Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 6:08:05 GMT
You’re talking philosophy, get back to a place with hard evidence in it. Both the premise of naturalism and supernaturalism are philosophical. The real question is where the stronger evidence lies to come up with as a conclusion. Indeed, the laws of Causality and finites of energy (among several others) strongly demonstrate the flaws of a naturalistic interpretation. So, the stronger philosophical argument based upon the hard evidence (increasingly) disputes the notions of a natualistic interpretation. If you get caught doing 80 in a 50, you'll get a ticket. If a scientist gets caught, he'll change the speed limit. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 6:09:46 GMT
faith is belief in the absence of evidence Surely you meant to say absence of scientific proof. The evidence for God is similar to evidence of your parents. Your very existence is hard evidence that they exist, and so it's not unreasonable to believe they do. There is no need to "prove" it. I believe you have (or had) parents even though I've never seen them. Am I delusional? Would science disagree with me? Faith is actually only required in one religion, the founder plainly says this. And you’re still in philosophy using the Great Chain of Being argument. The provable “chain” from the largest (the universe itself) to smallest (the subatomic particles) the now reaches to the Higgs’s Field. If you need a god beyond that, it’s up to you find it. If there is a god who is the progenitor of life, then I’m going with Odin. In the sagas, all the good chiefs are his sons and daughters. His creation story is as good as any. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 6:15:05 GMT
You’re talking philosophy, get back to a place with hard evidence in it. Both the premise of naturalism and supernaturalism are philosophical. The real question is where the stronger evidence lies to come up with as a conclusion. Indeed, the laws of Causality and finites of energy (among several others) strongly demonstrate the flaws of a naturalistic interpretation. So, the stronger philosophical argument based upon the hard evidence (increasingly) disputes the notions of a natualistic interpretation. The words are, but one connotes reality, the other the surreal. There are no finite conclusions of the kind you require in hard science. No language definition can overtake a mathematical equation. The Party can say 2 + 2 = 5, but that will never really happen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 6:15:47 GMT
Surely you meant to say absence of scientific proof. The evidence for God is similar to evidence of your parents. Your very existence is hard evidence that they exist, and so it's not unreasonable to believe they do. There is no need to "prove" it. I believe you have (or had) parents even though I've never seen them. Am I delusional? Would science disagree with me? Faith is actually only required in one religion, the founder plainly says this. And you’re still in philosophy using the Great Chain of Being argument. The provable “chain” from the largest (the universe itself) to smallest (the subatomic particles) the now reaches to the Higgs’s Field. If you need a god beyond that, it’s up to you find it. If there is a god who is the progenitor of life, then I’m going with Odin. In the sagas, all the good chiefs are his sons and daughters. His creation story is as good as any. Funny how you don't see many people worshiping pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. I don't care what you call it. The question here is whether or not I'm delusional for believing you have (or had) parents in the absence of scientific proof. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 6, 2023 6:16:12 GMT
No, I don't have to prove they exist. They're supernatural, remember? He's also presuming that the default is naturalism (intellectually faulty premise). Indeed, a true argument would consist of starting from a natural position and then deducing (based upon the evidence we can demonstrate to this point) if there is a stronger argument for naturalism or supernaturalism. Using the finite components of energy, the laws of causality, the cosmological argument, etc. I find the evidence far more strongly supports a supernaturalistic interpretation of the universe. The question for me is more the nature of God which can change the more we learn.... but we're always growing in that regard. That's what makes it so interesting, IMO. The nature of God is a constant mystery. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 6:17:10 GMT
Faith is actually only required in one religion, the founder plainly says this. And you’re still in philosophy using the Great Chain of Being argument. The provable “chain” from the largest (the universe itself) to smallest (the subatomic particles) the now reaches to the Higgs’s Field. If you need a god beyond that, it’s up to you find it. If there is a god who is the progenitor of life, then I’m going with Odin. In the sagas, all the good chiefs are his sons and daughters. His creation story is as good as any. Funny how you don't see many people worshiping pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. I don't care what you call it. The question here is whether or not I'm delusional for believing you have (or had) parents in the absence of scientific proof. There is proof. I can have them dug up. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 6, 2023 6:17:23 GMT
Maybe we have a different definition for the word "clash" then. The clash is, until a few hundreds years ago all of us would be burned at the stake for talking like we do…including Clusim. Prove. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 6:17:53 GMT
Funny how you don't see many people worshiping pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. I don't care what you call it. The question here is whether or not I'm delusional for believing you have (or had) parents in the absence of scientific proof. There is proof. I can have them dug up. But I believe it right now. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 6:19:05 GMT
He's also presuming that the default is naturalism (intellectually faulty premise). Indeed, a true argument would consist of starting from a natural position and then deducing (based upon the evidence we can demonstrate to this point) if there is a stronger argument for naturalism or supernaturalism. Using the finite components of energy, the laws of causality, the cosmological argument, etc. I find the evidence far more strongly supports a supernaturalistic interpretation of the universe. The question for me is more the nature of God which can change the more we learn.... but we're always growing in that regard. That's what makes it so interesting, IMO. The nature of God is a constant mystery. The un-nature of God. Nature belongs in reality. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 6, 2023 6:20:20 GMT
That's what makes it so interesting, IMO. The nature of God is a constant mystery. The un-nature of God. Nature belongs in reality. Define reality. Does it require atomic weight? |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 6:20:23 GMT
The clash is, until a few hundreds years ago all of us would be burned at the stake for talking like we do…including Clusim. Prove. Ever heard of the Inquisitions? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 6, 2023 6:21:45 GMT
Ever heard of the Inquisitions? I have. What did Clusium say that was so bad? |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 6:23:22 GMT
The un-nature of God. Nature belongs in reality. Define reality. Does it require atomic weight? If everything in reality requires it. I think photons don’t have a weight, but they are highly detectable, so real. Is there a device to measure the divine? |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 6:25:00 GMT
Ever heard of the Inquisitions? I have. What did Clusium say that was so bad? She spoke to us, now she may be corrupted by demons. She’ll be witch-dunked just to make sure. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 6, 2023 6:25:44 GMT
I have. What did Clusium say that was so bad? She spoke to us, now she may be corrupted by demons. She’ll be witch-dunked just to make sure. You're an ass. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 6:26:12 GMT
She spoke to us, now she may be corrupted by demons. She’ll be witch-dunked just to make sure. You're an ass. You’re a poor sport. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 6:26:39 GMT
Ever heard of the Inquisitions? Spanish or Roman? Probably doesn't matter... If I say your problem seems to be more with Catholicism than Christianity, would you try to get Proboards to ban me? |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 6, 2023 6:26:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 11:30:34 GMT
Ever heard of the Inquisitions? Spanish or Roman? Probably doesn't matter... If I say your problem seems to be more with Catholicism than Christianity, would you try to get Proboards to ban me? No, unlike you. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 11:31:29 GMT
Science is theoretical and experimental. It is an intelligent way to understand the natural world and universe around us, but it will never be proven absolute. It is forever changing. As for God, humans need to spend less time thinking about God saving them and look at how they can save themselves from themselves and each other. But to say science cannot prove anything is ludicrous. |
|
