SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

I did read it. I still do not know what you mean by "God".

You can't grasp the concept of living inside of a living organism?

 

[ScottA]

So you assert.

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

What was the question?

The egg - that was settled some time ago. Is this news?

You did not address my question: Why should any of your claims be taken seriously, in the context of a Physical & Life Sciences forum?

Fair question indeed.

The answer, is because there is something more. And good people don't sit idle and watch others struggle without offering assistance. We have the answers to the proverbial questions of life, of science, as it were. So as science struggles with questions like which came first, the chicken or the egg, we have a choice of raising our hand, or giggling. Some giggle, some raise their hand...and that is what we are doing here. And we presume, that you are here to hear the proverbial questions answered...but are mystified at your response, much of which is ingratitude, as if we didn't have better things to do.

Care to go for strike three? Pay attention.

 

[Davian]

<snip false dichotomy> There may be a way to falsify the concept of a living universe, if not now, maybe someday. <snip false dichotomies>

"Someday"? But not yet.

Few if any concepts in 'science' are "falsifiable" as you seem to demand when it comes to any and all concepts about God.

Define "God".

 

[Michael]

I consider the asking others to prove a negative to be intellectually bankrupt.

Likewise I consider your assumption about the limits of awareness to be intellectually bankrupt without evidence. Even the expansion process of Lambda-CDM is not limited to C.

Different goalposts.

Boloney. Same potential for 'awareness', 'awareness' on a much more 'local' level. You're simply "assuming' that awareness cannot be distributed, must be centralized, and must be centralized 'far far away'. Got any evidence to support any of those assumptions?

Get back to me when you are sure. And you can demonstrate it, either way.

Technically it's not necessary or required. It's just another of your pet peeves apparently, much like your personal need for falsification.

Within the brain.

Which parts, when, where, why and how?

Then what philosophy of mind are you using for your "universe-god"?

Which would you prefer?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Take that up with Michael.

Michael has a better grasp of reality than you like to admit. You see - you require we have faith in 95% Fairie Dust in cosmology and also 95% Fairie Dust in evolutionary theory. There are at least 12 different ad-hoc assumptions one must take as truth in both theories - and none of them ever observed.

While Michael is just asking you to have faith in one thing - and one thing only. Unlike those that have 12 different things they have faith in, he accepts the science and has faith in but one thing. As do I.

So who really here has the most faith?

 

[Michael]

"Someday"? But not yet.

Care to falsify graviton oriented QM theories about gravity for me at the moment?

Define "God".

The living universe.

 

[Davian]

You can't grasp the concept of living inside of a living organism?

The only "living organisms" I am aware of are critters on this planet that are breathing, consuming, excreting beings subject to entropy. What are you talking about?

 

[Davian]

Care to go for strike three? Pay attention.

You're the one at the plate. I am only observing what you do with those pitches, to see if you have anything. This is not the Exploring Christianity forum.

 

[Michael]

By the way Scott....

I would add that atheists tend to apply the 'scientific' method to every topic other than God, and tend to demand the empirical method as it applies to the topic of God. It's more than a tad hypocritical, but that's exactly what they do.

LM for instance accepts evidence based upon a presumed "effect" his BB supernatural agents have on photons, but he refuses to accept anyone's claimed "effects" from something they called "God". It's a huge double standard. No photon even claimed "dark energy did it", yet they accept the idea none the less. Even when countless human beings describe the effect, and name the cause for that effect, they simply reject it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Define "God".

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So when are you going to accept what everything is made from, energy?

Including that image we were made in.

"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

When you and I both understand we are nothing but those electric currents (energy) coursing through our minds? When you figure out what consciousness (mind/energy) is, then you'll have your definition of God.

Until then I guess we will have to do with it described as "work", and those works were wonderful were they not? It's not that science can't explain God - you just have no explanation for what energy really is, except work. That's the thing with something that can take so many forms, it's hard to describe. As is God, which is why no image can be made of Him - for what image can you make of consciousness (mind) - except other consciousnesses (minds)?

 

[Michael]

The only "living organisms" I am aware of are critters on this planet that are breathing, consuming, excreting beings subject to entropy. What are you talking about?

Are you willfully ignorant of the basic concepts of pantheism and panentheism, or just being coy? I'm talking about the basic tenets of panentheism at this point. I thought you told me you read that empirical theory of God thread?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This "spiritual discernment" - is it any different from guessing?

Seems to work better than evolutionists when they guessed Darwin's Finches were separate species before bothering to study them. Then when they do they find out they all interbreed and produce fertile offspring, yet instead of correcting their mistakes - just keep telling the same old falsified stories - in which their followers also refuse to challenge their high priests of evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That explains the null results of the dark matter searches at LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness tests, as well as the fact that not a single astronomer can even name a source of 'dark energy'.

Don't forget gravity waves that don't wave and Hawking Radiation that doesn't Radiate. Dark Matter and Dark Energy is but the tip of the iceberg. But it is marvelous how they ask us to have faith in these many things, but seem to oppose faith in One thing.

But you are asking them to give up their faith for science Michael. This is the problem. Which is why they will continue to ignore all those null results and have faith anyways.

 

[HitchSlap]

Care to go for strike three? Pay attention.

Yep, you keep saying that, and you keep hand waving away the fact that at some point you're going to have to proffer some evidence, rather than just expect us to take your word for it.

Knowledge is demonstrable.

 

[PastorFreud]

I am not actually looking for a debate myself, although I would go for a reasonable discussion. I guess, it's just because they seem to flock here looking to debate, and do so by demanding physical evidence for spiritual (not actually metaphysics) truth.

This appears to be a lie based on your response to my post. I was being nice. You dismissed me curtly. I was trying to say that I do not demand physical evidence for every claim, yet you twisted what I said and gave a brusque reply. You showed no interest in reasonable discussion. No worries. Now I know.

 

[Davian]

Likewise I consider your assumption about the limits of awareness to be intellectually bankrupt without evidence.

I have evidence. By all observations to date, c appears to be the speed limit. Have you anything to the contrary?

Even the expansion process of Lambda-CDM is not limited to C.

Burn the Strawmen

• Davian
• Apr 9, 2014

Boloney. Same potential for 'awareness', 'awareness' on a much more 'local' level. You're simply "assuming' that awareness cannot be distributed, must be centralized, and must be centralized 'far far away'. Got any evidence to support any of those assumptions?

The only "awareness " that I have observed is a process, a function of a physical brain. What are you talking about?

Technically it's not necessary or required. It's just another of your pet peeves apparently, much like your personal need for falsification.

If you cannot demonstrate the veracity of your claims, I see no reason to believe you.

Which parts, when, where, why and how?

Why this need to move the goalposts at this scale?

Which would you prefer?

Modern over ancient. Had you not considered philosophy of mind at this point?

 

[Davian]

Michael has a better grasp of reality than you like to admit.

Or he can demonstrate.

You see - you require <snip straw-man>

So who really here has the most faith?

I do not require faith in things I do not care about.

 

[Davian]

<snip false dichotomy>

The living universe.

What living universe?

 

[Davian]

By the way Scott....

I would add that atheists tend to apply the 'scientific' method to every topic other than God, and tend to demand the empirical method as it applies to the topic of God. It's more than a tad hypocritical, but that's exactly what they do.

LM for instance accepts evidence based upon a presumed "effect" his BB supernatural agents have on photons, but he refuses to accept anyone's claimed "effects" from something they called "God". It's a huge double standard. No photon even claimed "dark energy did it", yet they accept the idea none the less. Even when countless human beings describe the effect, and name the cause for that effect, they simply reject it.

You have yet to provide the name for even one individual that can demonstrate that this "effect" that you allude to is not simply imagined.

 

[Davian]

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Invisible things that are clearly seen? Is that like Wonder Woman's jet?