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.
Being plausible or possible are not pieces of evidence. Being plausible itself needs evidence. Evidence is required when you make a claim, implicit or explicit, that something is so, however opinion does not.
The evidence is what science has determined about our Reality that is used to draw the plausible extrapolations from, NOT the extrapolations. Try harder.
The evidence is what science has determined about our Reality that is used to draw the plausible extrapolations from, NOT the extrapolations. Try harder.
Your plausible extrapolation is, by your own admission, your personal opinion. You have admitted that science cannot determine if there is or is not a God. However your words come out as if your personal opinion is scientifically backed and true.
I don't even have to try. I'm no longer a poor student that needs to please an arrogant prof. Nor do I need to defend the false claims you make about me or my opinions. I do not understand why instead of spending time here you have not published your opinions in a book and try to convince the World of its brilliance.
Your plausible extrapolation is, by your own admission, your personal opinion. You have admitted that science cannot determine if there is or is not a God. However your words come out as if your personal opinion is scientifically backed and true.
I don't even have to try. I'm no longer a poor student that needs to please an arrogant prof. Nor do I need to defend the false claims you make about me or my opinions. I do not understand why instead of spending time here you have not published your opinions in a book and try to convince the World of its brilliance.
What is scientifically backed and true is the composition of our Reality as described in QFT and QED that I use as the basis for extrapolating my view of what comprises our consciousness and where it resides within the spacetime field. By simple logic, if my view of the spacetime field as consciousness is true, it would have to be considered God. The inability to determine that by direct scientific measurement of consciousness is why my views remain BELIEFS just like your atheist views!
Your plausible extrapolation is, by your own admission, your personal opinion. You have admitted that science cannot determine if there is or is not a God. However your words come out as if your personal opinion is scientifically backed and true.
I don't even have to try. I'm no longer a poor student that needs to please an arrogant prof. Nor do I need to defend the false claims you make about me or my opinions. I do not understand why instead of spending time here you have not published your opinions in a book and try to convince the World of its brilliance.
well, I think it comes down to, if the science he uses for his belief wasn't fact, then we would be allowed to debate his belief. I am strongly against his unified aware field badland. strongly against it. But I never say the science used is wrong. We are using the exact same science that is in any college science book.
I say mystic, your conclusion is wrong. Why the need to say its not science data when it is? That's the part that confuses me.
well, I think it comes down to, if the science he uses for his belief wasn't fact, then we would be allowed to debate his belief. I am strongly against his unified aware field badland. strongly against it. But I never say the science used is wrong. We are using the exact same science that is in any college science book.
I say mystic, your conclusion is wrong. Why the need to say its not science data when it is? That's the part that confuses me.
He is the one that brings up science which is the only reason I even mention it. It seems like I should not respond to his claims or words so that you don't find fault in me for using his words in my response.. I will attempt to never mention the word science again so that you don't get confused again.
Read carefully what I'm about to say MysticPhD claims that science supports his claim and also science cannot determine if a God exists or not. I was not referring to science but the contradiction. The contradiction not the science. No more use of the S word to upset you. It's now left to others to use that word, including your abundant use of the word.
What is scientifically backed and true is the composition of our Reality as described in QFT and QED that I use as the basis for extrapolating my view of what comprises our consciousness and where it resides within the spacetime field. By simple logic, if my view of the spacetime field as consciousness is true, it would have to be considered God. The inability to determine that by direct scientific measurement of consciousness is why my views remain BELIEFS just like your atheist views!
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
He is the one that brings up science which is the only reason I even mention it. It seems like I should not respond to his claims or words so that you don't find fault in me for using his words in my response.. I will attempt to never mention the word science again so that you don't get confused again.
Read carefully what I'm about to say MysticPhD claims that science supports his claim and also science cannot determine if a God exists or not. I was not referring to science but the contradiction. The contradiction, not the science. No more use of the S word to upset you. It's now left to others to use that word, including your abundant use of the word.
Read carefully what I'm about to say. There is NO contradiction! By science supports my belief, I do NOT mean science proves or establishes it as fact just as capable of being explained by plausible and understandable existing science but not yet verifiable (meaning it is legitimately capable of being BELIEVED!). That is why in the bold above in my post I say it is my BELIEF just as your atheism is a BELIEF but it cannot be established by science either.
Science is impotent to make any such conclusion about EITHER of our preferred BELIEFS about our Reality as God or not God. (You cannot demand evidence of the existence of God without implying that existing evidence is NOT of God. That IS an IMPLICIT CLAIM that God does NOT exist.
He is the one that brings up science which is the only reason I even mention it. It seems like I should not respond to his claims or words so that you don't find fault in me for using his words in my response.. I will attempt to never mention the word science again so that you don't get confused again.
Read carefully what I'm about to say MysticPhD claims that science supports his claim and also science cannot determine if a God exists or not. I was not referring to science but the contradiction. The contradiction not the science. No more use of the S word to upset you. It's now left to others to use that word, including your abundant use of the word.
I think you are getting wrapped up in how confident he is in his belief bumping up against how confident you are in your beliefs.
He doesn't mean "science supports his belief" as in you find in a book. What he says is the science he uses supports his belief. That science being used can be found in any science book. Yes, after so many post the wording get lost.
Does that make sense? I think that fact gets lost over time as we get fed up with a religion/spirituality forum being used as an activist site. In religion and spirituality its more about probably, plausible, not likely for all beliefs.
He is right about showing that god (his is a non deity thing-a-ma-thing) doesn't exist. His type of god is plausible so science will not show it doesn't exist. Its just a fact at this point. Thats why its stopped, we are forced into binary thinking, and we are not allowed to discuss anything but deities. Because his belief is plausible.
And look at the tone of your post. If I answer in kind ... then what?
::Sigh:: This is so predictable of you, LearnMe. You came into this forum with precisely this attitude proclaiming your Ten Truths based on your faith in reductionist materialism that we all should obviously accept as Gospel and proceed from there. It took me NO time at all to suss that about you.
I'm not hiding anything...
I lean toward transparency. Some might even call me an "open book." Call it what you like, but just like my 10 Truths, they are there in black-and-white, put as straight-forwardly as I could at the time. Take 'em or leave 'em.
I think you wouldn't want to sit in a room because we come to a point in the room where I say "learme, its time to look at what we are each saying in terms of strength of evidence and beyond all doubt."
I say "So ok, the ten commandants and cement theory is good. I accept them as true. At least good enough that we would move on. lets look at what is being claimed, The strength of evidence, and the beyond reusable doubt." we grab text books and start drawing pictures.
as the "beyond reasonable doubt" is reached with each passing piece of evidence we pull out of a textbook, well, in a forum, I can't point to it in a book and draw how it relates. And then ask you "show me why its not evidence. or tell me, using the textbook, where it is wrong."
It's truths, not commandments, and I prefer the court room analogy when it comes to establishing what we can in the way of truth, "beyond a reasonable doubt" or inadmissible evidence or what there is to otherwise consider. You tend to complicate the process a bit too much to my way of thinking. Resulting in a mistrial, and/or causing your whole case to be thrown out of court.
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.
