Why does God >insert your grievance here<....?

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Nah.  I'm not going to touch that distortion of reality.

 

The distortion, as I see it, is references in modern religions to ancient practices, that no one is aware of or understands.

Take Halloween. Why do kids dress up like ghosts? Look up its historical significance.

Samhain was believed to be the day of the year where the "veil between the living and the dead" was the thinnest. 

Now you might say, well that's ridiculous. The veil? What veil? There ain't no veil, frogs.

But why then have the established powers that be even bothered to maintain this holiday?

Just to sell candy? Or to discombobulate and de-spiritualize everything? 

 

Edited January 22 by save the frogs

[Tippaporn]

14 hours ago, fusion58 said:

So your position is that you're operating outside of any sort of formal logical or philosophical framework where the burden of proof is a thing?

 

Or are you simply so grandiose as to believe your claims are self-evident and/or that we should simply take your word for them because you have "faith" in the existence of supernatural agencies?

 

Good luck being taken seriously by anyone with even a modicum of intellectual honesty.

 

You wrote at quite some length over three posts covering quite a bit of ground.  Rather than reply to each and every point you've made or raised I'll focus on the very root of all of it.  Which is what I perceive to be your belief that everything in existence can be shown to exist via the production of physical, scientifically valid evidence.  Do you deny that this is your belief?  This is a 'must answer' question as it crucial for you to affirm or disaffirm your position in no uncertain terms.

 

But before I do I want to clear up several of your misconceptions which you have about me.  You have this impression of me that I believe in God, that I believe in supernatural agencies, that I believe in supernatural beings or entities, that I subscribe to theism, that I believe in a supernatural realm.  I believe in none of that.  Your sarcasm then meanders to the absurd using a fallacy of argument by claiming that I, who believes in all of the former, would then be easily prone to believe in leprechauns, purple unicorns and any other such nonsense as well.  Now the simple undeniable fact is you have no knowledge of what I know or believe and therefore to make any claim of that which you do not know would be practicing intellectual dishonesty.  And so, I expect no more references from you as to what you think I know or believe.  If you're uncertain then have the courtesy to ask me first.  I demand intellectual honesty for without it there's nowhere for us to go.  Are we clear?

 

I will make clear what I do believe.  And that is that existence is multidimensional.  That our experienced physical dimension is but a single dimension of an infinite amount of dimensions.  No Gods, no supernatural beings, no supernatural realms, no magic, no leprechauns, no unicorns.  I believe that the reality is simply that more of them exist of which we are only aware of our own.  As a concept it is not different than, and very much the same as, the age old question of whether life exists anywhere else in the universe other than on planet Earth.  The article save the frogs offered just this morning states that Earth is the sole planet within the vastness of the universe on which life can be found to exist.  Do you share that belief?  Or do you believe it possible that life exists elsewhere?  Similarly, do you believe our reality is the only reality which exists?  Or do you believe it possible that other realities exist?

 

Again, these are 'must answer' questions in order to make your position clear.  I do not wish to be in a position where I must assume what you think or believe.  So state it clearly.

 

Granted, we have zero evidence thus far . . . thus far . . . that life exists anywhere else in the universe.  Similarly we have zero evidence thus far . . . thus far . . . that other realities exist.  Between the two we are, though, actually much closer to finding evidence that other realities exist.  I'd point you to the theories laid out by quantum physics which postulate the existence of a multiverse.  So the concept of more than one reality certainly have a foundational basis in theoretical scientific thought.  So do not make claim that my position of existence as multidimensional is pseudo-science.  It clearly is not.  Unless, of course, you wish to claim that what is being postulated by quantum physics is pseudo-science.

 

Now what I have been arguing all along is that the physical evidence you demand to prove existence of all things would be impossible given the existence of multiple realities.  That demand can only, therefore, be a valid one given the idea, the paradigm, that our world, our universe, is the only one in existence.  I've pointed out quite clearly that the naturalistic, or materialistic, view of the world has at it's core their "truth" that our world and our universe are all that exist.

 

Here:

 

"As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature."

 

Here:

 

". . . the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality . . . "

 

And here:

 

"All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself."

 

Those statements are unequivocable and unambiguous in their belief that what they call 'nature' is all which exists.

 

In response to my statement:

 

"Your view of a materialistic world is a belief.  In the sense that it is a belief it is a belief, then, no different than a belief in God."

 

You responded with:

 

"False. Naturalism isn't a "belief." It's a method of inquiry based on observation, experiment and evidence."

 

And yet:

 

". . . naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true . . ."

 

You argue:

 

"Naturalism isn't a "belief" - it's a method of inquiry based on observation, experiment and evidence."

 

And I certainly agree that it's a method of inquiry.  I do not refute that at all.  It is, after all, stated with no uncertainty here:

 

". . . naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true . . ."

 

When you say that "Naturalism isn't a "belief"" you are forgetting, or purposely ignoring, the portion of the above statement that clearly and unambiguously states:

 

". . . without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true . . ."

 

And so, as long as there is a question as to the truth or untruth of naturalism then it is technically correct and intellectually truthful to say that naturalism is . . . . . . . . merely a belief which is held to be "true."

 

If your premise is that naturalism is "true," that per naturalism all that exists is the nature we perceive and nothing outside of it exists, then within the paradigm of that belief it is only natural to conclude, as you seem to have, that everything which exists must therefore be able to be proven to exist via the methodology of science and thus produce scientific evidence.  If your premise is false, however, then it is as I said:

 

"But what if naturalism's premise, it's Great Assumption, is in false?  Well, dear fusion58, then the rules of this game of life change quite dramatically and radically.  That conclusion.is based on deductive logic.  It's a priori."

 

Now hopefully you will not fail to appreciate the quite solid logical reasoning of the above and respond with:

 

"Frankly, it doesn't take much more than those to refute the pseudo-intellectual nonsense you've been slinging here, once we extract the gist of your arguments from the copious volumes of superfluous hot air which accompany them."

 

For such a reply would be the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

The distortion, as I see it, is references in modern religions to ancient practices, that no one is aware of or understands.

Take Halloween. Why do kids dress up like ghosts? Look up its historical significance.

Samhain was believed to be the day of the year where the "veil between the living and the dead" was the thinnest. 

Now you might say, well that's ridiculous. The veil? What veil? There ain't no veil, frogs.

But why then have the established powers that be even bothered to maintain this holiday?

Just to sell candy? Or to discombobulate and de-spiritualize everything?

 

It's easy to see the distortions of reality almost everywhere one looks.  All distortions are due to beliefs.  No exceptions.  It has been said by someone once that the majority of what humans believe to be true is indeed false.  Now a specific percentage wasn't given but 'majority' is enough to imply that it's much greater than 50%.  And so this recurring point once again has me quoting that extremely perceptive and humourous author, Mark Twain:

 

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.“

 

Mark Twain is clearly speaking of beliefs.  Beliefs which are held to be true but are not.  If true that the majority of the beliefs people hold as true are not true then the massive implications of Twain's quote become jaw droppingly apparent.

 

Again, it's easy to recognise the false beliefs which others hold.  But, ah, what about the false beliefs Frogs holds?  Would Frogs dare to take Twain's statement to heart and turn it towards himself?  The fact is that most people, whilst they are eager to gleefully protest the false beliefs of others, rarely examine their own beliefs as to their true validity.  And in reference to this portion of Twain's quote, "that gets you into trouble," you can rest assured that your troubles, each and every one of them, are directly linked to those beliefs which you hold to be true that "just ain’t so.“

[save the frogs]

57 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

But, ah, what about the false beliefs Frogs holds? 

Yeah, but I'm willing to entertain your opinions if they have some validity.

You never answered my question.

What were people's beliefs about Halloween (is Samhain) 1000 years ago and why did they turn it into a costume party?

 

[Gottfrid]

On 1/7/2024 at 11:18 AM, Sunmaster said:

This is for all those people who like to post in the "Do you believe in God?" thread, asking why God allows this or that bad thing to happen.
Maybe just see it as a way to unburden yourself with your question, so as not to clog up the other thread.
You're welcome. 

Maybe the subject better suited for the other thread, as it has to do with God. As this is not a forum that focus on religious matters, then my opinion is that we only need one fictional thread. But, on the other hand, if you can show me supported evidence of the existence of God, that erases 100 of millions years of documented nature and human development..........Because right now, the numbers just don´t add up.

Edited January 22 by Gottfrid

[Tippaporn]

18 hours ago, fusion58 said:

On 1/9/2024 at 8:20 AM, Tippaporn said:

Just as no one there could prove the existence of God in physical terms neither could he prove the tenets upon which his atheism is founded upon in real terms. 

 

LOL.

 

Atheism has no "tenets" - just as atheism is not a "belief system."

 

Atheism is simply the refusal to accept that which is offered without evidence - in this case, the existence of a supernatural sky monarch.

 

I mistakenly used the plural form tenet.  You are correct in that atheists have only a single tenet; they do not believe in the existence of a God or a Supreme Being.  Since the definition of tenet includes 'opinion', and a strongly matched synonym is 'conviction', then the term is accurate.  I'll concede that i should have used a more unambiguous term like 'belief'.

 

18 hours ago, fusion58 said:

Quote

The onus can't be placed on the person making the claim if the claim involves something which cannot be proven with physical evidence that can be placed in one's hand, metaphorically speaking.

 

LOL.

 

"Hey guys! There's a leprechaun on a purple unicorn in the next room! Proof? What are you talking about? I don't need no stinking proof! Why not? Because no one can see them!"

 

You fail to understand that it's impossible to place the onus of providing evidence on someone when that evidence does not exist in physical terms.  And so you continue to insist that there must be physical proof for the existence of everything.  Again, your insistence is due to your belief that our universe is all which exists.  As long as you believe that premise, that assumption, to be true then you can only continue to insist that what you believe to be true is indeed true.

 

Your logic is sound given your data set.  Include more data into the data set and your logic becomes unsound.  You fail to grasp that because you do not question your belief as you do not consider it to be a belief but rather accept it as "fact."  You refuse to consider whether naturalism is true or false.  You accept it as true, despite that truth being debatable.  And to question it's validity is to commit scientific heresy.

 

". . . naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true."

 

From another post:

 

Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions.

 

That's the hard reality.  The beliefs folks have come up with through the ages and into the present - about life, about God, about most everything - are literally unlimited.  Most are distortions and/or outright false.  The above is just another.

 

Just an example.  The mRNA shots will prevent you from catching Covid.  That was billed and heavily promoted as a scientific "truth."  "Trust the science," was endlessly repeated everywhere you turned.  You could not escape the trumpeting of that message if you tried.  Trumpeted by the Gods of Science.  That turned out to be a belief about reality and not hard reality.  Yet millions upon millions upon millions believed that the belief was "true" and that the science was "true."  Now we all know it was false.

 

This is not an attempt to move this conversation to Covid.  I'm merely using a very recent development as it's fresh in everyone's mind and it's an event we've all experienced on a very deep and personal level.  And which illustrates perfectly how easily folks can be sucked into a false reality and believe it, even for a short time, with absolute, unconditional conviction.  It was literally impossible, for a time, to convince people otherwise.

 

That was a stark, in-your-face lesson of the power of belief, a huge lesson which many still fail to recognise.  It showed with magnificent clarity that even though something is utterly false it can be held as true as long as it is believed to be true.  And once held as "true" nothing, and I mean nothing - facts, logic, evidence, what have you - had enough power to  challenge the great power of belief.  There is, however, one thing that can overcome the immense strength of the power of belief . . . the individual holding the belief as "true" begins to question the belief's validity.  That mere questioning can destroy the most powerful of beliefs.  Unfortunately, most never, ever dare question what they believe to be "true."

 

Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions.

 

Folks would do well to cultivate a thorough understanding of what beliefs are, how they function, what their purpose is, where they come from, how they're created and what their effects are.  It would save one a whole lot of trouble.  Don't take it from me.  You are all free to find out for yourselves at your own pace and take as much time as you need to figure it out on your own via trial and error. 

[daveAustin]

On 1/7/2024 at 1:38 PM, Sunmaster said:

Agreed. 
That's why I have to scratch my head every time an atheist comes up with this question. Only atheist ask these questions!
If you don't believe, what's the point in asking?

And that was the reason I started this thread. For these poor confused souls to have a place to vent their frustration. A bit like handing them pen and paper to write a letter to Santa Claus. 55

Not religious but find atheists a bit presumptuous. I mean, how do they know for certain? Having an agnostic mindset is surely more logical... don't know either way. Of a god and why this and that; our pathetic little limited organic brains could not fathom such a thing and there's no point in trying to reason it. He/she/it could not give a flying one what one does. The universe likely built us to look upon itself and know itself; that is it. But to worship what one does not know in the hope that a potential next life will be better is probably not a good idea. An omnipotent entity would see right through that kind of egoistic ruse.   

[Tippaporn]

44 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

But, ah, what about the false beliefs Frogs holds? 

Yeah, but I'm willing to entertain your opinions if they have some validity.

You never answered my question.

What were people's beliefs about Halloween (is Samhain) 1000 years ago and why did they turn it into a costume party?

 

Whether what I say has validity, or even meaning for you or not is not a decision for me to make.  That decision can only be made by you.

 

Just as everyone here does they offer their ideas of what they believe to be true and what they believe to be not true.  I'm like everybody else.  And just as everyone here chimes in with dissenting voices over the beliefs others hold then I'm just like everybody else.  I offer information.  What you do with it is up to you.  It is not my concern what you do with it and neither is it my interest.  Just so you understand where I'm coming from.

 

I never answered your question because it's an inane question.  I'll answer serious questions, though. 

 

I conclude with a man who doesn't believe he's like everybody else.  The incomparable Ray Davies of The Kinks with an awesome live version of I'm Not Like Everybody Else.  And while it's true that I'm like everybody else in certain respects overall I'm not like everybody else. 

 

 

Edited January 22 by Tippaporn

[daveAustin]

Also the potential for each and every one of us in being god. All 7-8 billion of us could be just one and we might be living all those lives, along with every other living thing, sequentially and yet concurrently. Again, our limited brain thingies could not really entertain that kind of carry-on either + out of the realm of this humble topic. 

[Tippaporn]

18 hours ago, fusion58 said:

On 1/21/2024 at 9:50 AM, Tippaporn said:

 

Since I didn't point out any of Sean Carroll's specific logical flaws then I must be merely making a fraudulent claim since my claim was only in the general. 

 

You made no claim at all (which is the point.)

 

You simply pounded your fist on the table and cried "he's really, really wrong! He's wrong in more ways than I can count!" without actually offering any sort of counterargument and without naming even one specific point on which he, in your estimation, was wrong.

 

Not exactly a winning formula for having your objections (whatever they may be) taken seriously.

 

Seriously, dude?

  

On 1/9/2024 at 4:43 AM, Tippaporn said:

Sean Carroll hasn't thought things through.  And so he appeals to others who haven't thought things through.  How can I have the gall to say this?  Because the holes in his logic are big enough to drive a universe through.  I'd point them out individually but the sheer quantity of fallacious logic makes it too time consuming.  Man, this dude makes a lot of assumptions.  It'd be a pity if they're wrong. 

 

My claims were 1) Carroll hadn't thought things through and 2) the holes in his logic are big enough to drive a universe through and 3) this dude makes a lot of assumptions.

 

If those aren't claims then what are they, fusion58?

 

On 1/21/2024 at 8:35 AM, Tippaporn said:

Sean Carroll's arguments are logical only within the framework of naturalism.  Framework equating to paradigm as given in the first quote.  Outside of the framework of naturalism the arguments are illogical.  Again refer to the first quote, "Naturalism should be assumed [to be true]. . . without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true."  How convenient, eh?  Lets' assume it true and not consider whether it is or not.  Sheesh!!    Which is why I made the general statement that his arguments, all based on the idea of naturalism being true, contain holes in their logic.  But again, those holes can only be perceived if his assumption is not taken as Bible (pun intended ).  You have to take the "naturalism" blinders off to see them.  Which you obviously don't.

 

If that's not a counter argument then what it, fusion58?

 

On 1/21/2024 at 8:35 AM, Tippaporn said:

"You’d expect the sacred texts, under theism, to give us interesting information. Tell us about the germ theory of disease. Tell us to wash our hands before we have dinner."

 

Here Carroll offers a fallacy of argument which exists even within the paradigm of naturalism.  For his theistic conclusions do not logically follow.  Here he is willing to go to disingenuous lengths to "prove" his point.

 

If that's not "naming even one specific point on which he, in your estimation, was wrong" then what is, fusion58?

 

You want the rest?

 

"If theism were really true there’s no reason for God to be hard to find."

 

Fallacy of argument.  Conclusion does not logically follow as there could be any number of reasons why God would make it difficult for people to find him.

 

"Under theism you’d expect that religious beliefs should be universal. There’s no reason for God to give special messages to this or that primitive tribe thousands of years ago. Why not give it to anyone? Whereas under naturalism you’d expect different religious beliefs inconsistent with each other to grow up under different local conditions."

 

Another fallacy of argument.  It assumes no interpretation of religious texts occurs and omits that small, but highly important detail.  More assumptions regarding who received the "special messages" and why based on not thinking through any of the possible explanations.  Very sloppy thinking.  His naturalism comparison, though, is spot on.  I'm fair and give credit where credit is due.

 

"Under theism you’d expect religious doctrines to last a long time in a stable way. Under naturalism you’d expect them to adapt to social conditions."

 

Firstly, both of these statements are strictly due to Carroll's interpretations.  Secondly, the two statements are actually contradictory.  Carroll argues in the first that religious doctrines fail to remain stable, hence implying that they change when they should be eternally consistent.  Yet in his next statement he contradicts himself by claiming that religious doctrines fail to adapt, or change.  Total idiocy.

 

"Under theism you’d expect the moral teachings of religion to be transcendent, progressive, sexism is wrong, slavery is wrong. Under naturalism you’d expect they reflect, once again, local mores, sometimes good rules, sometimes not so good."

 

If mores are true representations of the laws governing existence then they would not be transcendent nor progressive.  The U.S. Constitution expresses one of those eternal laws.  "God created all men equal."  Progressivism can never improve upon the truth of that.  If mores are not so good then they are obviously false representations of truths.  His logic is inconsistent and faulty.

 

So I maintain that Carroll has not thought things through.  And I would argue that given his background he'll never be able to think things though properly.  I would, therefore, not bother reading anything else he opines about.  Carroll received his PhD in astronomy and, as with so many scientists these days, he began to opine on his personal views of life, no different than anyone else on the planet.  But fame and fortune then transformed his personal worldview into a "philosophy."  What magic!  If he was a schmuck like everyone else here and posted his worldview on this thread his views would be treated just like the next schmuck's views are treated.  No fame no credibility.  Fame somehow produces instant credibility automatically.  And the fanboys bow and glorify them.    Now those are the true schmucks in my opinion.

 

Google 'Sean Carroll' and this comes up:

 

Sean M. Carroll

American theoretical physicist and philosopher

 

Now Google "Tippaporn' and this comes up:

 

Tippaporn

World traveler, husband, father, pet owner and philosopher

 

Google any other poster here, including yourself, fusion58, and similar will come up, all ending with "and philosopher."  

 

For the Musk fanboys, here's one instance where's he's asked what the meaning of life is.  (Not the first time he's been asked for his eloquent and flowing answer.)  Hey, if you've got success and fame then everyone seems to think you must then have the answers to all of life's deep questions because, well, you're so brilliant and successful.  Because so many believe in the God of Science then scientists in particular can turn the ears of their followers and awe them.  Suckers. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, daveAustin said:

Also the potential for each and every one of us in being god. All 7-8 billion of us could be just one and we might be living all those lives, along with every other living thing, sequentially and yet concurrently. Again, our limited brain thingies could not really entertain that kind of carry-on either + out of the realm of this humble topic. 

 

Now there's someone who's thinking outside the box and shows perceptiveness.  Bravo, Dave. 

[save the frogs]

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

That decision can only be made by you.

Stop trying to control the conversation.

When its your turn to be the boss, I'll let you know.

You like being the boss, right? You like being in charge?

25,000 word posts. 

 

[Neeranam]

It's because there is a spiritual law called Karma. 

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Stop trying to control the conversation.

When its your turn to be the boss, I'll let you know.

You like being the boss, right? You like being in charge?

25,000 word posts. 

 

 

Quit whining. 

[save the frogs]

And you know what?

Not one of you tossers has mentioned The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism yet, 700 pages into this.

Shame on you.

 

[fusion58]

On 1/22/2024 at 10:06 AM, Tippaporn said:

You fail to understand that it's impossible to place the onus of providing evidence on someone when that evidence does not exist in physical terms.

Possible or not, the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being is still yours and yours alone. That’s because you are the claimant.

 

So far, all I’ve seen from you is a plethora of long-winded dissertations the upshot of which is “you’re not willing to accept my brand of evidence” coupled with attacks on atheism and/or naturalism which merely serve as deflections and do nothing to fulfill your burden of proof.

 

A rather roundabout way of demonstrating that you don’t really have any evidence, it would seem.

 

Again, you could make your life a lot easier if you would simply admit that your belief in a supernatural being is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact.

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, fusion58 said:

On 1/22/2024 at 10:06 AM, Tippaporn said:

You fail to understand that it's impossible to place the onus of providing evidence on someone when that evidence does not exist in physical terms.

Possible or not, the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being is still yours and yours alone. That’s because you are the claimant.

 

First of all, I had written this in my last reply to you:

 

You have this impression of me that I believe in God, that I believe in supernatural agencies, that I believe in supernatural beings or entities, that I subscribe to theism, that I believe in a supernatural realm.  I believe in none of that.

 

And:

 

And so, I expect no more references from you as to what you think I know or believe.  If you're uncertain then have the courtesy to ask me first.  I demand intellectual honesty for without it there's nowhere for us to go.  Are we clear?

 

Yet here you are spouting the same BS about me that I believe in a supernatural being.  I demanded intellectual honesty from you I guess that would throw a monkey wrench into your narrative so you simply continue to dishonestly proceed with your narrative that I believe in a supernatural being.

 

Secondly, here's an entry from Wiki on consciousness:

 

Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence. However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and all of science. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition. Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked.

 

Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain.

 

Millennia of analyses, and however many hundreds of years by science, and yet to this day science doesn't have much of any clue as to what consciousness is.  And they have even less of a clue as to where consciousness is.  For the life of them they can't find it's physical location.  Do you know why?  Because consciousness isn't physical.  And thus it can't be proven to exist, nor can it be found to reside anywhere in the physical world.

 

This is illustrates conclusively the point that I've been making which you refuse to accept.  There exist in the world phenomenon which are not physical.  And if they are not physical then how the f are you going to legitimately place the burden of proof on the claimant, or demand they produce the evidence of it's existence?  I'm sure you would claim you have consciousness.  That you have awareness.  So prove it.  Show me where your consciousness is.  Well, after millennia of analyses and no one has yet been able to do it then neither will you.  But you can't deny the fact that you have consciousness.  To deny that would be the epitome of stupidity.

 

Same with thoughts.  Thoughts aren't physical.  But they sure as hell exist and are real.  Think a thought and then prove to someone else that the thought you had exists.  You can't.  Another instance, which example I've used earlier - but conveniently ignored by you, of phenomenon which surely exist yet can't be proven to exist.

 

But hey, keep fooling yourself as long as you would like to.  You don't fool me, though. 

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, fusion58 said:

So far, all I’ve seen from you is a plethora of long-winded dissertations

 

This is just another intellectually dishonest debate tactic.  Resort to ad hominem by accusing the other of simply blowing hot air without ever saying what he's blowing hot air about or why he's wrong.

 

What we have here, in truth, is the fact that you refuse to debate any of the valid points made in these so-called "long-winded dissertations."  This is widely recognised and accepted as intellectually dishonesty.  So that's what I'm now accusing you of. 

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, fusion58 said:

. . . the upshot of which is “you’re not willing to accept my brand of evidence . . .

 

The upshot of which is that I'm arguing that the evidence you demand doesn't exist, not that you're not willing to accept it.  You want to insist that it does, or should, and refuse not only to accept sound and logical reasoning but can't even debate that sound and logical reasoning.  The failure is yours, fusion58. 

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, fusion58 said:

. . . coupled with attacks on atheism and/or naturalism which merely serve as deflections . . .

 

Attacks?  Is that what you call critiques of naturalism which show it's logical deficiencies?  What kind of a science disciple are you where you can't handle opposing ideas to your scientific theory and simply stomp your feet whilst endlessly and loudly repeating, "My theory is right!!!"  Another typical intellectually dishonest debating ploy where you shout down the opposing views and refuse to argue the substance of what you're shouting down. 

 

By the way, I never once "attacked" atheism.  Never argued against it.  Another typical intellectually dishonest debating tactic where you put words into the other's mouth. 

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, fusion58 said:

Again, you could make your life a lot easier if you would simply admit that your belief in a supernatural being is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact.

 

Again, you insist on my holding the "belief in a supernatural being."  Another typical intellectually dishonest debating tactic where you keep repeating a false claim in order for the repetition to make it true. 

 

On 1/21/2024 at 4:05 PM, fusion58 said:

You simply pounded your fist on the table and cried "he's really, really wrong! He's wrong in more ways than I can count!" without actually offering any sort of counterargument and without naming even one specific point on which he, in your estimation, was wrong.

 

This is exactly what you are doing, sir. 

 

I predict it won't be long now before you simply exit this conversation as that is what people typically do when their points are shown to be fallacious and they can no longer argue in defence of them.  Nor can they successfully find the logical flaws in the other's points and point them out.  Intellectual dishonesty is severely limited as it is laden with faults which can't be overcome.  And so the eventuality is that those who practice intellectual dishonesty hightail it outta there. 

[Sunmaster]

On 1/22/2024 at 9:54 AM, Gottfrid said:

Maybe the subject better suited for the other thread, as it has to do with God. As this is not a forum that focus on religious matters, then my opinion is that we only need one fictional thread. But, on the other hand, if you can show me supported evidence of the existence of God, that erases 100 of millions years of documented nature and human development..........Because right now, the numbers just don´t add up.

You seem quite content in your ignorance, so who am I to change that. Enjoy, coz if ignorance is bliss, you must be the living  Buddha. 😄

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, fusion58 said:

On 1/22/2024 at 10:06 AM, Tippaporn said:

You fail to understand that it's impossible to place the onus of providing evidence on someone when that evidence does not exist in physical terms.

Possible or not, the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being is still yours and yours alone. That’s because you are the claimant.

 

There's one other point which needs to be made.  Your statement concedes my point "that evidence does not exist in physical terms" for all phenomenon.  As you say, "possible or not."  Your statement, once you posit that evidence does not always exist in physical terms, then becomes illogical.  For if you agree that evidence does not always exist in physical terms then it is illogical and irrational to then claim burden of proof for clearly you've tacitly agreed that proof does not exist for all phenomenon.  Therefore, if proof does not exist it is illogical and irrational to then claim burden of proof.

 

Bottom line is that there exists an objective reality and a subjective reality.  Objective reality is physical in nature.  Subjective reality is not physical in nature.  Any phenomenon which is purely subjective, due to it's very nature, cannot be transformed into physical terms.  So, how would you argue that it can be, fusion58?

 

I understand that there are numbers within the scientific community who are positing the idea that all subjective reality is merely a product of the physical brain.  Those adopting that absurd notion then further posit ludicrous ideas such as the nonexistence of free will, for instance.  The illusion of free will is then explained as being due to the function of the brain.  Science then has totally come off the rails of rationality and has careened into the world of the bizarre. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

First of all, I had written this in my last reply to you:

 

You have this impression of me that I believe in God, that I believe in supernatural agencies, that I believe in supernatural beings or entities, that I subscribe to theism, that I believe in a supernatural realm.  I believe in none of that.

 

And:

 

And so, I expect no more references from you as to what you think I know or believe.  If you're uncertain then have the courtesy to ask me first.  I demand intellectual honesty for without it there's nowhere for us to go.  Are we clear?

 

Yet here you are spouting the same BS about me that I believe in a supernatural being.  I demanded intellectual honesty from you I guess that would throw a monkey wrench into your narrative so you simply continue to dishonestly proceed with your narrative that I believe in a supernatural being.

 

Secondly, here's an entry from Wiki on consciousness:

 

Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence. However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and all of science. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition. Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked.

 

Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain.

 

Millennia of analyses, and however many hundreds of years by science, and yet to this day science doesn't have much of any clue as to what consciousness is.  And they have even less of a clue as to where consciousness is.  For the life of them they can't find it's physical location.  Do you know why?  Because consciousness isn't physical.  And thus it can't be proven to exist, nor can it be found to reside anywhere in the physical world.

 

This is illustrates conclusively the point that I've been making which you refuse to accept.  There exist in the world phenomenon which are not physical.  And if they are not physical then how the f are you going to legitimately place the burden of proof on the claimant, or demand they produce the evidence of it's existence?  I'm sure you would claim you have consciousness.  That you have awareness.  So prove it.  Show me where your consciousness is.  Well, after millennia of analyses and no one has yet been able to do it then neither will you.  But you can't deny the fact that you have consciousness.  To deny that would be the epitome of stupidity.

 

Same with thoughts.  Thoughts aren't physical.  But they sure as hell exist and are real.  Think a thought and then prove to someone else that the thought you had exists.  You can't.  Another instance, which example I've used earlier - but conveniently ignored by you, of phenomenon which surely exist yet can't be proven to exist.

 

But hey, keep fooling yourself as long as you would like to.  You don't fool me, though. 

There are many unknowns about how consciousness works but you have not proven conclusively that there are non physical forces - not even close. 

We all have thoughts and a consciousness but there is no evidence that it is not reliant or a product of our physicality.

One of your key claims seems to be that non physical forces can control the physical world and that an individual can influence their life and or surroundings through these non physical means. As I have noted, if direct physical evidence is not possible, you should seemingly be able to provide statistical secondary evidence to back up your claims.

Followers or adherents of your doctrine or ideas, could show specific and possibly unusual or surprising outcomes in their physical lives, that came from these non-physical concepts e.g. we are not sure why there is a link between A and B, or what forces are at play, but clearly A leads to B.

Next steps may be to see if you can gather evidence or alternatively live your life happily in your faith that to you these are self evident truths. But in my opinion criticism of those that doubt, on the basis that they don't have your faith or that they can't comment without 10000 hours meditating or reading 1000000 words, is not a fair way to make an argument. You need evidence. 

 

[Gottfrid]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

You seem quite content in your ignorance, so who am I to change that. Enjoy, coz if ignorance is bliss, you must be the living  Buddha. 😄

That´s what a person says when he/she can´t find any facts to contest a statement. Just like suspected, and as the majority of religious people, you simply avoided everything by pointing on ignorance. What ignorance? Why would I be and ignorant person just because I do not believe in ghost, fairytales and made up characters? Proof my man. Proof? Where is it?

[Sunmaster]

30 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

That´s what a person says when he/she can´t find any facts to contest a statement. Just like suspected, and as the majority of religious people, you simply avoided everything by pointing on ignorance. What ignorance? Why would I be and ignorant person just because I do not believe in ghost, fairytales and made up characters? Proof my man. Proof? Where is it?

What's with all those questions? I thought you prefer not knowing, because that's what ignorance is.

[Gottfrid]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

What's with all those questions? I thought you prefer not knowing, because that's what ignorance is.

And that was the proof? 

[retarius]

Why does God 'allow innocent Palestinian children to be murdered and slaughtered in their thousands in Gaza'? 

I simply don't know the answer to this and don't know why supposedly 'moral' EU and US governments allow it to continue. In not other country in the world would this be allowed without Western governments stepping in, or at least applying huge sanctions.

[retarius]

BTW a view from ITV

https://www.rt.com/news/591253-british-pm-quizzed-over-gaza-video/

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

And that was the proof? 

Not my job to provide you with any proof of anything. You are a conscious being (I think), so you have all the tools to find truth all on your own. 

Either do that or take responsibility for not wanting to know. As simple as that.