me a bleeding heart liberal. lmao its funny. but I digress.
back to topic ...
The last sentence is in relation to how we (your and I in physics) tend to think via formulas, using variables. Variables that on both sides of the equation (or equal) can just be ignored in trying to solve the problem.
That's the calculation part. As you know, we can use philosophical angles and calculation angles to see if we have converging and/or diversion lines of logic.
now just thinking through it ...
Can we be in "god" and it creating everything we experience and independent of how it got there. That answer is clearly yes.
So now we have converging lines of logic demonstrating that the trait "must have created" or "it couldn't have "created" is meaningless right now.
It may be down the line when we are focused on the details, but just describing "something" it isn't yet. It certainly is not a stand alone for either side ... in fact, its not even close. It not even as useful carbon dating. And you know the problems with that.
It's ok if you don't understand. My discussions with you on the atheist forum showed you take time to grasp some basic concepts, though you got there is the end that time. But it also showed me that a lot of other posters don't have that problem, so my post was for those posters.
I'll leave it to others to make their own mind up as to whether all the following concepts are the same thing and interchangeable:
-All that is/All of reality
-All of reality that is also One Thing
-The universe/multiverse
-God
When you are actually talking about the one thing that is our Reality the name you choose is irrelevant, it is still the one thing that is why anything exists.
When you are actually talking about the one thing that is our Reality the name you choose is irrelevant, it is still the one thing that is why anything exists.
When you are actually talking about the one thing that is our Reality the name you choose is irrelevant, it is still the one thing that is why anything exists.
If there is any main trait/attribute that is indicative/demonstrative of "God", it is Creator (of everything).
Reality (all of existence, in totality) is the only thing that meets that standard.
And Reality is self-substantiating to exist.
That's my line of reasoning, anyway.
If there is any main trait/attribute that is indicative/demonstrative of "God", it is Creator (of everything).
Reality (all of existence, in totality) is the only thing that meets that standard.
And Reality is self-substantiating to exist.
That's my line of reasoning, anyway.
The universe created this planet. I would argue the words "everything", and change it to "every we know so far".
In fact ... the universe actually created the watch on the beach.
I can't argue that. I have no idea how people even do. I get clarifying "that's not what I mean". I am ok with that.
I am not ok with telling us "That's not what I mean and we only are talking about a deity in a book". And then making convoluted arguments about how the universe didn't make that watch.
The universe made the watch. Its not remonetizing, its not convoluted, it hasn't violated anything in atheism.
Its a stone cold fact.
So you call it god because it made the watch. I don't agree with god, but I get it.
It's ok if you don't understand. My discussions with you on the atheist forum showed you take time to grasp some basic concepts, though you got there is the end that time. But it also showed me that a lot of other posters don't have that problem, so my post was for those posters.
I'll leave it to others to make their own mind up as to whether all the following concepts are the same thing and interchangeable:
-All that is/All of reality
-All of reality that is also One Thing
-The universe/multiverse
-God
I'll be honest. I never understand conversations that include the word 'reality'.
Reality just means everything that exists as opposed to things that don't exist.
I mean what else is there? There is nothing else, so why say 'our reality' as if there was some other reality?
I do not believe in multiverses personally, I think it's pile of nonsense.
Even is there are other universes, so what? We can never see them or prove they exist so essentially it's a meaningless hypothesis.
If there is any main trait/attribute that is indicative/demonstrative of "God", it is Creator (of everything).
Reality (all of existence, in totality) is the only thing that meets that standard.
And Reality is self-substantiating to exist.
That's my line of reasoning, anyway.
Silly rabbit. That isn't reasoning at all. It's circular thinking.
Last edited by Salty Water; 07-16-2021 at 10:07 AM..
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.
