Conservation of souls?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Jun 19, 2018.

  1. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,511
    Very small if they could all walk on water

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,007
    I sit here and wonder why we bother talking about their superstitions.
    You wont win, they know in their hearts they are right and if something has no answer well make one up...it wont be outta place with all the other made up stuff.
    It is interesting to google big new churches. .. I am right about my God just look at the church we just built.
    I think I got off at the wrong planet hopefully the others are different.
    And all the pages of waffle that has been posted here (part of which includes my waffle) we get nothing but unsupported claims at best about God but to this day no evidence offerred well because we wont buy it...but the real answer there is nothing to support any of these god stories.
    I dont like soapes on tv but watching them makes a better use of time than indulging these folk who come here with whatever notion that they know to be true be ause they feel good about it...
    Do you watch Matt Dillahunty at all?
    The folk that ring in you will not believe.
    They will nit pick the theory of evolution for any minor flaw they perceive without a clue what evolution is telling us via evidence but have no ability to look at any scripture and see the abundant flaws and reject the god stories when there is just so much to point to that is wrong historically or simply grossly immoral such that it can only be rejected by a rational human.

    The Ark story gets me.

    A God that decides to wipe out the human race but save eight people so a eight hundred year old man and his two sons each one hundred years old build a boat that takes all species ignoring the obvious flaws in such a story ... its so much nonsense that is clear but then a believer of this thinks the theory of evolution is "just a theory" with obvious flaws...why can they not see the flaws in their made up flood or other made up stories.
    I am sick of them.
    Put up or shut up may become my standard responce.
    I feel driven to go to church and heckle the speaker.
    "Yeh well if God is so wonderful why does he call upon followers to kill folk mowing their lawn on a apparently god dedicated rest day...
    " or how often may I beat my slaves"...
    We are so fortunate not to be infected with the sickness of religion...
    And another thing that gets me is the dishonesty.
    Look at as many "proof of God" youtube videos you like and you determine that dishonesty seems to be universal.
    Crab walking fairey tale presenters who better hope there is no God to judge their honesty on their judgement day...most of them have already got their ticket to hell for their dishonestly.
    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    A bet on what?
    That you're not actually responding to the matter that I raised?
    Sure - how much do you want to lose?
    If I suggest that "it's turtles all the way down - until a case of special pleading" and all you do is point to an individual turtle and describe it, you're not addressing the point.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    Indeed.
    Unfortunately it's not an answer people can often cope with responding to, preferring to bluster as though you're telling them their view is wrong and that you believe the opposite to them.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,168
    And you missed the part where I say original cause is a matter of probability and in case of a "timeless permittive state", this probability becomes certainty.
    Otherwise it is turtles all the way down.

    Apparently you do not seem to understand that the presumption of a Creator God is a "special pleading".

    Therefore, Creation was not a motivated act but a spontaneous event. There is no other solution to the turtle problem!
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  9. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,000
    I suspect you are correct.

    On the other hand, I am a tiny little part of the universe and I am "intelligent" and "motivated". I don't know what sort of emergent properties can arise with something the size of the universe.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,168
    The same QM. Motivation is not required for inanimate matter and inanimate chemicals to form biomolecules which, in the hierarchy of orders, are causal to living systems and sentience. The laws of "attraction and repulsion" will provide all the required dynamic configurations and forces for "work". It is not all that complicated, IMO.

    I believe that values and functions of matter have an inherent communication (language) in common as part of the very fabric of space. This language only needs some 33 values and a handfull of equations. The rest is just a matter of distance and time, it's all probabilistic.

    It is an abstract Pseudo-Intelligence that allows for things to happen in a consistent and orderly manner. It needs not be sentient, it just requires time. Sentience is an emergent result of this mathematical pseudo-intelligent work, a potential with high probability, over time becoming explicated in reality in many forms in many biological systems.

    IMO, this is why human mathematics work so well, our physical existence is mathematically in perfect tune with the universe. This mathematical evolution in species can be observed in an enormous amount of data where matter and organisms act in a consistent and mathemaically describable behaviors.

    Actually we can reduce it to; mathematics lie outside of human control and all things in this universe are subject to mathematical values and functions. But we are able to observe and apply what we learn.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  11. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    Being a matter of probability doesn't actually say anything about what actually gives rise, only that the effect is probabilistic given the cause.
    And what gives rise to the "timeless permittive state"?
    I'm glad we agree.
    I'm patently aware - hence my initial post on the matter (post #491).
    Whether one posits a Creator God, or other non-turtling solution, it is special pleading.
    So you believe, at least.
    Any solution that involves stopping the turtling seems to me to be special-pleading.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,168
    You are not understanding the implication of the wording.
    A total void is a priori requirement for a timeless permittive state. It is not dimensional as space nor is it subject to time, it is just permittive.

    The mathematical laws of permission and restrictions come later in the hierarchy of orders, along with the appearance of values and functions.
    Turtles into infinity is special pleading IMO. At some point the notion of being becomes an abstraction, indicating only the presence of values and functions which have, over time produced the order we see today.

    And that is where the two philosophies part ways. God is a timeless motivated state, Potential is timeless permittive state.
    The latter is a defensible argument, the first is not.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  13. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,000
    Hmmm. There's a lot of "IMO"s and "I believe"s in there. Apparently it's not only theists who are afraid to admit that they don't KNOW.

    That's OK. I don't know how old you are, but at the age of 60 I've become quite comfortable with "I don't know".
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,168
    I have no objection to the civility of that statement, but it tacitly condones a false way of life, IMO.
    Religion offers deniability of responsibility, Atheism does not, it assigns responsibility.

    I think outright rejection is the more honest and demands a different, more realistic perspective on the universe, life and society.

    The one thing I will stipulate to is that my opinions are indeed my opinions , but are based on certain known facts in "mainstream science", as well as on deeper and more "speculative theories".

    Let me put it this way, while one can insist that we shall never know for sure, it does not mean that one belief system of values and functions is equally valid as the other.
    That's misleading and disingenuous, IMO.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,824
    Saying "I don't know" in no way condones a false way of life. It is simply an acknowledgement that when the question is asked we don't know the answer. "I don't know" doesn't mean that you can't, or shouldn't review the matter with critical thinking skills. It doesn't mean that you can't reject the answers that some come up with. It simply means you don't know what the actual answer is.
    If I ask you to think of a number between 1 and 10, then I can honestly say that I don't know what it is. But I do know that it is not 11, or 56, or the letter A. But if someone asks me if the answer is 9, I don't know. If someone asks me if it is 4, I don't know.

    So no, saying "I don't know" does not condone a false way of life. If anything it is the only honest answer one can have on the matter. There are some answers that we might tend toward as being more possible, depending on the underlying philosophies we adhere to, but when push comes to shove, "I don't know" is as honest as I think it gets.
    Sure we have opinions. But would not the false way of life be to push one's opinions as the truth, whatever those opinions are.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,168
    Objectively, I agree, but if you ask a religious person, they will undoubtedly take the position that if you cannot definitely disprove God, he must exist by default.

    Remember Jan's ; "God IS". No argument that "we don't know" is sufficient to change that perspective.
    He could not even define his God. i.e. not only does that indicate he doesn't know, but indicates that he doesn't even know what he doesn't know.

    The statement, "God IS", is "not even wrong"......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,824
    Can I suggest a few of things: first, don't discuss with everyone as if they are Jan, secondly don't discuss with everyone as though Jan Ardena is the epitome of a normal person, and lastly don't base every discussion with other people on what Jan Ardena might have said.
    Discuss with people on what they have said. Otherwise threads will be destroyed not only by Jan Ardena‘s direct involvement but by proxy as well.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,168
    I can agree with that. And I welcome a healthy discussion on possible metaphysical (latent) conditions and causalities.

    The problem with Jan is that he is a true and unconditional believer and unfortunately there are many (billions) with that mind set. Their scripture transcends secular law as well as science.

    In context of these discussions, how many times have we heard something like "if you cannot disprove God, he must exist by default", and thereby shifting the burden of proof on the person who is not making the extraordinary claim. I've heard it hundreds of times.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2018
  19. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,511
    Verrrryyyy interesting

    So extrapolating onwards ANYTHING which cannot be disproved exist by default

    Should go down well in the UFO thread

    Does the opposite view apply?

    Anything which CAN be proven by default does not exist

    Ya that works

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Write4U likes this.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,168
    The curious thing is that it seems to apply only to the belief (without proof) in the existence of an a priori sentient and motivated God

    If we ask a theist if pink unicorns exist, he will answer "no". If you ask them if God exists, he will answer "yes".......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,511
    Has any theist proscribed a motive?

    Of course there is the unspoken question about a god
    • who has always existed
    • outside of the Universe
    • outside of time
    if if if time had been around can we put, at least a large enough number, (enough just to put a little meat on the bone) how long god was around, before the light bulb went off, about making a Universe.

    Put say 1 billion Earth years (going back from the start of the billion to infinity)

    So what was he doing for THAT billion years?????

    Give brownie points for physics but looking at the life segment, particularly the human portion, don't think thought through

    Perhaps given ⅛ of a second of thought from the billion years

    So theist your homework is to provide
    • a god motive or
    • reason or
    • explaination
    WHY ARE WE HERE ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,168
    That is the 60,000 dollar question.
    From scripture; John 2:16; God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life!
    Quite a promise and wrong on so many levels, it's really astounding in its hubris.

    If God is the sentient creator, what was His motive in creating man in the first place and why did he not start with Jesus as his first and only begotten son?

    What was Adam, a bastard son? The one we never talk about anymore?

    If God is not sentient, then why do we need to worship, prayer, and appeals to God for His favors?

    Something is wrong here.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2018
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,007
    I am surprised you reached for God in your answer.

    Would the answer to the question be honestly answered by "We dont know that there should even be a reason" or "We dont know".

    We are being exposed so much to God speculation that it seems to creep into the conversation like you let it just now...
    But guess work is not an option.
    Alex
     

Share This Page