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.
And as usual YOU keep asserting this nonsense as if there is a shred of evidence for it but it is entirely a presumption that what science investigates is NOT God.
Sorry, science papers do exist, and not one say a god did it. If you want to argue for a god, bring some evidence to the table for a conscious creator, otherwise you have nothing but a useless label for our existence that explains nothing, and your usual arrogant assertions and fallacies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There is no way to ever prove your assertion by presumption because we cannot KNOW that it is NOT God.
'Assertion by presumption'? Another straw man murdered. And if we do not know, then stop asserting it IS a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Using the "God did it" phrasing distracts from the unknowable by pretending there has to be something else other than our Reality itself.
Pretending? Sorry, but other religions DO exist, and they DO believe in something other than our reality. Sorry captain ego, it is not all about you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The proper phrasing is "God IS IT" and you can never amass ANY evidence against it.
As you have so far not amassed ANY evidence FOR a conscious reality, I will use what we do know.
And your argument is off topic, we are here to discuss the beginning of life. You have a thread for your conscious reality belief.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 11-14-2020 at 10:08 AM..
Yes, Arach!!! They refuse to acknowledge the equivalence of our PRESUMPTIONS. They actually think their presumption is true by default which is absurd.
Natural forces create complexity without the need of a conscious entity, no presumption here. You have the presumption of consciousness, so no, they are not equivalent positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If our entire Reality is NOT God to us nothing ever could be, which is, of course, their desire.
Yes, let us forget billions of religious people who believe otherwise. Seriously, captain ego, it is not just about your god.
really learnme? I wasn't even referencing that post. whats up with this sucker punch? secondly, your flat lying ... I quote your post exactly as they are. I only quote your post.
Really AA, as many times as you have described my comments in the same way, about how science and religion can't "co-exist," I made note of how you were doing it again, even if not addressing me in that post, and I double checked to see if you were quoting the comment you were addressing verbatim, and again you were not. How can you say you quote these posts exactly as they are when obviously you don't? I know you don't quote my posts verbatim MOST of the time!
And "sucker punch?" Really? Again you and some others love to ramp up the drama in these threads sometimes, and call it a sucker punch if you must. For me it's just another request that we not misrepresent what others comment.
The proper phrasing is "God IS IT" and you can never amass ANY evidence against it.
Is this the crux of your position then?
In the name of moving the needle, for the sake of argument, let's just assume you are right about this. Ultimately whether you are right or wrong, the issue is more about the fact that we can't amass any evidence a God exists. Not over the course of human history. Not since science became a thing. Not able all this time and up until today. That's the real issue for me anyway. One might argue that's more than just a little "evidence against it."
Something like a child might believe in a supernatural power that delivers gifts on Christmas morning, and correct everyone by saying the proper phrasing is "Santa IS IT!" Because no one can ever amass ANY evidence against it, far as the child is concerned. Or would the Flat Earther example be better to explain who believes what evidence proves or disproves what in these respects?
Natural forces create complexity without the need of a conscious entity, no presumption here. You have the presumption of consciousness, so no, they are not equivalent positions.
Your presumption is that your "natural" forces are NOT evidence of the work of God, despite the FACT that you do NOT KNOW that because you do not know WHAT the forces are the work of.
Quote:
Yes, let us forget billions of religious people who believe otherwise. Seriously, captain ego, it is not just about your god.
Yes, Captain obtuse, Their BELIEFS do not constitute evidence on which to scientifically base your presumption about what our Reality is NOT! It is NOT about the EXISTENCE of anyone's particular God because the only one we have evidence for is our Reality itself. The others remain BELIEFS ABOUT the God that does exist as our Reality.
Iwas, what do you think the primary reason for your intransigence is?
From my perspective, I understand mystic's god. I do not understand why you hold on to your deity despite the evidence that it doesn't exist?
I am not intransigent. I have stated many times that I would adopt whichever worldview provides the clearest view of reality. I believe I’ve already found it, but if you think you know of a better worldview, let me know what it is and why you think it’s better.
Last edited by Iwasmadenew; 11-14-2020 at 12:06 PM..
In the name of moving the needle, for the sake of argument, let's just assume you are right about this. Ultimately whether you are right or wrong, the issue is more about the fact that we can't amass any evidence a God exists. Not over the course of human history. Not since science became a thing. Not able all this time and up until today. That's the real issue for me anyway. One might argue that's more than just a little "evidence against it."
You seem clueless to the FACT that "We Do Not Know WHAT to assign the evidence we accumulate TO"!!! Your assignment is an ASSUMPTION as is mine. There is no question of its EXISTENCE because that is what we are investigating. You want to pretend your ASSUMPTION of what we are investigating is the only true one but you have no evidence of that whatsoever.
I am not intransigent. I have stated many times that I would adopt whichever worldview provides the clearest view of reality. I believe I’ve already found it, but if you think you know of a better worldview, let me know what it is and why you think it’s better.
Not from my standpoint. Literal Christianity doesn't hold up under more conditional changes than the standard model.
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.
