SHEEPEOPLE

[Davian]

Oh, I could refer once again to the bravery of those who left behind their comforts to discover the new world...

I do see how that compares. Those that left for the 'new world' could be shown where they were off to on a globe of the world, and knew that they would find somewhat similar land, water, food, air, etc when they got there. There were real concerns for safety and health, and they were indeed brave, in the common vernacular.

but then again, sighting even such major factual

Whoa - what's with alluding to facts all of a sudden? Did you not state that this is "not fair"?

and historical examples

Bible stories are not "historical examples".

...has already gone over your head.

"Fallen flat" is not "over my head".

 

[bhsmte]

For myself, it's not always instant and may take years to understand. On my spiritual path I have a guide and often consult with him about these sorts of things. The ego's impression can get into the way as well.

.

How do you know your guide is reliable?

 

[Davian]

I have no idea...but your sure trying to do just that.

I am not the one positing the existence of these "gods" in a science forum.

 

[Chriliman]

I am not asserting my opinion as truth.

By saying this you admit you don't have any truth to stand on. You're fine with just pointing out why other people's opinions can't possibly be true, simply because they don't have physical evidence to back their opinions/beliefs. Yet you fail to realize that any concept or theory regarding the reason for life itself will require you to accept it as true. Accepting a concept or theory as true, means you believe it's true even without physical evidence, but rather based on the fact that it makes sense and is reasonable to believe.

If you're belief turns out to be false in light of new evidence, then you can't be blamed for believing something that made sense and was reasonable to believe. Instead you're expected to correct your belief based on the new evidence. So what this means is that since you currently do not have truth to stand on, it would be wise for you to believe in God based on the reasonable concept of God that does make sense and then if your presented with new evidence that proves God is false, you would then be expected to change your belief in God to not believing in God. However, if you ever did believe in God before and now you don't, it then becomes apparent that you stopped believing in God for irrational reasons because there is actually no physical evidence that proves God does not exist.

However, like I said before, if you've never believed in God, it then becomes wise to believe in God, until evidence is provided that proves God does not exist because you would then be expected to stop believing in God if that evidence is provided, BUT there is no physical evidence that proves God does not exist so you would still be justified in believing in God.

Therefore, it becomes reasonable to expect that the reason for life itself will come from a source outside yourself(since you're not the reason for life) and you will be required to accept that reason as true, or else continue denying the reason and rendering yourself irrational and unreasonable.

The above is not based on my religious opinion, but rather based on the fact that it is all reasonable and it does all makes sense, if you're unwilling to really think about it, then I'm justified in saying you're being unreasonable.

 

[Michael]

I just watched you say that is was not defined, and it was defined. Did you see that?

I see that you missed and ignored my entire response, that's what I see. The theory called "dark matter" is *not* defined. There are many potential supernatural possibilities, but there isn't just 'one' option. It's therefore not defined in any concrete way. Even 'specific' brands of "dark matter" theory get to move up and down the energy scale as necessary to find whatever 'gap' might be left in our understanding of particle physics, lest that particular model be falsified outright. Since even "specific" versions of DM theory aren't necessarily falsifiable or fully defined, it's a dark matter of the gaps claim, pure and simple.

Agreed. It is just a label.

A completely undefined one at that.

So you agree that individual models "dark matter" can be falsifiable. I guess we don't have to hear anything more on that subject.

In theory perhaps, but in the real world, no. Even SUSY theory hasn't been abandoned, even after numerous failed predictions and falsifications of various mathematical models at LHC, LUX, PandaX and electron roundness "tests". SUSY proponents simply moved the energy state goal posts, and they continue to write about WIMPS to this day! Even a single version of DM theory isn't necessarily falsifiable, and *on whole*, it's impossible to falsify the entire list of potential DM candidates. You ignored that small problem entirely.

There is no requirement of fully defined theory in science, nor is there any requirement of falsification. Those "requirements' that you personally impose on the topic of God are strictly *your own* personal pet peeves apparently.

You've misrepresented the scientific method as well as the whole concept of monotheism. That's your problem in a nutshell.

 

[Michael]

I am not the one positing the existence of these "gods" in a science forum.

What "gods" are your talking about? What exactly do you have a hard time grasping about the concept of monotheism? Monotheists do not promote multiple "gods". They promote (put faith in) various "religions', but only a *single* God. What's so hard to grasp about that concept? There aren't multiple Presidents of the US at any given moment simply because there are vastly different opinions about the sitting President. Get it?

 

[ScottA]

Appearing on his lawn would be pretty compelling evidence that it exists.

"Let my people go!"

 

[Davian]

By saying this you admit you don't have any truth to stand on.

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

You're fine with just pointing out why other people's opinions can't possibly be true,

You are misrepresenting what I have said. I find this to be intellectually dishonest.

simply because they don't have physical evidence to back their opinions/beliefs.

Or, they are unable to present their beliefs in a coherent, falsifiable fashion, and define the terms that they are using is a robust manner.

Yet you fail to realize that any concept or theory

As we are in a science forum, and not Exploring Christianity, keep in mind that a "theory" should be testable and falsifiable.

regarding the reason for life

What "reason for life"?

itself will require you to accept it as true.

Why does there even need to be a "reason for life"?

Accepting a concept or theory as true, means you believe it's true even without physical evidence, but rather based on the fact that it makes sense and is reasonable to believe.

That the Earth hangs fixed in space and the cosmos rotates around it makes sense and is reasonable to believe.

Rotating Stars

• Davian
• May 26, 2014

Australian Astronomical Observatory

Not that the millions that did believe that made any difference to reality.

If you're belief turns out to be false in light of new evidence, then you can't be blamed for believing something that made sense and was reasonable to believe. Instead you're expected to correct your belief based on the new evidence.

Unless you are infallible, from what I hear.

So what this means is that since you currently do not have truth to stand on,

I do not accept you religious opinion as "truth".

it would be wise for you to believe in God

Define "God".

based on the reasonable concept of God that does make sense

Like a flat Earth.

and then if your presented with new evidence that proves God is false,

Exactly how would one falsify your "God" concept?

you would then be expected to change your belief in God to not believing in God.

Already there.

However, if you ever did believe in God before and now you don't, it then becomes apparent that you stopped believing in God for irrational reasons because there is actually no physical evidence that proves God does not exist.

Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt.

However, like I said before, if you've never believed in God, in then becomes wise to believe in God, until evidence is provided that proves God does not exist because you would then be expected to stop believing in God if that evidence is provided, BUT there is no physical evidence that proves God does not exist so you would still be justified in believing in God.

If you've never believed in extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth, in then becomes wise to believe in them, until evidence is provided that proves that aliens do not exist because you would then be expected to stop believing in aliens if that evidence is provided, BUT there is no physical evidence that proves aliens do not exist so you would still be justified in believing in aliens. Make sense?

Therefore, it becomes reasonable to expect that the reason for life itself

What is this reason that you allude to?

will come from a source outside yourself(since you're not the reason for life) and you will be required to accept that reason as true, or else continue denying the reason and rendering yourself irrational and unreasonable.

Is that what happened to you?

The above is not based on my religious opinion,

That is all I have seen you offer.

but rather based on the fact that it is all reasonable and it does all makes sense,

As does a flat Earth.

if you're unwilling to really think about it,

I have thought about it more than I care to admit.

then I'm justified and saying you're being unreasonable.

Or, you are not.

 

[Davian]

I see that you missed and ignored my entire response, that's what I see. The theory called "dark matter" is *not* defined. There are many potential supernatural possibilities, but there isn't just 'one' option. It's therefore not defined in any concrete way. Even 'specific' brands of "dark matter" theory get to move up and down the energy scale as necessary to find whatever 'gap' might be left in our understanding of particle physics, lest that particular model be falsified outright. Since even "specific" versions of DM theory aren't necessarily falsifiable or fully defined, it's a dark matter of the gaps claim, pure and simple.



A completely undefined one at that.



In theory perhaps, but in the real world, no. Even SUSY theory hasn't been abandoned, even after numerous failed predictions and falsifications of various mathematical models at LHC, LUX, PandaX and electron roundness "tests". SUSY proponents simply moved the energy state goal posts, and they continue to write about WIMPS to this day! Even a single version of DM theory isn't necessarily falsifiable, and *on whole*, it's impossible to falsify the entire list of potential DM candidates. You ignored that small problem entirely.

There is no requirement of fully defined theory in science, nor is there any requirement of falsification. Those "requirements' that you personally impose on the topic of God are strictly *your own* personal pet peeves apparently.

You've misrepresented the scientific method as well as the whole concept of monotheism. That's your problem in a nutshell.

Back-pedalling for the Win

• Davian
• Jul 10, 2015

 

[Davian]

What "gods" are your talking about?

I am still waiting to see them defined.

 

[ScottA]

The trouble with individual testimony is that it exists for all sorts of different religions. If we are to expect an atheist to accept God on our individual testimony, how can we turn around and reject Allah or Vishnu despite the personal testimonies of followers of those faiths?

Because they have all the answers. They are slow, but they are the most intelligent, the greatest in reason, it's just a matter of time until they wade through the false claims and arrive at the truth. It's a puzzle, by [intelligent] design. They'll do well, they're just not out of the weeds yet.

 

[ScottA]

Then this is an apologetics thread, and a request should be made to the mods to close it immediately.

<hums the Burger King theme>

I am sure the mods would insist that truth is not excluded from ANY thread. Nice try.

 

[ScottA]

With you yet to properly respond.

Not yet. Even the Mighty Casey eventually has to take a swing at the ball.

Do you write letters to Santa?

I don't recall. Probably did as a kid. But then I grew to understand it as a life experience with a purpose, which I explained (below). Unfortunately, some never see it for what it is and don't take the hint, but continue blindly in the actual fictitious story of their lives, like children who never grow up. The hints are the evidence they never see, as if they were not everywhere in life, but invisible. So, there they remain, like children of the corn.

But I love the analogy, in fact I am pretty sure I addressed it with you already. It is so telling of just what it is that God has done...and some kids (like yourself) never figure it out: He has made up this make believe story of a world, made all of us imaginary characters, let us cry real tears...and then gives the children with a gleam in their eye the good news, that its not real, and when you wake up it will all have been a bad dream. Got your gleam on? Ho, ho, ho!

 

[Davian]

I am sure the mods would insist that truth is not excluded from ANY thread. Nice try.

You are welcome to your religious opinion of course. Apologetics, they frown upon.

 

[Davian]

I don't recall. Probably did as a kid.
...

Why not start now? Do you not want free stuff?

 

[bhsmte]

Because they have all the answers. They are slow, but they are the most intelligent, the greatest in reason, it's just a matter of time until they wade through the false claims and arrive at the truth. It's a puzzle, by [intelligent] design. They'll do well, they're just not out of the weeds yet.

Would this be why, there is a strong correlation between higher intelligence (higher education achieved) and less belief in God and religions?

 

[bhsmte]

I am sure the mods would insist that truth is not excluded from ANY thread. Nice try.

Truth can be demonstrated.

 

[Chriliman]

Or, they are unable to present their beliefs in a coherent, falsifiable fashion, and define the terms that they are using is a robust manner.

From your position, absolute truth has not been defined, this is why you ask questions. Lets imagine we do somehow fully realize absolute truth, would it make sense for that absolute truth to be falsifiable? It would not makes sense, right? Because if it was falsifiable, it would not be absolute truth. What I mean by absolute truth, is just the absolute truth about life, whether that being that life is pointless or that life has a deep meaning.

What "reason for life"?

I believe there is only two possible absolute truths about life.

1. The absolute truth is that life is meaningless, therefore, all meaning we give life is pointless and we are free to literally do whatever we want as long as no one else finds out to get us in trouble with man's law. Man's law having no meaning in the end.

2. The absolute truth about life is that life actually has deep meaning that we are currently unable to see because it goes beyond the physical, therefore, all meaning we give life does have a point and that point will be realized some time in the future. Therefore, we should not literally do whatever we want, but rather respect the laws and moralities in our reality and listen to our conscience that is telling us there is right and wrong and that its better to do what is right, rather than what is wrong.

Why does there even need to be a "reason for life"?

If there is no reason for life then searching for truth does not makes sense because in the end the absolute truth would be that there is no reason for life, rendering truth meaningless.

I do not accept you religious opinion as "truth".

This is not my "religious opinion", but rather my honest opinion and if you do not accept my honest opinion as "true", then you accept that truth has no meaning as I've explained above.

Define "God".

Infinite timeless existence, in which you're finite existence on this earth depends upon.

Exactly how would one falsify your "God" concept?

As I've said above, its unreasonable to expect absolute truth to be falsifiable. Yes, I understand I'm claiming by beliefs to be true without physical evidence to back my claims, but I'm backing my claims with sound reason that makes sense and if you refuse to believe sound reason that makes sense, you are then the one who is being unreasonable.

Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt.

Sound reason that makes sense does not have to be proven. All that is expected is that you believe it until proven otherwise, then when it is proven otherwise you are justified in changing your beliefs.

If you've never believed in extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth, in then becomes wise to believe in them, until evidence is provided that proves that aliens do not exist because you would then be expected to stop believing in aliens if that evidence is provided, BUT there is no physical evidence that proves aliens do not exist so you would still be justified in believing in aliens. Make sense?

Actually there is sound reason to believe that extraterrestrials do not exist. Have you ever heard of Drake equation or Fermi paradox. According these, we should have come into contact with aliens a long time ago. I don't have personal evidence of aliens, so it would be unreasonable for me to believe in aliens and in fact I've been given sound reason to believe they don't exist. You've been given sound reason to believe God does exist, yet you continue to deny for reasons unknown, other than you're just being unreasonable.

What is this reason that you allude to?

Jesus

I have thought about it more than I care to admit.

Good! Keep thinking, it'll come to you eventually

 

[Michael]

Back-pedalling for the Win by Davian posted Jul 10, 2015 at 6:06 PM

What a crock. You failed to acknowledge the fact that your *personal emotional attachment* to both falsification and clear definition is *not* a "scientific' requirement. The only one backpeddling around here is you.

 

[Michael]

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

But you sure accept your own opinions as truth.

You are misrepresenting what I have said. I find this to be intellectually dishonest.

How? You literally ridicule pretty much everyone.