Faith

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Gurrb
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:40 pm

Faith

Post by Gurrb »

i don't wish to spark an argument to determine who is right (for it cannot be determined). i just wish to get a friendly poll on the religious views of people on this forum, and why they believe what they do.

let me reiterate, i'm not going to pass judgment and don't wish to disprove your belief. just a curiosity.

i'm atheist. that is all.
SuperMegaUltraGenius
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Faith

Post by SuperMegaUltraGenius »

If anything my religion is 'Truth'. I worship 'Truth'. For good or bad.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Gurrb wrote:i don't wish to spark an argument to determine who is right (for it cannot be determined). i just wish to get a friendly poll on the religious views of people on this forum, and why they believe what they do.

let me reiterate, i'm not going to pass judgment and don't wish to disprove your belief. just a curiosity.
i'm atheist. that is all.
That's highly doubtful.

To begin with you seem to have a strong faith in the article: "it cannot be determined who is right". This is not what is understood with atheism at all since then at least one has determined then rationally that "there are no such thing as God or gods".

But religion goes deeper than articles of faith. It's about where you put your existential trust in ultimately. There is your god, there lives security and insecurity. Ultimately it's a question of selecing ones god wisely and not about deciding for oneself if such "thing" exists or not. One is simply not in the proper position to do so.
SuperMegaUltraGenius
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Faith

Post by SuperMegaUltraGenius »

What if one cannot select ones god wisely, what if it is an unconscious idiosyncratic part of the personalty. It seems depending on a person constitution they are likely to exalt different things as the most highest. e.g. A psychopath might worship "Power" as their God, and a 'spiritual' person might worship the concept 'Love". All depending on their personality, which depends on the organism itself.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SuperMegaUltraGenius wrote:What if one cannot select ones god wisely, what if it is an unconscious idiosyncratic part of the personalty.... All depending on their personality, which depends on the organism itself.
Consciousness breeds selectiveness. Or the other way around. Power and love would be then more primordial objects of worship, instinctively valued and selected. Or in other words I'm suggesting the psychopath and the spiritualist are not selecting but both for different reasons. The psychopath for example directs his will outwards but selectiveness is essentially "will" turned inwards on itself: the ability to hurt oneself, a tortuous affair! Wisely selecting is carving with a very sharp knife - but not the other, only the self.
Gurrb
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:40 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Gurrb »

you're suggesting i take a more agnostic stance? i can't imagine or rationalize God, but if he were presented to me without a doubt in my mind, then yes, i would have to accept his existence. i think this is the case with every non-believer. being a non-believer, i can't ever see this situation arising, but i cannot rule out any possibilities in my life; in anything. with this, you could deem me 99% atheist, 1% agnostic. these are just labels.

as for believing in a personal god, well i find that to be a completely different thing just sharing the same name. with this, you suggest a personal god to be something that drives my life. for that, i can't name a certain aspect, but many. i don't regard these as my gods though.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The rational status for the God question, for human being, is that it remains unanswered.
the positions of believer, atheist, agnostic are merely opinions.
suspend belief either way is an appropriate response.

God fails to be detected by the senses and is a matter of the interpretive functions.

That domain where the possibility for God shows up is completely tainted by silly stories and personalities wrought by irrational meaning makers.
It's actual status is Void or nothingness.

Writers like Kierkegaard are extremely emotional concerning God.
If the word 'God' were replaced by the word 'Betsy' in Kierkegaards story, it looks like a Mills and Boon novel.
romantic, emotional notions fit for pimply youths.

the subject is emotional, driven by fear.

Science has presented a somewhat convincing model that shows God is not necessary for the Universe to exist.

God is an inference.
The question is,
is it a valid inference.
SuperMegaUltraGenius
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Faith

Post by SuperMegaUltraGenius »

Dennis Mahar wrote:The rational status for the God question, for human being, is that it remains unanswered.
the positions of believer, atheist, agnostic are merely opinions.
suspend belief either way is an appropriate response.
Yes, at heart I remain neutral when it comes to this question. I suspect it is somewhat beyond the scope of human capabilities to ever truly know 'God.'

But there is the temptation to take a definite position. With all the diverging groups, ideologies, religions, opinions, there's the chance one of them might start to work it's influence on you and you might decide you've made up your mind and finally "know what's right."

That's why if you're a 'fence sitter', skeptic, or cynic, then you have a large population of the earth against you, with all the beliefs out there trying to gain power, it is hard to resist, especially with the benefits that can come from adhering to a formal belief system. Fanatics it seems of all kinds are everywhere trying to convert you, they could be at your door right now.

Which brings me to the words of a great psychologist:

"In yonder region traveling, take good care!
An hast thou wit, then be thou doubly ware!
They’ll smile and lure thee; then thy limbs they’ll tear:
Fanatics country this where wits are rare!"
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Dennis Mahar »

That's why if you're a 'fence sitter', skeptic, or cynic, then you have a large population of the earth against you, with all the beliefs out there trying to gain power, it is hard to resist, especially with the benefits that can come from adhering to a formal belief system. Fanatics it seems of all kinds are everywhere trying to convert you, they could be at your door right now.
That's the problem with Kierkegaard.
His distinction is between inauthentic christian and authentic christian.
its his claim that authentic christian is of the status 'alien in the world'.
more worthy of the 'alien in the world' claim are those resisting belief.

an authentic christian still believes in the virgin birth and Jesus as God incarnated which looks far-fetched.
SuperMegaUltraGenius
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Faith

Post by SuperMegaUltraGenius »

I'm not familiar with Kierkegaard, never studied his writings. Maybe the above is why.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Beingof1 »

I just appreciate so much the cowboy reasoning when it comes to the meta consciousness. Its as if the playground of philosophy is considered the most penetrating thought on the matter. Anyone who has hard evidence and facts is considered a blind believer in this make believe world of 'objective and intelligent critics circle'.

When anyone can design a brain that is designed to think about God and the brain - let me know. The human body is the most sophisticated piece of carbon based machinery imaginable - but it was blind cause and effect? I would to God most of you would snap out of cartoon world.

"In order to be effective truth must penetrate like an arrow -- and that is likely to hurt."
-- Wei Wu Wei
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Faith

Post by Dan Rowden »

I would to God that people who think Evolution is a "blind" process would get a bit of education into the matter. Upon such education they might abandon this silly duality of blind/designed.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Beingof1 »

Dan Rowden wrote:I would to God that people who think Evolution is a "blind" process would get a bit of education into the matter. Upon such education they might abandon this silly duality of blind/designed.
Are you sure you want to do this Dan?

I just appreciate so much those that think they understand evolution telling those that actually do that they need an education.
The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... ndom.shtml

Thats right - evolution 101, as in entry level.

Want more?
Mutations are changes in the genetic sequence, and they are a main cause of diversity among organisms
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... ation-1127

And here is the best argument to explain away random mutation all the while appealing to random mutation all at the same time:
In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all, at least not in the way that is often depicted by critics of evolutionary theory. In classical evolutionary theory, as first mathematically formalized by R. A. Fisher, the variation that is necessary for the raw material for natural selection is the result of a large number of individual alleles, all producing variations of the same trait, such as height or skin color in humans. In this model, a normal distribution of heights or skin colors are produced by combinations of different alleles, each influencing some fraction of the overall height, producing what Fisher and others called "continuous variation." Selection then preserved one or a few of the various allele combinations by preserving the individuals that carried the controlling alleles.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ction.html

Its not random mutation because its so much random mutation that its not random - is the bovine scatology that passes as a 'real scientific explanation'.

If you can make a logical case - you do trust logic don`t you? Then make it because to me, this is just babble.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Faith

Post by Russell Parr »

Beingof1 wrote:
In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all, at least not in the way that is often depicted by critics of evolutionary theory. In classical evolutionary theory, as first mathematically formalized by R. A. Fisher, the variation that is necessary for the raw material for natural selection is the result of a large number of individual alleles, all producing variations of the same trait, such as height or skin color in humans. In this model, a normal distribution of heights or skin colors are produced by combinations of different alleles, each influencing some fraction of the overall height, producing what Fisher and others called "continuous variation." Selection then preserved one or a few of the various allele combinations by preserving the individuals that carried the controlling alleles.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ction.html

Its not random mutation because its so much random mutation that its not random - is the bovine scatology that passes as a 'real scientific explanation'.

If you can make a logical case - you do trust logic don`t you? Then make it because to me, this is just babble.
What the writer means by the word 'random' in the first sentence of the quote is simply that the mutation occurs by a process that we have not been able to observe, so we cannot predict what skin tone or height change or other changes the mutation will produce. The word random is used here to describe the unpredictability.

Claiming an altogether mysterious origination of the change is completely random and pointless, and creates a huge, insolvable void in the studies and completely negates what science is all about. But if we must go down this road, I say that the skin tone fairy determines the skin color of newborns. Prove me wrong!

A logical person knows that science does not nor can ever explain all of the infinite details of the natural universe. However, believing in a 'Higher Power' is a coping mechanism for people dealing with feelings of worthlessness and/or purposelessness.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Beingof1 »

bluerap wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:
In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all, at least not in the way that is often depicted by critics of evolutionary theory. In classical evolutionary theory, as first mathematically formalized by R. A. Fisher, the variation that is necessary for the raw material for natural selection is the result of a large number of individual alleles, all producing variations of the same trait, such as height or skin color in humans. In this model, a normal distribution of heights or skin colors are produced by combinations of different alleles, each influencing some fraction of the overall height, producing what Fisher and others called "continuous variation." Selection then preserved one or a few of the various allele combinations by preserving the individuals that carried the controlling alleles.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ction.html

Its not random mutation because its so much random mutation that its not random - is the bovine scatology that passes as a 'real scientific explanation'.

If you can make a logical case - you do trust logic don`t you? Then make it because to me, this is just babble.
What the writer means by the word 'random' in the first sentence of the quote is simply that the mutation occurs by a process that we have not been able to observe, so we cannot predict what skin tone or height change or other changes the mutation will produce. The word random is used here to describe the unpredictability.
We can observe the process by the means of it occurring is the premise. If it is unpredictable, it is therefore random in the result according to the present understanding. Yet we have the conclusion that it is a non conscious event that perfectly designs organisms.

Then how in the world can you reach this conclusion when you do not have a premise? You do realize this does not make a lick of sense and is void of all logic?
Claiming an altogether mysterious origination of the change is completely random and pointless, and creates a huge, insolvable void in the studies and completely negates what science is all about.
You do realize I hope, that you just contradicted what you said above, this part:
bluerap wrote: the word 'random' in the first sentence of the quote is simply that the mutation occurs by a process that we have not been able to observe
I just appreciate so much the contradictory and nonsensical means that are used to keep any kind of omnipresence out of the equation. The logic used is twisted till both ends meet and all the while accusing the ones actually making sense of being obtuse.
But if we must go down this road, I say that the skin tone fairy determines the skin color of newborns. Prove me wrong!
This is the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. Logical fallacy after logical fallacy is used to avoid - at all cost - the logical and irreducible conclusion of a design by intent. Its almost comical if it were not so very sad.
A logical person knows that science does not nor can ever explain all of the infinite details of the natural universe. However, believing in a 'Higher Power' is a coping mechanism for people dealing with feelings of worthlessness and/or purposelessness.
Wow.

A coping mechanism of ostrich kung fu of the facts and evidence is the blind belief in a theory that has not a single underpinning of scientific methodology known as meta-evolution.

I stand on the North American continent as a "coping mechanism" and you are asking me to jump in the ocean to avoid a feeling of "worthlessness and/or purposelessness."

You do realize I hope that meta-evolution cannot be observed (including fossil records), experimented with, duplicated and has zero predictive qualities according to your very words. And this tripe is an avoidance technique used to do away with the reality of a 'Higher Power' of any kind.

The evidence is overwhelming and is self evident that a design is intact in the very physical brain you use to deny it. Snap out of it folks.

I am not going to play nice until certain ones snap out of their state of denial and start assisting the human race in the progress that is needed.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Faith

Post by Russell Parr »

Beingof1 wrote:We can observe the process by the means of it occurring is the premise. If it is unpredictable, it is therefore random in the result according to the present understanding. Yet we have the conclusion that it is a non conscious event that perfectly designs organisms.
Yet, somehow, the perfectly designed ID consciousness does not itself have a intelligent designer, right? Who exactly is skipping steps here?

I'm going to skip over the fact that you seem to have no idea what consciousness is dependent on and just ask you this, simply out of curiosity..

What's your version of the skin tone fairy? Who do you worship?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Beingof1 »

bluerap wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:We can observe the process by the means of it occurring is the premise. If it is unpredictable, it is therefore random in the result according to the present understanding. Yet we have the conclusion that it is a non conscious event that perfectly designs organisms.
Yet, somehow, the perfectly designed ID consciousness does not itself have a intelligent designer, right?
Nope. I designed the intelligent designer.
Who exactly is skipping steps here?
You are, and you will admit to it in the very next sentence. Though you will probably get mad and not notice that you are doing what is known as projection by thinking it is me. Another example is you skipping the lions share of my post but that will probably fly right by you again and your mind will rationalize by telling you it is me that is avoiding the issues.

How is that working for you?
I'm going to skip over the fact that you seem to have no idea what consciousness is dependent on and just ask you this, simply out of curiosity..
So you think you know what consciousness is dependent on? Do tell - the suspense is to much for the readers.
What's your version of the skin tone fairy?
Richard Dawkins
Who do you worship?
Reality and consciousness
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Faith

Post by Russell Parr »

Beingof1 wrote:Nope. I designed the intelligent designer.
And it created you? An Ouroboros of sorts? Is that what you believe in?
So you think you know what consciousness is dependent on? Do tell - the suspense is to much for the readers.
A vehicle and causal circumstances.
Richard Dawkins
Oh come now. Surely you aren't too embarrassed to share your beliefs? A bit too personal of a subject?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Beingof1 »

bluerap wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:Nope. I designed the intelligent designer.
And it created you? An Ouroboros of sorts? Is that what you believe in?
It is never about what is believed in - it is about what is experienced and self-evident.
So you think you know what consciousness is dependent on? Do tell - the suspense is to much for the readers.

A vehicle and causal circumstances.
So a vehicle is presumed. Do you mean the mechanical/electrical/chemical closed system that is so sophisticated, regulated and designed that not ten thousand of the worlds finest microbiological engineers can construct? It came with blueprints communicated in language in binary code that allowed the construction of a quantum computer known as the brain?

You mean that simple dimple vehicle?

Yup - you can find that on any planet - insert roll eyes here.

You guys are in brain lock down mode.
Richard Dawkins

Oh come now. Surely you aren't too embarrassed to share your beliefs? A bit too personal of a subject?
Hey - its your fairy, you describe it.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Faith

Post by Russell Parr »

Beingof1 wrote:
So a vehicle is presumed. Do you mean the mechanical/electrical/chemical closed system that is so sophisticated, regulated and designed that not ten thousand of the worlds finest microbiological engineers can construct? It came with blueprints communicated in language in binary code that allowed the construction of a quantum computer known as the brain?

You mean that simple dimple vehicle?
It must be simple dimple compared to your ID God, at least. Declaration of complexity is relative to the observer. If we assume that an object must have a Intelligent Designer based on its level of complexity, then it must follow that our creator was also created, because he would have to be much more incredibly complex than us to be able to create us. This then goes on infinitely, and renders any contemplation of an "almighty creator" meaningless. What is complexity from the perspective of the Infinite?

You're going to have to get a better understanding of the non-dual, infinite nature of reality if you're going to comprehend. Are you still capable, even after 7 years of being here? I don't think I can help you.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Beingof1 »

bluerap wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:
So a vehicle is presumed. Do you mean the mechanical/electrical/chemical closed system that is so sophisticated, regulated and designed that not ten thousand of the worlds finest microbiological engineers can construct? It came with blueprints communicated in language in binary code that allowed the construction of a quantum computer known as the brain?

You mean that simple dimple vehicle?
bluerap:
It must be simple dimple compared to your ID God, at least.
Exactly. Do you have an answer?
No - and you did not pause to ask what I meant. You will just assume - in all your brilliance - how you are the one in the know all the while arguing with a little guy in your head.

Avoidance of the issue is the king meme here.
Declaration of complexity is relative to the observer.
Let me think here - a car or airplane, was it designed or did cause and effect just pop it out? Well, relative to your observation what would you say?

Another question all of those that think they know will just avoid and pretend the one asking the question does not understand how to dance around the question to preserve the all powerful totality that can never be questioned; backed up by evolution as an escape hatch.
If we assume that an object must have a Intelligent Designer based on its level of complexity, then it must follow that our creator was also created, because he would have to be much more incredibly complex than us to be able to create us.
You must make the same assumption concerning the totality of cause and effect. Hello? Do you grasp this or will you just avoid the complexity by saying that there is none to ask compared to the vast, infinite and empty totality?
This then goes on infinitely, and renders any contemplation of an "almighty creator" meaningless. What is complexity from the perspective of the Infinite?
You have swallowed a sales pitch hook line and sinker. You are still left holding the bag of infinite regression no matter you go beyond duality or not . You are probably to brainwashed to see this though.

I gave you the beginning of an answer and you just blew past it by regurgitating the standard theistic argument.
You're going to have to get a better understanding of the non-dual, infinite nature of reality if you're going to comprehend. Are you still capable, even after 7 years of being here? I don't think I can help you.
Gee golly wiz - I have never heard of the non-dual before. Could you tell me how that does not result in infinite regression?

I bet you dollars to donuts you cannot. In fact, not a single zen master that hangs here can avoid infinite regression until actual enlightenment. But you will probably think it is I who is not getting it when all you have to do is embrace humility and you would in an instant.

Pride is rampant among those who claim emptiness. Very proud of the waxing eloquent of the non-dual all encompassing emptiness of the totality and yet - cannot seem to answer the most fundamental questions of a state of being.

Are we there yet?


You might want to look at my past writings to see if slow BO1 can keep up with you.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Faith

Post by Russell Parr »

I don't respond to most of what you post because you spend much of them either a)writing on and on about how I'm just avoiding your arguments or b)saying something so elementary (like "a car or airplane, was it designed or did cause and effect just pop it out?") that it makes me wonder why I'm still responding to you.

You're starting to sound a lot like "Kent" in this video, minus the blatant attachment to Christianity (it seems you prefer a more "mysterious" approach): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs

I'll try once more though, and this time, try and stick to the topic instead of ranting on about how I'm just trying to avoid your points.
If we assume that an object must have a Intelligent Designer based on its level of complexity, then it must follow that our creator was also created, because he would have to be much more incredibly complex than us to be able to create us.
Beingof1 wrote:You must make the same assumption concerning the totality of cause and effect. Hello? Do you grasp this or will you just avoid the complexity by saying that there is none to ask compared to the vast, infinite and empty totality?
So is "the totality of cause and effect" finite or infinite? You seem to think that its both. Finite because you think that it was created by God, yet infinite because obviously God must have used it to create, and also to sustain God's existence in the first place. Is it correct that this is what you think? Lay it all out for me, I'm listening.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Beingof1 »

Bluerap:

You keep dancing around the issues - over and over and over again. Just like all the so called zen masters here. Pretending to be 'in the know' by elaborate evasion techniques. What a load.

Until someone can answer simple questions about existence - all you have is a coping mechanism of cognitive dissonance. Like most in these here parts you believe in two completely contradictory concepts but because you separate them in your mind you never connect all the dots.

I answer every single question you have put to me and you have not answered a single one including meta-evolution. Why should I be pledged to answer your questions when you just keep changing the venue? I ask you if a car is designed and you act like that is a silly question. I have never known a sage in the history of mankind who could not answer questions concerning existence. All the so called sages do here, when they get caught on the BS - ignore the question and hope it goes away.

I will tell you what is infinite - the amount of games the ego plays to appear wise while evading the really tough questions. The game is to try to make the person asking the question appear like they 'do not get it'.

Answer my questions - then I will answer yours. Quid pro quo or not at all.
So is "the totality of cause and effect" finite or infinite? You seem to think that its both. Finite because you think that it was created by God, yet infinite because obviously God must have used it to create, and also to sustain God's existence in the first place. Is it correct that this is what you think? Lay it all out for me, I'm listening.
It is infinite because it is directly proportioned to the amount of information made available contained in my field of awareness which has no edge.

There - answered in its entirety - included for your benefit, if you are smart enough to extract it, is the meaning to life.

Now you answer me.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Faith

Post by Russell Parr »

Are you feeling unappreciated? You sure do rant a lot. And I'm not avoiding your questions, you must not have noticed that I've given my explanation regarding the so-called randomness that occurs in evolution.

If science cannot explain an observed phenomena, it's simply something that exists beyond our current understanding of the physical world. It happens a lot, and sometimes scientists eventually finds some answers. Settling for the "insert ID creator here" solution is the lazy way out, and like I said, undermines what science is all about. This goes for meta evolution, mega evolution, or whatever form evolution you fancy.

See there. I explained it again.
Beingof1 wrote:It is infinite because it is directly proportioned to the amount of information made available contained in my field of awareness which has no edge.
Eh, what? Cause and effect is infinite because your awareness is infinite? ..Anyway, so your answer is that it's infinite. How relevant is your God to a reality in which cause and effect is infinite, if he is defined as something other than the infinite process of cause and effect? Or do you claim that your God somehow operates beyond the nature of cause and effect? Please explain.

I'm still trying to understand what you believe and how it led you to conclude that a conscious God created Reality. Do you belong to any religion or church?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Post by Beingof1 »

bluerap wrote:Are you feeling unappreciated? You sure do rant a lot. And I'm not avoiding your questions, you must not have noticed that I've given my explanation regarding the so-called randomness that occurs in evolution.
No you did not. You said science could not observe the process. That is not - in any possible world - an explanation. You are in denial again. Very typical of fundamentalist believers.
If science cannot explain an observed phenomena, it's simply something that exists beyond our current understanding of the physical world. It happens a lot, and sometimes scientists eventually finds some answers. Settling for the "insert ID creator here" solution is the lazy way out, and like I said, undermines what science is all about. This goes for meta evolution, mega evolution, or whatever form evolution you fancy.
You did it again. Science cannot observe a phenomena but without a premise draws a conclusion? And this is called zen mastery? The absurdity and sloppy thinking is what is passed off as penetrating insight. You are on a merry go round of circular logic in infinite regression.

The lazy way is blind belief in a postulate that has no evidence, facts, experiments, observation or predictive properties. This is known as the 'theory (cough) of evolution'. But you believe it anyway, don`t ya?

You have yet to answer a single question - you just said it cannot be explained and that is a good reason to not address the issue of intelligent design. A true seeker of truth demands evidence. A false seeker of truth rejects evidence.

I have an explanation that is congruent with evidence, can be experimented, duplicated and has predictive power. DNA was downloaded from the photon.
See there. I explained it again.
Uh huh - you did it again. Kung fu ostrich technique. Very well entrenched in this forum.
Beingof1 wrote:It is infinite because it is directly proportioned to the amount of information made available contained in my field of awareness which has no edge.
Eh, what? Cause and effect is infinite because your awareness is infinite? ..Anyway, so your answer is that it's infinite. How relevant is your God to a reality in which cause and effect is infinite, if he is defined as something other than the infinite process of cause and effect? Or do you claim that your God somehow operates beyond the nature of cause and effect? Please explain.
Is there a universe outside of your awareness?

And you are still arguing with the little guy in your head known commonly as the strawman.
I'm still trying to understand what you believe and how it led you to conclude that a conscious God created Reality. Do you belong to any religion or church?
That is because you are listening challenged. I already answered your question of what I worship.
Locked