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.
I don't see our differences in terms of some sort of (intelligent) Creator vs. a particular god of a particular religion. Two different arguments.
Nor do I see how humans self -awareness tells us about whether the the universe is it experiencing itself. I'd need better evidence for that claim.
There is nothing making us like we make a cake. That aint happening. You thinking about the universe is it thinking about itself. Remember, size is an issue. Size is the discussion point not the fact that its happening or not.
I’m still waiting to know your reasoning for concluding a deity is not the prime mover. You are running away from that question.
I told you. I list out all the observations we have. Basically the periodic table. There is nothing in that story line that matches the literal story line in the bible for the creation of the earth.
The same line of logic I use to form my belief about "not knowing what started it, but a Christian god didn't do it", that process, made cell phones and understands that the human mind needs needs false hope to bring real strength sometimes.
Its like we are sitting out side of a baseball game. But we can't see the baseball game. And you telling me, show me why its not a football game. I list all the things I see. And everything I know about baseball games. So I say is a baseball game.
what over lap is there between baseball games and football games that could make you think you were 100% correct? what about the universe could be going on to make you think its your deity?
Be clear in what I say. I say your deity is wrong. the traits of your god belief just do match what we see.
the best I can do, and its a bit of a reach, is the universe was "born" more than created like you claim.
You don’t believe in ANY deity (or anything supernatural, as far as I know). Please explain your reasoning for excluding anything beyond the “natural.”
“Does not match what we see” is very vague.
Thanks.
You don’t believe in ANY deity (or anything supernatural, as far as I know). Please explain your reasoning for excluding anything beyond the “natural.”
“Does not match what we see” is very vague.
Thanks.
super natural is a null word. it doesn't exist like people use the word today. The universe is everything, it does everything. the universe is doing you. You are not doing the universe. It is empirical ... nothing I can do to change that fact. it not even a discussion point. when somebody says "not its not" they are wrong, period.
yeah, when somebody is wrong, like when they say 2+2 = 47. I stand firm on they are wrong. The more they tell me I am stubborn, a big arrogant jerk, and don't understand them; the more I know they don't know what they are talking about.
its that simple.
I do not form a belief based on unknowns. I form a belief only based on knowns. BUT and I mean BIG BUT, the biggest thing is is that its ok to change your mind with new information.
so "designed by some super smart all power being being". I look at how humans are born. No way did a super smart, all powerful, only loving thing design that.
You don’t believe in ANY deity (or anything supernatural, as far as I know). Please explain your reasoning for excluding anything beyond the “natural.”
“Does not match what we see” is very vague.
Thanks.
How about nothing beyond the natural has ever been observed, nor has any theory about how such a thing could exist ever been developed or tested. We have no evidence that the natural has ever been influenced or impacted in any way by anything "beyond the nature".
In other words, everything points to the supernatural being completely non-existent.
It is pretty reasonable to discard it as anything that needs to be considered.
By definition that is not true fish. You would have to reword it to make it fit why we don't believe the evidence. To some people it is observed. Heck, I had moments that reminded me of dear old, quite dead, dad. I was thinking of him and then saw something that he did.
By definition that is not true fish. You would have to reword it to make it fit why we don't believe the evidence. To some people it is observed. Heck, I had moments that reminded me of dear old, quite dead, dad. I was thinking of him and then saw something that he did.
Hmm. Fair enough, I do need to reword a bit, but adding one word addresses your concerns.
Nothing supernatural has been CONFIRMED to be observed.
There are many wild thoughts about the supernatural, many unfounded and baseless. Nothing we can legitimately form any conclusions on, or build our knowledge of the universe upon.
There is nothing making us like we make a cake. That aint happening. You thinking about the universe is it thinking about itself. Remember, size is an issue. Size is the discussion point not the fact that its happening or not.
Only natural forces 'make us' though not according to a recipe with an intended outcome. I still don't see how us thinking about ourselves is the the universe is it thinking about itself. Size isn't the issue; demarcation is. Me writing on a shopping - list is not the house writing about anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
By definition that is not true fish. You would have to reword it to make it fit why we don't believe the evidence. To some people it is observed. Heck, I had moments that reminded me of dear old, quite dead, dad. I was thinking of him and then saw something that he did.
As Ken Ham put it it is about how the evidence is interpreted. The evidence does not show good reason to believe in a god or intelligent creator when the the creationist (in the broad sense) is argued out. We've done plenty of that here on the boards.
How about nothing beyond the natural has ever been observed, nor has any theory about how such a thing could exist ever been developed or tested. We have no evidence that the natural has ever been influenced or impacted in any way by anything "beyond the nature".
In other words, everything points to the supernatural being completely non-existent.
It is pretty reasonable to discard it as anything that needs to be considered.
It’s not reasonable, in my opinion, to conclude that no part of our reality is beyond the scope of natural science, but I can understand why a person might prefer to conclude otherwise,
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.
