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.
Of course we COULD acknowledge this IF the arguments were valid. It is amazing how difficult this seems to be for a PhD to understand.
It is NOT difficult to understand how someone who has NOT trodden the arduous intellectual path to a Ph.D. would have trouble discerning valid arguments. It is that "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Alleged extrapolations. All he ever does is claim extrapolations from known science, he never explains them. This is probably because he does not have the claimed knowledge and understanding of the extant science, and I have caught him inventing excuses about my field and getting it totally wrong.
Your arrogance is very tiresome. You do not have the requisite depth of knowledge at your pragmatic USER level to judge the rightness or wrongness of my understanding. I literally created the kinds of instruments and math you use to model the brain processes and their outcomes. I never made the stupid sophomoric mistake of thinking they were what the brain was actually doing.
1God : the supreme or ultimate reality: SUCH AS
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
Notice the above REQUIRES GOD to be a BEING and to RULE. Additionally, This BEING is NOT the universe, it is the creator and ruler of the universe. Separate things.
b. Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
Notice the above REQUIRES GOD to be a ETERNAL SPIRIT : INFINITE MIND
I can grant Mystic the last 2 words, BUT not separated from the last 4 words.
In EVERY definition YOU CLAIM to Accept, This GOD is REQUIRED to be a BEING, something you intentionally omit every time, which invalidates every post you attempt this little word game.
Yes, many people have pointed this out. But Goldie is only fishing for responses, so he repeatedly posts (with small amendments) the same texts, over and over and over.
Alleged extrapolations. All he ever does is claim extrapolations from known science, he never explains them. This is probably because he does not have the claimed knowledge and understanding of the extant science, and I have caught him inventing excuses about my field and getting it totally wrong.
Turns out with minor effort you can find and read Mystic's position, he offered a 5 part series to explain it a little over 10 years ago. My Synthesis Parts 1-5
It is NOT difficult to understand how someone who has NOT trodden the arduous intellectual path to a Ph.D. would have trouble discerning valid arguments. It is that "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" issue.
Your arrogance is very tiresome. You do not have the requisite depth of knowledge at your pragmatic USER level to judge the rightness or wrongness of my understanding. I literally created the kinds of instruments and math you use to model the brain processes and their outcomes. I never made the stupid sophomoric mistake of thinking they were what the brain was actually doing.
Yes, many people have pointed this out. But Goldie is only fishing for responses, so he repeatedly posts (with small amendments) the same texts, over and over and over.
I would point out that Gldn is actually completely sincere in his belief that Reality is a single entity, aka God. However, I agree that he does delight in chain-pulling which is why he exaggerates the definitional boundaries and pretzels the logic of atheists wedded to a "separate things" perspective of Reality.
It is NOT difficult to understand how someone who has NOT trodden the arduous intellectual path to a Ph.D. would have trouble discerning valid arguments. It is that "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" issue.
Get over yourself. Almost everyone else has.
It does not take a PhD to spot Goldie's deliberately bad arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your arrogance is very tiresome. You do not have the requisite depth of knowledge at your pragmatic USER level to judge the rightness or wrongness of my understanding. I literally created the kinds of instruments and math you use to model the brain processes and their outcomes. I never made the stupid sophomoric mistake of thinking they were what the brain was actually doing.
You arrogantly tried to bluff the expert, me, and got the basics wrong.
Turns out with minor effort you can find and read Mystic's position, he offered a 5 part series to explain it a little over 10 years ago. My Synthesis Parts 1-5
I know his position, what is missing is the actual evidence he claims to have. If you find it, let me know, as I appear to have missed it the first time I read his Synthesis with a capital S.
I think most people have a wrong idea of God. I think God is like a law of the universe that makes our world exist. It is not someone who sits and watches over everyone. For example, water boils at 212 F, not because God wants it to, but because it is a law of physics and it can't be otherwise. Everything that happens to us can be explained. And what cannot be explained is simply not yet fully understood. There are no miracles, no magic, but the laws of the universe.
1God : the supreme or ultimate reality: SUCH AS
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
Notice the above REQUIRES GOD to be a BEING and to RULE. Additionally, This BEING is NOT the universe, it is the creator and ruler of the universe. Separate things.
b. Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
Notice the above REQUIRES GOD to be a ETERNAL SPIRIT : INFINITE MIND
I can grant Mystic the last 2 words, BUT not separated from the last 4 words.
In EVERY definition YOU CLAIM to Accept, This GOD is REQUIRED to be a BEING, something you intentionally omit every time, which invalidates every post you attempt this little word game.
YES YOU DID.
NO IT IS NOT
Because repeatedly you are taking the definition out of context, to suggest it says what you want it to say, not what it does say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Yes, many people have pointed this out. But Goldie is only fishing for responses, so he repeatedly posts (with small amendments) the same texts, over and over and over.
Oh, I see now! The thinking that "Such as" equals "Only". It doesn't.
And mistaking examples for qualifiers: It not only notes "such as", it also notes "as in".
"The Supreme or Ultimate Reality" is the general meaning...the rest is not the sole requirements, but some examples.
Also, you left out the other example, "Infinite Mind"...that was listed as well. Why...because it infers a "Unending Consciousness"?
And...I notice you forgot to mention "A Person or Thing of Supreme Value".
I noted that too...why did you not address whether that exists, or not?
Do any "Powerful Rulers" exist? Another you forgot to note.
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe Throughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe …— Jame Schaefer… the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.— Sunita Pant Bansal
bChristian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit: infinite Mind
2or less commonly God: a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powersspecifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of realityGreek gods of love and war
3: a person or thing of supreme value had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall
4: a powerful ruler Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates
Claiming that nothing what-so-ever in those meanings/definitions is something that objectively exists is simply pretending it doesn't say what you don't want it to say.
Unlike you, I can and do back up my position with valid arguments, not silly excuses and ad hominems.
You are no expert and it is tiresome that you think you are. You apparently do not even know what you do not know, a sure sign of intellectual adolescence.
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.
