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.
We CAN rule out many "imaginings, LearnMe because we are only considering what our Reality actually IS. We know a lot about it so that limits the possibilities. We only have problems limiting our imaginings when trying to pretend we are talking about what outside our Reality created it, NOT what IT actually IS. As I have said before, I understand your views and skepticism about God BTDT. But once I had to accept that our Reality itself IS God (consciousness), my skepticism vanished leaving only confusion and a void of information that I HAD to fill.
Jesus Mystic! (Pun intended)...
It's not skepticism. It's simply separating what we can know, do know from what we don't. That applies to my personal learning, experience and knowledge and that which science has been able to discern more convincingly and formally.
Conclusions are NOT brute fact premises from which all syllogistic conclusions are derived. The brute fact premise in science is that the Reality they are investigating is NOT God! It is Nature within which they need to find evidence of a God. That is the brute fact premise underlying all science and that makes everything they discover "natural" unless they develop a DIRECT MEASURE of the presence of God (i.e., consciousness).
So it is not a conclusion based on ANYTHING scientific because we have no DIRECT MEASURE of the presence of God's consciousness, not even of our own consciousness that we know exists! The problem I believe is that we are immersed WITHIN it so it is impossible to develop a measure of it.
So parsing the usual obfuscation and misrepresentation, we have no evidence for this alleged consciousness, therefore the only evidence is natural forces, based on over 2000 years of science, but this overwhelming scientific evidence is not scientific evidence because Mystic wants to pretend his preference without evidence is equally as valid as the overwhelming scientific evidence (that is not scientific evidence) for natural forces.
So parsing the usual obfuscation and misrepresentation, we have no evidence for this alleged consciousness, therefore the only evidence is natural forces, based on over 2000 years of science, but this overwhelming scientific evidence is not scientific evidence because Mystic wants to pretend his preference without evidence is equally as valid as the overwhelming scientific evidence (that is not scientific evidence) for natural forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Jesus Mystic! (Pun intended)...
It's not skepticism. It's simply separating what we can know, do know from what we don't. That applies to my personal learning, experience and knowledge and that which science has been able to discern more convincingly and formally.
That's all! That's it!
Sorry guys it is not all and it is NOT 2000 years of scientific determination. It is entirely indeterminate consensual dogma like in most religions. That is why it resembles a religion! You guys simply refuse to acknowledge that your BASE PREMISE for evaluating everything we DO KNOW is that NONE of it is of God because you have accepted the arbitrary and consensus definition that it is called Nature, period.
There is NOTHING about that BASE PREMISE that is scientific or scientifically determined by measurement! The measures only reveal HOW it functions, NOT what it IS. Oh well, you can use that as your excuse when you find yourself faced with the Reality of the very consciousness you ignored and denied during this life.
Sorry guys it is not all and it is NOT 2000 years of scientific determination. It is entirely indeterminate consensual dogma like in most religions. That is why it resembles a religion! You guys simply refuse to acknowledge that your BASE PREMISE for evaluating everything we DO KNOW is that NONE of it is of God because you have accepted the arbitrary and consensus definition that it is called Nature, period.
There is NOTHING about that BASE PREMISE that is scientific or scientifically determined by measurement! The measures only reveal HOW it functions, NOT what it IS. Oh well, you can use that as your excuse when you find yourself faced with the Reality of the very consciousness you ignored and denied during this life.
Sorry Mystic,
I don't know about all you are trying to explain in this comment, but again it's rather simple for me, because regardless my premise, what I know or don't know or refuse to acknowledge, I am simply going along with what we can all accept as truth revealed by science. Again, when the time comes that science is able to make a convincing case a god exists, we'll all become believers. When the time comes science or whatever else can make such a case for all concerned.
Until then, we will have the inevitable disagreement, friction and even violence that comes from all the competing versions about god. God(s), their nature and their existence. Just as we humans have been debating since we could first consider the stars above. As long as all that debate of every sort continues within the vacuum of what science (or whatever else) has been able to reveal in the way of the existence of a god, I remain an atheist. Short of having the sort of experience you claim to have had, I'm sure you can understand how and why people like me have no real choice. You have acknowledged this simple fact as well, yet you keep trying to explain otherwise. Might as well just wish me luck that a god will reveal itself to me too. Just like for you and all the many others who claim the same thing.
Here's to the day we ALL know better in any case. The day the debate will cease to exist. Can't say I'm holding my breath until then, but until then, I know of no good reason to be other than an atheist. Meanwhile, good for you and no worries about me! No matter the truth of these matters, I'm quite sure the end result will be the same for all of us, and I'm quite okay with this expectation as well.
Sorry guys it is not all and it is NOT 2000 years of scientific determination. It is entirely indeterminate consensual dogma like in most religions. That is why it resembles a religion! You guys simply refuse to acknowledge that your BASE PREMISE for evaluating everything we DO KNOW is that NONE of it is of God because you have accepted the arbitrary and consensus definition that it is called Nature, period.
There is NOTHING about that BASE PREMISE that is scientific or scientifically determined by measurement! The measures only reveal HOW it functions, NOT what it IS. Oh well, you can use that as your excuse when you find yourself faced with the Reality of the very consciousness you ignored and denied during this life.
No, it really is because you theists have not provided any evidence for an intelligence behind it all, whereas we DO know natural forces exist. You STILL need to provide that extra evidence, and simply obfuscating your lack of evidence as 'we do not know' is admitting you have no evidence. Over and over and over, 'we do not know' (theists have no evidence).
Which is why you once again must pretend it is us at fault, because you can not back up your claims. Over and over and over.
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.
