The universe didn't come out of nothing. (doctrine, morality, moral)

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

When people vote in a democratic society they vote both what they know to be "truths" along with their beliefs...

But tell me how else do you possibly make things any more equitable when faced with a citizenry that has differing opinions and beliefs?

I submit...there is no more equitable way, then the will of the majority rules everyone.

As regards highway construction or national defense, OK. But as regards personal spirituality, not so much. BTW, under the usual terms of a democratic vote, a mere 50.01% get's your pet project started, but that in no way is a "landslide" victory. That leaves 49.09% really unhappy and fit to start an uprising. Better that we don't apply such simplistic rules to belief systems & personal spirituality, huh?

As in: The First Amendment to the lovely US Constitution. It's directive: Leave religion out of politics. No democratic majority vote to mandate prayer, for instance! To each his or her own. By law! Your votes do not get to determine what I believe, else you're a fascist dictator. You a fascist, GldnRl?

Originally Posted by zonababe

With each scientific break though, god's role is diminished.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Actually with each scientific breakthrough . . . we know more about how God works.

Cute, but oh wait now: what if the scientific breakthrough, hypothetically but absolutely discounts your particular God, Mystic? (As many have, BTW...) What then?

Let's just say, hypothetically (I've asked this I don't know how many times, but perhaps just once it'll actually get answered...) that you are finally convinced that Evolution is a fact, or that the Big Bang is, in fact, how it actually started, completely absent a pre-existing God?

Would that specific set of discoveries augment, or diminish and extinquish, your existing belief in a God?

Your degree and education does allow for hypothetical thinking, no? It can be quite educational....

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Cute, but oh wait now: what if the scientific breakthrough, hypothetically but absolutely discounts your particular God, Mystic? (As many have, BTW...) What then?

There are none that have discounted MY particular God, rifleman . . . you insist on confusing me with your favorite foils.

Let's just say, hypothetically (I've asked this I don't know how many times, but perhaps just once it'll actually get answered...) that you are finally convinced that Evolution is a fact, or that the Big Bang is, in fact, how it actually started,

You know I have no problems with ether scientific view, rifleman

completely absent a pre-existing God?

But this little gem is actually suggesting that you CAN eventually prove a negative . . . an interesting view. There is NOTHING in the current knowledge that in any way even suggests this. Our ignorance in that regard remains absolute . . . despite the fancy mathematical cover stories and names for it.

Would that specific set of discoveries augment, or diminish and extinquish, your existing belief in a God?

Your degree and education does allow for hypothetical thinking, no? It can be quite educational....

You are asking the wrong person, rifleman . . . because my certainty is not based on my synthesis . . . that simply explains the reality I encountered. I am quite amenable to adjusting my synthesis on the basis of new evidence . . . but not my certainty in what I know to be true. My personal experience is absolutely confirming FOR ME.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by Mystic

But despite your protestations . . . the VALUE of human life is strengthened by a GENERIC belief in a Creator and purpose for human life when compared to the purposeless cosmic accident position. Accidents have no inherent value, period.

Baseless claim. The belief in a creator only means a belief in a purpose--it no more implies purpose than the lack of belief in a creator. And as I have explained to you before, even the "cosmic accident" (which is a strawman) that defines purpose for itself does not mean something has no value. To those that define their purpose, having a purpose is very much valuable.

]The specific beliefs about this Creator are where the conflicts and evil repercussions lie . . . NOT the generic existence of a Creator and purpose.

The specific beliefs, the specific attributes etc, are what define God. God is always defined as a separate and intelligent entity from the "unintelligent" existence of what we define as nature. Sure, evolution "created" the human species, but that doesn't imply intelligence. Existence cannot be easily denied--we don't deny that. We're rejecting your claims of an intelligent creating being. Insufficent reasoning and evidence has been provided.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Baseless claim. The belief in a creator only means a belief in a purpose--it no more implies purpose than the lack of belief in a creator. And as I have explained to you before, even the "cosmic accident" (which is a strawman) that defines purpose for itself does not mean something has no value. To those that define their purpose, having a purpose is very much valuable.

We can agree to disagree that relative subjectively determined purposes by beings with no reason to exist whatsoever holds as much weight as subjectively determined purposes by beings who were created for a reason. In the former . . . there is no hope or possibility of validating any of them objectively. In the latter . . there is a hope and possibility of validating them objectively because they would exist.

The specific beliefs, the specific attributes etc, are what define God. God is always defined as a separate and intelligent entity from the "unintelligent" existence of what we define as nature.

The specific beliefs, specific attributes, etc. are what define RELIGIONS . . . NOT God.

Sure, evolution "created" the human species, but that doesn't imply intelligence. Existence cannot be easily denied--we don't deny that. We're rejecting your claims of an intelligent creating being. Insufficent reasoning and evidence has been provided.

Insufficient reasoning and evidence has been provided to reject, Konraden. You pretend to assert a neutrality based on ignorance (we don't know) and then proceed to reject as if you do know.

[scarmig]

Memo to Mystic: Deism is a religious belief.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by scarmig

Memo to Mystic: Deism is a religious belief.

Memo to scarmig: I'll keep that in mind should I ever need to know what Deism is. What that has to do with the scientific evidence of a generic Creator escapes me, tho.

[dobeable]

Originally Posted by rifleman

What is trabscendental love BTW? I'm intensely curious.

Anyhow, all kidding aside, you didn't even begin to address my post in which I stated that we don't and can't ever know everything, and that this does not then demand a singular all-encompassing Christian answer. (And that's fraught with now-proven contradictions and errors).

Rather, there are a near-infinite number of perfectly good alternate story-tale explanations, as witnessed by the huge diversity of ancient belief systems on this planet, including aboriginal concepts that are far older and more spiritually tuned to the natural world than the hugely arrogant, dangerous and egotistical Christian version.

Got it?
__________________________

Sure. Please do provide me with a link to your Bhagavad gita. Some clear intro summation please. I many, in turn, ask you to read one of science's summations.

heres the whole book online-copy the page onto your laptop-if i were you start at the second chapter-its the Gita's contents summarized-chapter one will give you an idea whats taking place-and then the rest goes into detail on the topics..............enjoy-and if you take the time to read this i'll read anything you give

me.http://www.asitis.com/

[scarmig]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Memo to scarmig: I'll keep that in mind should I ever need to know what Deism is. What that has to do with the scientific evidence of a generic Creator escapes me, tho.

Just think about it, really, really hard. It'll come to you.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by scarmig

Just think about it, really, really hard. It'll come to you.

BTW . . . I apologize for any snarkiness early on . . . I appreciate the more serious attitude and intelligent responses you have been contributing to the discussion. It is a refreshing change from that of my usual antagonists.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

We can agree to disagree that relative subjectively determined purposes by beings with no reason to exist whatsoever holds as much weight as subjectively determined purposes by beings who were created for a reason.

They're both subjectively determined purposes--one just claims higher authority.

In the former . . . there is no hope or possibility of validating any of them objectively. In the latter . . there is a hope and possibility of validating them objectively because they would exist.

And we need an objective definition of purpose why? We need purpose in the first place because of which reason?

The specific beliefs, specific attributes, etc. are what define RELIGIONS . . . NOT God.

Without intelligence and purpose, the creating entity is not God. We have a word and concept for that: nature, natural. If you arbitrarily define God simply as creating force--certainly God exists--but God is always defined by more than just "creating force."

Insufficient reasoning and evidence has been provided to reject, Konraden. You pretend to assert a neutrality based on ignorance (we don't know)

We don't know.

and then proceed to reject as if you do know.

I do know the concepts provided by both the major religions do not exist. The one you present does not hold sufficient reason or evidence to convince me. More importantly, you're play at word games prevents you from establishing a clear and coherent definition of your God. Can't accept something that is incoherent.