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.
are the pixies described as spacetime exchanging information in such a manor that is it responsible for us?
If so, then you would be correct.
So now god is synonymous with physics? There's no evidence spacetime itself exchanges information the way biological organisms do.
Like Dr Mystic, it just seems like your equating god with physics, chemistry, and biology. Since there are already terms for those fields of study, how exactly does 'god' further our understanding?
As many of us have pointed out ad nauseum, logic by itself is not the basis of knowledge and understanding (science). Without factual or evidence-based premises, a logical argument for god does not establish plausibility and is indistinguishable from any other conceptual possibility.
Do you understand this? Do you understand without evidence there's nothing to distinguish god from omnipotent pixies, leprechauns, or any other entirely conceptual thing?
Of course he does. He also understands that logic doesn't actually support Faith -claims without evidence, which is why he has to reverse or dismiss logic (reverse burden of proof, dismiss Occam's razor) and fiddle semantics by slapping the 'God' -label on a universe that is either natural in how it works, or is Unknown.
It is about fiddling evidence, logic and even reasonable discussion in order to prop up Faith and that is how it's been from the start.
My point was that you are not confident in your worldview, and it bothers you when others are more confident in theirs.
Are you claiming that your “Religious Perspective” blog post is evidence of your confidence in your worldview? It doesn’t give that impression.
Your point is irrelevant. Phet. is honest enough to know that his beliefs are open to question. I may not credit his beliefs, but I respect that he accepts that he is doing 'agnostic Faith -belief' (I may call it) rather than Faith -based dogmatic certainty. Which requires that any doubt and question be brushed aside and anyone raising such must be discredited by any dirty tricks necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I think it’s more accurate to say that what you reject is anyone confident enough in their view to make a case for it. You don’t make a case for your own view because you don’t have confidence that it’s true, and that’s how you want everyone to feel about their own worldview. Your worldview consists of “I don’t know” and “Maybe...” and it triggers you when others display more confidence in their beliefs than you are in yours. This is my reading of your actions and behaviour, which is more accurate than your words.
It's accurate to say that, rather than make a case of any kind, you prefer to sling accusations hoping that if you sling enough muck, it will stick.
Perhaps you really don't understand that unquestioning Faith in one's own rightness is not something to praise, but indicates closed -minded Dogmatism., that being willing to recognise that more information may pop up and where there may be doubts is what makes the rational and scientific view better, because they are able to accept new information rather than deny it because it doesn't fit the Dogma.
Maybe you do know that and don't care, so long as you can discredit the unbelievers. Either way, you have long since run out of either steam or petrol and also credibility.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-01-2020 at 03:58 AM..
I said I had no problem with the concept. That's not saying I agree with it, but I have no problem with it being considered. So I haven't rejected "your view".
What I reject is the way that you justify "your view".
You slap things together, you write/speak well, and you think that constitutes proof of your belief. It doesn't. A million people out there can slap other things together and have a view of christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism, or any other ism, and they can march along to that path if they wish. It doesn't make it real.
During my morning walk with Mr Yap, my grandmothers dog, I came across a 20 Meter long trail of pigeon feathers. At the end of the trail was a circle of feathers, typical for a Sperber, a hawk that feeds on other birds. Once it has killed it's victim, it removes the feathers before eating. But the trail of feathers means that the pigeon was not immediately dead, and had struggled for 20 Meters to fly away while the Sperber removed feathers from the living victim.
I find the idea of an agape god described in religious texts hard to justify having seen that trail of feathers.
During my morning walk with Mr Yap, my grandmothers dog, I came across a 20 Meter long trail of pigeon feathers. At the end of the trail was a circle of feathers, typical for a Sperber, a hawk that feeds on other birds. Once it has killed it's victim, it removes the feathers before eating. But the trail of feathers means that the pigeon was not immediately dead, and had struggled for 20 Meters to fly away while the Sperber removed feathers from the living victim.
I find the idea of an agape god described in religious texts hard to justify having seen that trail of feathers.
You forget that Adam's disobedience means that none of it is God's fault.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-01-2020 at 03:59 AM..
I think it’s more accurate to say that what you reject is anyone confident enough in their view to make a case for it. You don’t make a case for your own view because you don’t have confidence that it’s true, and that’s how you want everyone to feel about their own worldview. Your worldview consists of “I don’t know” and “Maybe...” and it triggers you when others display more confidence in their beliefs than you are in yours. This is my reading of your actions and behaviour, which is more accurate than your words.
'I do not know' or 'maybe' is honest, but being allegedly confident in a world view by avoiding evidence that refutes your position not only shows doubt on your part, but tells us why you need to be dishonest with yourself.
So now god is synonymous with physics? There's no evidence spacetime itself exchanges information the way biological organisms do.
Like Dr Mystic, it just seems like your equating god with physics, chemistry, and biology. Since there are already terms for those fields of study, how exactly does 'god' further our understanding?
Interesting isn't it. Do you know that Arach claims to be an atheist? Wouldn't you have thought from his post that he was talking about a cosmic mind doing stuff, rather than physics? Or even "Life"?
Incidentally, to use Mystic terminology, he is using Human Beliefs about Pixies rather than looking at their attributes.
Yes, using those arguments, Pixies, Santa and you garden gnome would do just as well.
You have discerned the essence of our task in the bold. God is independent and so are we to become independent and self-reliant, NOT slaves, or pets. It is our character that should drive our attitudes and behaviors, NOT obedience for obedience sake. That is the freedom Jesus proclaimed and demonstrated.
Nicely stated. I have moved on from that phase of my life, the phase where I truly did believe that a god wanted me to grow and learn from my past, suddenly grateful for my upbringing. From a Christiain perspective, it was all a test from god and it made sense. Many things have changed since then. From a parent's perspective, my lost childhood, the loss of my mother's, and that of my grandmother's, could have been avoided.
I just no longer think there is some grand plan for me that I do not create for myself.
So now god is synonymous with physics? There's no evidence spacetime itself exchanges information the way biological organisms do.
Like Dr Mystic, it just seems like your equating god with physics, chemistry, and biology. Since there are already terms for those fields of study, how exactly does 'god' further our understanding?
you are spacetime exchanging information to make you.
the second paragraph isn't really my concern. all I am saying is that his god has proof. I don't agree with some things he says, but he used the science correctly to form his belief. It does nothing to "advance" understanding. Just like person saying "I love cats better than dogs" does to me.
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.
