Model of Origins

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by usfan, Nov 1, 2019.

  1. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then you obviously, did not read the OP, where i addressed those issues directly.
     
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not directly you didn't - at least not with anything other than naked dismissal. Ice Cores - Coral reefs. What is your argument for dismissing this evidence for an age of at least hundreds of thousands of years.
     
  3. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are two possible theories for NDE's. One is the release of natural pain suppressing chemicals and the other is cerebral anorexia. Either of these two can explain the hallucinations that occur. If you have ever experienced tunnel vision from acceleration then have some inkling of what cerebral anorexia is all about. Your sight closes in as the blood is drained away from that part of your head thereby starving it of oxygen. The parietal lobes are equally susceptible.

    So yes, the experience is real as in a physical sensation experienced by the brain but those unexplained sensations associated with the experience are being EXPLOITED by those who have an agenda of trying to convince others to embrace their specific brand of theism by offering all kinds of superstitious drivel.

    In essence this is CLASSIC religion. Take something that does not yet have a scientific explanation and exploit it to dupe others into believing an imaginary dogma. It happened with cavemen and it is still happening today, unfortunately.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  4. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's those magic mushrooms again! ;)
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  5. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am censored, if i try to post scientific facts and methodology, or anything that conflicts with the State Approved Beliefs.

    This thread has been moved to a religious subforum, where bickering about beliefs is appropriate. The science forum can only have atheistic naturalism, as the approved belief and assumption for origins.

    But your ice core and coral reef theory of 'millions of years!', is still fraught with assumptions, assertions, and unbased premises that have no confirmation. It is a fine belief, and should be a religious debate, in this forum.. which it is, now.
     
  6. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No problem. That is the Narrative, and we can allow no departures from it.

    Creation is a religious belief!
    Atheism is science!


    No consideration for the supernatural is allowed, in Progresso World, only atheistic naturalism.

    It is ironic, as most scientists, over the millennia, have believed in a Creator/God, and they were able to make tremendous discoveries in spite of their stupid religious blinders. Thank Darwin that all scientific and technological discoveries now are due to atheists, and their Enlightened Awareness... :roll:

    And, its a good thing we have Protectors of the Narrative! Somebody might consider an alternate view, and depart from the State Indoctrination! :cynic:

    But your zeal for your beliefs is admirable.. you block any criticism or scrutiny, and pound the Narrative Drum, so your fellow indoctrinees won't get upset.

    Enjoy your Absolute Facts, regarding atheistic naturalism, and comfort yourself in the Knowledge that your perceptions are based totally in science and proven facts, while the stupid creationists are deluded with superstition and religion!

    It is anti-science, but that is the Way, in Progresso World.
     
  7. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wallowing in self-pity says volumes!

    Science has no "beliefs" or "dogma" or "sacred texts" or "supreme beings".

    It is simply a METHOD to determine if a hypothesis can be FALSIFIED.

    Religion starts with a superstitious IMAGINARY ABSOLUTE that cannot be allowed to be falsified otherwise it all falls apart.

    What is happening today is that religious beliefs are falling apart and that FACT can be established by the DATA showing an ONGOING DECLINE in religious adherents with a corresponding growth among those who no longer affiliate themselves with any religions.

    While this TREND continues there will be those who will use their cognitive skills to figure out why religion is no longer relevant in today's society and why it is being rejected.

    OTOH there will be those who look for a SCAPEGOAT to BLAME instead because they are still beholden to the Superstitious Imaginary Absolute that is crumbling around them. In the past those scapegoats were called demons and evil spirits but they are now seen as absurd because they are based upon the same Superstitious Imaginary Absolute that is falling apart at the seams.

    So another scapegoat is needed and they have fixated upon Science since the KNOWLEDGE that is derived from the scientific method is a direct threat to the Superstitious Imaginary Absolute. Theists have made futile attempts to OBFUSCATE Science with asinine superstitions about "creation science" and it's illegitimate spawn "intelligent design". Those farces have been exposed in the COURTS as UNCONSTITUTIONAL attempts to VIOLATE the 1st Amendment and no longer have any credibility.

    Which leaves fewer and fewer alternatives for those remaining adherents of the Superstitious Imaginary Absolute and hence the DESPERATION that can be plainly observed in threads like these.

    Speaking personally I uphold the rights of all citizens to believe as they choose and perform whatever rituals and observances their particular religion requires of them.

    But I also uphold the rights of all citizens to NOT have ANY religious superstitions IMPOSED upon them.

    The current TREND will continue in the same direction because no amount of scapegoats are going to alter the reality that as our KNOWLEDGE base EXPANDS our need for Superstitious Imaginary Absolutes diminishes.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  8. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,682
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In your OP, you brought in the idea of a creator and wanted to critique the science that dates the earth at more than about 6000 years. If you wanted to debate the science, it would have been best to leave out all religious references.

    You're also suggesting that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, but the fact is that science does not deal with the possibility of a creator, and the dating methods only challenge the time frames of the Biblical stories. It does not deny them.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  9. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a “Nuh uh” argument entirely devoid of any supporting evidence to rebut what you’ve been given. But, that’s what you do. You have zero science to support your claims, so you hand waive away the evidence that conflicts with your ideology, and simply say “Nuh uh”.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  10. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said hundreds of thousands of years - not millions - and the rest of your assertions are untrue. It is just naked denialism - denying something for the sake of denial.

    The Ice Cores work on the same principle as tree ring analysis - instead of counting the rings you count the layers. Sure there can be a slight error (say +/- 5%) due to layers getting merged or obscured but this results in a reading that was less than the actual reading - not more.

    It is not like they have drilled just one ice core - they have done hundreds - from different places - and the data matches up. You can correlate certain layers with volcano eruptions - conduct gas analysis - and so on.

    It is solid science and not fraught with any of your false claims.

    The Earth is at least hundreds of thousands of years old - and we know this for a fact.

    Say the ice core gives a dated of 350,000 years - and the error is +/- 5% this means minimum actual date is roughly 330,000 years old - not 6000 which is ridiculous.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,470
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL - I'ts confusion that I oppose, not religion.

    Once again, atheism is not science. Anyone can use the tools of science. Thus it is no surprise that numerous Christians have made significant progress in science. And, that progress demonstrates that you are dead wrong abuot "atheism is science". Science has no opinion about anything that is supernatural.

    And yes, mixing the tools of science and religion is going to result in garbage. Science and religion have very different foundations, different views of evidence, different logic, etc. Mixing is just plain nonsense.

    The limitation is that science can not address the supernatural.

    That doesn't mean there is no supernaural.

    It just means science can't address that.

    Can you accept that? If not, where is the problem?
     
    Derideo_Te and Adfundum like this.
  12. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank-you for your very thoughtful and detailed post.

    I don't think that the basic argument of Epicurus is flawed but I understand how a philosopher could find fault with his terminology. This updated argument was copied from Wikipedia's "Problem
    of Evil" discussion. I would replace evil with anything that causes great human misery or suffering..

    1. God exists.
    2. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
    3. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
    4. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
    5. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
    6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
    7. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.
    8. Evil exists (logical contradiction)

    i disagree with some of your statements: "suffering is nor really a problem" and * that it (the subs If we assumetance) originated from God, then it cannot be anything but a part of God. This would render God being fundamentally equal to Its creation.

    I was wondering if these arguments are your own. I searched for arguments against Epicurus and read a few.by Christian apologists. The use of the word "evil" is the biggest problem and that is why
    I would replace it with great human suffering. One apologist did not bother to consider natural disasters or anything that was not caused by humans. None of the apologist arguments were convincing to me.
    One apologist simply stated that evil exists because humans were given free will. Free will is not a scientific concept and is not possible if all human actions are simply the result of determinism applied to
    the human mind.

    I am in error for stating that there is no evidence for reincarnation and I knew that at the time I wrote the post. The evidence is not convincing to me or to most of the scientific community. What is being
    reincarnated? This sounds like an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. The same could be said about near death experiences providing evidence of an after-life.
     
  13. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you, but I'm certainly no philosopher. I've not read a single book of philosophy, nor taken a philosophy class. I just observe nature, adhere to strict logic, question everything, and keep in mind that there's a greater reality often ignored (and suppressed) by science, philosophy, most religions, and governmental institutions.

    Again, we have the problem of having to accept (1) too many assertions/givens, and (2) the absence of specifics regarding the fundamental nature of 'God' and 'evil'. Additionally, the argument only 'works' (to an extent) if we accept that God is fundamentally separate from Its creation...basically, no different than a potter and his vase. And this is exactly why (as I detailed in my last post to you) the argument falls apart even before its conclusion.

    Having to accept the premise that God and the creation are fundamentally separate without any basis for doing so, when there is every indication that God and Its creation are ONE and the same, is where the issue lies. (Note that the term, 'Oneness', is not directly referred to by mainstream science...though they skirt around having to accept the term 'Oneness' by adopting other terms such as 'string theory', 'simulation theory', 'quantum entanglement', etc. In similar manner, Stephen Hawking's 'spontaneous creation' hypothesis to explain how 'something came from nothing' is simply a feeble attempt to avoid having to accept Oneness.)

    I mean...if people want to pretend otherwise just for the sake of philosophical/logical discourse on Epicurus' argument, then OK. I can accept that. But I suspect a lot of folks who get into a heated debate over this are atheists and theists. That is, the athiest will use Epicurus' argument in an attempt to discredit the beliefs of the theist...while the theist will counter by coming up with an explanation for why there is both a God AND evil (eg, by claiming 'God gives us free will').

    But what if both are wrong? What if there's an explanation that negates the so-called 'logical contradiction' here? Well, there is. The 'Oneness of All' idea lays a foundational & fundamental basis for further inquiry...so it addresses virtually all the deeper questions we may have regarding the true nature of God & Reality. The only real mystery becomes one that not even Oneness it-self can answer (and never will)...and there are two: (1) How did the the illusion of separation (out of which arose awareness/existence) emerge out of Oneness? and (2) How/why does any-thing even exist? It boggles my mind!

    Basically, yes. Though I've never picked up a book of philosophy, or even a religious text, I have, in years past, read a fair number of books that discuss UFO/aliens & abduction experiences/ET encounters, channeled information (eg, The Ra Material), reincarnation/past-lives, hyno-regression & hypnotherapy (including the books of Dolores Cannon), psychic abilities, plant communication, energy & alternative healing, OBE's (Out of Body Experiences) & astral travel, the Astral planes, NDE's, and other paranormal phenomenon. I find that such books have a lot to teach us because they couple real experiences with alternate realities...as opposed to the stale, narrow-minded ruminations of scientists, technocrats, theologians, atheists, 'skeptics', philosophers, and so-called 'great thinkers' who live too much in their head and ignore the remaining 99% of Reality. Along with these readings, I also continue to observe nature, continue to question, adhere to strict logic, collect 'clues', and connect the dots in order to see Reality in its most simple, yet most comprehensive & inclusive form.

    I've also been blessed with having a girlfriend who is extremely sensitive/psychic (which means she can be a real handful at times). I myself am as psychic as a door knob, and very logical/mechanical/left-brained in my thinking...but she is diametrically the opposite. She recalls several of her past-lives (including on another planet) in detail (all of them with me & her in them, with many being tragic)...sees auras...can read people's past/present/future...talks to the 'dead' (including dead pets)...communicates (telepathically) with animate (plants, animals, etc.) and inanimate objects (rocks, water, clouds, the moon, the sun, buildings, cars, machines, food, supplements/medicines, houses/buildings, the sidewalk, you name it)...has had ET encounters & abductions since childhood (including finding 'implants' in her skin)...is a magnet for ghosts/ghostly apparitions (including unknown entities that seem to want to cause her harm)...and so on. And many members of her family are very psychic as well. We're all psychic to varying degrees, but why some people are born with a brain that's hard-wired to be less limiting, and thus allowing greater awareness of multidimensional realities, I don't know. But I know it'd be a much different world if we were all born with less 'amnesia'.

    I only mention her because (1) I want people to know that psychics are for real (yes, there are many charlatans, I know, but the genuine ones usually remain 'underground' and don't go about flaunting their talents to the media) and that we can learn a lot from them...and, (2) to share with people a greater reality that exists. Additionally, meeting her has confirmed to me what I concluded (regarding the nature of God/Reality) many years prior.

    So I had come to the final conclusion (and it's not a new one certainly, but an ancient truth) simply that All is One. It's such a simple and fundamental truth (as I see it), yet it clearly & logically addresses & explains virtually all our deep questions...that is, IF we approach the question first with this truth. (eg, "If All is One, then.....") So OK. All is One...but I thought further, if All is One then it would follow that all things must be aware/conscious on some level...including every-thing from the 'tiniest' subatomic 'matter' to entire universes. And if so, then we (as humans) should conceivably be able to 'communicate' with every-thing, without exception to what that thing is. We just don't know HOW. Well, after meeting my girlfriend...and after some time when she was ready to admit to her ability to communicate with our cat, and then to plants, and then to every-thing else (she kept it from me for awhile for fear I'd think she was nuts), it confirmed to me that, indeed, All is One! Because, here I have with me a person who can communicate with every-thing. Hence, every-thing is indeed aware/conscious! In her own, more eloquent manner of speaking, she says "everything has a voice".

    What makes you think human actions are deterministic? Doesn't (1) infinite causation, and (2) awareness of being self-aware cancel that out? Yes, humans can be programmed (especially when we're not living in the 'moment'). You can see the result of it everywhere you look. But even within the matrix of that programming we have the freedom to choose. If there's anything 'deterministic' about us, it would be the programming in our DNA that ensures our physical survival. Yet, we're capable of transcending even this programming if we so choose. The greater the expression of our true (spiritual) nature upon this material realm, the more our animal-survival insticts/habits begin to take a backseat.

    No need for anyone to convince you. You can convince yourself by simply visiting a hypnotherapist who specializes or is knowledgeable in accessing past-life experiences/memories (often used as a tool for healing purposes). There are many. A good place to start is to find a practitioner trained & certified in Dolores Cannon's QHHT (Quantum Healing Hypnosis Technique). You may view many recorded videos on youtube of various QHHT practitioners in live sessions with their clients...many with really astounding past-lives (including being aliens & weird animals on other planets). Anyway, you'll find that you yourself have past-lives, and they can even be used to resolve a multitude of physical & psychological issues in one's current life. I recall, long ago, watching Geraldo Rivera reluctantly agreeing to hypno-regression on his TV show. He was a hardened skeptic/disbeliever of reincarnation, but found himself on a large sailing vessel in some distant period of time. Being very left-brained & traditionally raised, he still had a hard time with accepting it, even though (not surprisingly) he's a dyed-in-the-wool sailor to this day.

    It would be what we call the 'soul' that is 'reincarnating', while the physical body, and later the 'astral body', dissolve back into the ether. In simple terms, one could view the 'soul' as a trans-dimensional, non-temporal 'memory bank' that acts as a sort of record keeper of all past/present/future life-times...as well as experiences in other dimensions/planes/universes & timelines. The soul lives simultaneous life-times in multiple bodies (vehicles), in multiple timelines & multiple dimensions, each impinging some form of influence upon us in the now. In essence, we live in an infinite sea of communication (not information). So you can imagine the kind of brain required (a very limiting, narrow-band decoder) to make our earthly/material reality convincing enough to believe.

    Be careful. This is a scientific trap. The use of the term 'extraordinary claim' establishes a subjective judgement on a claim/belief as being dubious and lacking objective evidence because of a precondition that the evidence must be out of the ordinary. Basically, the trap is that the matter under scrutiny is pre-judged as 'extraordinary' (which in itself is an unscientific conclusion), making any evidence presented as being too mundane (ie, not 'extraordinary' enough) to be accepted...and hence, writing off the claim as lacking any scientific merit. A very clever and commonly parroted trick among the scientific & skeptic community.

    Other scientific traps I've run into include 'Occam's Razor', 'The Fermi paradox', and the 'Drake equation'.
     
    Gelecski7238 likes this.
  14. Gelecski7238

    Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    To be or not to be. It's one or the other. Can't be both. Besides, said assumption need not be absolute.

    I don't agree that God's allowance of autonomy disqualifies Him from being all-powerful. Regardless, I assume that God need not necessarily be all-powerful.

    Nope. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts and is greater than any one of them.

    That's a tall order with some parts that are far from being resolved.

    ditto

    Excellent, very comprehensive listing.

    That's a good rationale as a plausible assessment of Reality from a mostly human-centered perspective, but it falls short of providing a more satisfactory explanation of what might be God's rationale for the set up and execution.

    My findings on what constitutes the "big picture" includes aspects that you probably haven't considered. Start with Rev 14:14-20.
     
  15. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    God can be BOTH only if God and the created are fundamentally ONE. In a state of absolute Oneness, the two conditions arise interdependently. As such, the Creator can BE both states because it can (and must) EXPRESS both states. Basically, God (Oneness) can be every-thing because it is no-thing. It is no-thing because it can be every-thing. But to keep it simple...think in terms of 'expression' rather than of 'being' one thing or another. Being (not Be-ing) only this or only that denotes an absolute state, which is part of the weakness in Epicurus' argument.

    By contrast, if God and the created are fundamentally separate, the two conditions arise independently, which then renders the Creator incapable of being all-powerful (in relation to the created). The reason being, God is cut off from absolute intunement to the infinite facets of the created, thus compromising God's ability to know/predict/control all thoughts & events. At best, God might, in certain respects, be 'more powerful' than the created...but never all-powerful.

    It need not be regarding 'power', but Epicurus' argument seems to imply absolutes.

    Your statement is a bit redundant. If God has the ability to 'allow/not allow' it, then it renders God already powerful, but only in respect to autonomy.

    But being 'all-powerful' is a another matter. It requires God to be fundamentally ONE with the created for it to be valid...which again would render God simultaneously NOT all-powerful (as I explained earlier).

    Again, God cannot be 'all-powerful' without also being NOT all-powerful...and, it requires that God and the created be fundamentally ONE.

    If that were true we'd be able to understand any-thing we choose by simply reducing it down to its most basic components.

    For example: We'd be able to predict that the combination of the two gases, H and O, would result in the production of a chemical (H2O) that's not only safe, but essential to drink. Yet, an analysis of the individual properties of H and O as individual atoms confers no means by which modern science could have ever predicted that these two volatile atoms could ever produce something safe to consume. So the whole (H2O) becomes greater than the sum of its parts (H and O).

    Another example is drug side effects. Chemists have virtually no idea what kind of adverse side effects any one drug (usually a single molecule/compound) will produce in any one human, either in the short or the long term. For this reason they have to conduct live studies...but the studies often fail to reveal reliable predictions. (Notice the epidemic of prescription drug lawsuits.)

    As long as the practice of modern science remains focused on studying the 'parts', it will continue on as nothing but a guessing game. The very reason that the whole will always be greater than the sum of its parts is because there are NO parts. It's all illusory. And the reason for this is exactly because All is ONE.

    It's really quite simple. All is One...and the fundamental nature of Oneness is awareness/consciousness.

    I was only discussing suffering as a cause of material attachments. But the causation behind what we call 'good' and what we call 'evil' is also simple...and it has to do with Oneness vs separation:

    (1) If All is One, then thoughts/actions that promote UNITY (love, understanding, kindness, compassion, cooperation, generosity/sharing/giving, helpfulness, laughter, joy, etc.) will cultivate a life of less struggle, because they are in line with Oneness. Thoughts/actions that promote unity represents non-resistance to, and acceptance of that which is inescapable: Oneness. The absence of resistance = less struggle = less challenging & easier to maintain this state.

    (2) If All is One, then thoughts/actions that promote DIVISION (fear, hatred, jealousy, bigotry, false pride, selfishness, greed, deception, violence, possessiveness, domination/control, etc.) will cultivate a life of increased struggle, because they are NOT in line with Oneness. Divisive thoughts/actions represent a form of resistance to, and non-acceptance of that which one cannot escape: Oneness. Resistance to Oneness = increased struggle = more difficult & more challenging to maintain this state. (eg, Notice the fantastic, ongoing effort by the elites to keep the masses enslaved, fueled by their fear & paranoia of the people as they pursue a life of relentless avarice.)

    One could say that so-called 'wise' people are merely those who have figured out how to struggle less...because they honor the virtue of Oneness. Oneness also explains the word 'love'. Love is simply Oneness...and that feeling of 'love' felt when meeting certain people is a physical/mental/emotional manifestation of Oneness. The incredible feeling of unconditional love & warmth that Near Death Experiencers commonly report when on 'the other side' is a glimpse of the unfiltered Oneness of All. And it feels so incredibly real to them because they're not experiencing it through the 5 crude senses of the physical body, but with their entire being. (This is also why many report how 'artificial' the material world seems upon returning to their physical body.)

    The wrath of 'God'...or the wrath of an ET?
    A 'jealous God'...or a jealous ET?
    Which one sounds more plausible?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,470
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really? You don't see the assumption of the existence of a god to be extraordinary? Surely no follower of any religion would see the existence of god as anything BUT extraordinary - so extraordinary as to have a massive bearing on how one lives life.

    I do agree that science can't address anything about god whatsoever. And, religion doesn't offer any method of verification of the existence of god, either.

    Instead, religion accepts that god exists as a fundamental tenet - similar to a fundamental tenet of science being that mankind may meaningfully observe the universe. Religion is based on the existence of god and science is based on the ability to gather evidence. Religion doesn't try to prove there is a god and science doesn't try to prove that one can gather evidence - each system assumes its fundamental tenets.
    I've never seen anyone try to use those in regard to questions of god or the supernatural. In fact, wouldn't Occam's Razor point to "god did it" as the most simple answer to ALL questions?

    Thus calling them traps seems highly unwarranted. Besides, the Fermi paradox doesn't include an answer - it's a question for which neither religion nor science has an adequate answer. And, the Drake equation is really weak, as it's an extrapolation of stuff someone thought was important about the only example we have - Earth. It may be interesting to think about, but it certainly isn't a believable answer to any question.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,470
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see a reason that a god could not create something that was separate from himself, yet still have total domination over it if he wanted to exercise that power.

    So, today we could all have been created by god on this planet (etc.) and be running around with free will, thinking and doing as we please. That certainly doesn't mean we have some power that a god could not control if he chose to do so.

    Your last about what is more "plausible" hits me as totally without logic of any kind. Mankind has NO basis for judging what is more "plausible" concerning some god. We can't even figure out what is more "plausible" concerning the acts of our own president - or possibly even our neighbors. And, we can watch them in great detail.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    then why did they?
    space is purely an abstract construct that has no properties therefore is nonmaterial, [not natural] yet einee weenee and his apostles [falsely] claim it does, all that nothing is caused to curve by large gravitational bodies.
    Explain: how does something with no physical properties be made to curve? With an imaginary space bending tool?
    What crazy **** did science have to do to get there?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, in fact you will be happy to see that I proved that you are correct HERE and preceding info showing how they are 'falling apart' HERE
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  20. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Koko what are you wearing to this years Nobel prize ceremony? You are most definitely a shoe in to win, since you’ve disproven Einstein and all of modern physics, lol
     
    Derideo_Te and WillReadmore like this.
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    rahl let me help with that, einee weenee is not 'all of physics'

    So repeat after me 10 times:
    einee weenee is not 'all of physics'
    einee weenee is not 'all of physics'
    einee weenee is not 'all of physics'
    einee weenee is not 'all of physics'
    einee weenee is not 'all of physics'
    einee weenee is not 'all of physics'
    einee weenee is not 'all of physics'
    einee weenee is not 'all of physics'
    einee weenee is not 'all of physics'
    einee weenee is not 'all of physics'

    Did that help?

    You really should help your congregation by saving the neoatheist religion by proving that space has natural properties that can be curved.

    It is after all a core tenet of neoatheists religious worship.

    What are those properties?

    Otherwise you may wish to reread:

    Demonstrating the fall of the neoatheist false god.

    I turned down the offer, who wants a no bell prize anyway!
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  22. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol:
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you noticed? Alleged scientific people are the most dogmatic, claiming logic, reason, and enlightenment though I have fount the contrary to be true.
    GFY, at least you know the difference, you will if you have not already discovered that the neoatheist crowd does not have that luxury.
    Yep grab your parachute, down the tubes we go!

    His prediction? “In well-established democracies like the United States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and will eventually fail.”
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045


    Big bang is central to the modern atheist religions as well, they cant 'sufficiently' prove it but then religion needs little to no proof, so insufficiency is irrelevant.
    But thats what you got, have you noticed?
    Thats why its called religion, just saying :oldman:
     
  24. Gelecski7238

    Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The H and O example does not refute the overwhelming success that the scientific establishment can claim from its emphasis on reductionism. Try telling the scientists that there are no parts.

    A vector points toward the ideal of cooperation, cohesion, synergy, etc., but individuation doesn't get transformed in an overnight process.

    The Creator is not an ET. Jealousy or wrathfulness? Neither. That's just Biblical hype. We are John Barleycorn, a crop to be harvested when suitably "ripe."
     
  25. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's not the point. The point is that 'extraordinary' is a subjective (personal) judgement.

    But to answer your question. No, I don't see the idea of 'God' extraordinary. What really boggles my mind is that any-thing even exists. For the life of me I can't even begin to fathom how. But that's a good thing, because it means God can never know It-self absolutely...which makes God both infinite and eternal.

    God = Oneness. Oneness is infinite and eternal.

    They're both looking at God all the time. Religion is looking at the forest, but ignoring the trees. Science is looking at the trees, but ignoring the forest. Science and religion are really two sides of the same coin.

    Yet both never provide clear definitions of what 'God' is. The terms used are often vague, the concepts are often contradictory, and the explanations easily fall apart.

    You would think so. However, they don't hold true to the 'spirit' of that term. Instead, they use it as a means to deny the obvious. Besides, we should look for the best, not 'simplest' explanation. 'Simplest' is vague and subjective in this regard.

    UFO/aliens is another example. After reviewing all the evidence, the best explanation is that ET's are & have been visiting earth. The same when analyzing evidence for reincarnation, ghosts, ESP...and so on. When it comes to paranormal topics, most scientists & so-called 'skeptics' regard the 'simplest' answer as the one that the scientific community is willing to accept...even if it fails to hold up to scrutiny.

    The Fermi paradox automatically assumes we are not, and never have been visited by ET's. How is it that such a concept even gets any attention when there's a mountain of evidence suggesting ET's are not only here now, but have been on earth long (perhaps even millions of years) before humans came on the scene? It is even likely that ET's created humans.

    And you're right about the Drake equation. It's a meaningless formula of possibilities that has no relevance to what may actually be 'out there', due to a premise that suffers from a severe ignorance of the fundamental nature of biogenesis & cosmogenesis. One could view the formula as a kind of 'scientific faith'.

    I assume you're talking about God and the created being fundamentally separate. Still, can that 'domination' be total...or only partial? If the latter, would the term 'God' still fit?

    And if we're talking about God and the created being fundamentally One, isn't the question itself contradictory?

    There's something we need to get clear here. I see terms like domination, control, and power often used when discussing the relationship between God and the created. But are these terms really relevant if God and the created are fundamentally One? Don't they become meaningless and fall away if God and the created are simply EXPERIENCING one another as EXPRESSIONS of one another? The terms domination/control/power denote a condition of separation between two things. They have no relevance in Oneness.

    This doesn't mean the conditions we typically judge as 'domination/control/power' cannot be experienced. Only that they are manifestations of the illusion of separation.

    I would say it makes more sense and answers more questions if we could consider the very real possibility that humans were genetically engineered by an ET race (or races) in a prehistoric past. As far as 'God' as the 'Source' of ALL that exists, it makes more sense if we can avoid terms which evoke states of separation...unless we are willing to accept that the terms refer to illusory states.

    (1) We have a mountain of historic & current evidence of ET visitations, and (2) we have knowledge of aircraft, space flight, and other advanced technologies.

    This gives us a reference point from which we can infer that Bible references to 'God' and 'angels' are likely references to ET's. More primitive groups will lack this point of view and be more inclined to take the Bible at face value (particularly if they're indoctrinated to do so).
     

Share This Page