Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote: is anything but an argument from ignorance

Your own words convict you Audie, and that's not good news, for as Christians, believe me, we have heard this before, from the very mouth of Christ.

When the best that can be said of another's response is held in contempt and mockery, it is time to shake the dust from your sandals, remove yourself from their presence and allow them to wallow in their ignorance.

Considering the improbability of a civil conversation from you, please refrain from addressing me again.

Audie,
This is becoming a pattern from you. You say what you want. But when someone says something you don't like, you throw a hissy fit, and tell them not to speak to you anymore.

You need to understand that it's not a personal insult whenever anyone disagrees with you, or criticizes what you say.

I disagreed with the notion that a supernatural entity is needed to make the human mind, with the summary and completely non personal statement that it is an argument from ignorance.

What comes back is in bold, above. "contempt, mockery, wallow in ignorance, Very mean spirited, self indulgent and meaningless post... your humility is underwhelming."

Not a word on topic, pure personal attack. Followed by one from you,.. speaking of people who need to know what is a disagreement, and what is a personal attack.

The insinuation, though, was that to believe in a supernatural entity is borne of ignorance.
I know you don't think we are all ignorant but if I didn't? Sorry Audie, that's how it read.

We cannot convince you of God any more that you can convince us not.

All any of us can do is follow our hearts and I pray you will, one day, let God into yours.

(One brick at a time x)

Well this may have been replowed about enough but..

I dont insinuate, I just say what I mean. How its read, I cant control. People see what they look for.

And I do not NOT not say or think that belief in a god is ignorant.

Its a simple narrow statement. We dont know much about the mind, and it cannot be fully explained as the product of natural forces.

To say, if anyone did that therefore it must be supernatural is the same argument from ignorance that might have been used for lightning.

My post was not about following hearts, the existence of god, or any of that.
It was a simple and correct observation of an argument from ignorance.

Fair enough.

So do you agree that it could be supernatural then? If it doesnt have a natural explanation then what is left?

Actually Audie, if you were inclined to study philosophy a little, you'd see it's an argument from logic.

Pfft @ philosophy. I'll stick to the hard reality of science.

Storyteller wrote:Fair enough.

So do you agree that it could be supernatural then? If it doesnt have a natural explanation then what is left?

Of course it could be. What is left otherwise? Figuring it out..

RickD wrote:Actually Audie, if you were inclined to study philosophy a little, you'd see it's an argument from logic.

Logic schmadolic.

Kurieuo wrote:Pfft @ philosophy. I'll stick to the hard reality of science.

I used to like you.

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Pfft @ philosophy. I'll stick to the hard reality of science.

I used to like you.

Sorry, I'm trying to attain audlightenment.

That advertisement would never be approved for airing in the USA. "Enwhitenment"

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:That advertisement would never be approved for airing in the USA. "Enwhitenment"

FL

The Irreverent Al Sharpton would be all over that.

RickD wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:That advertisement would never be approved for airing in the USA. "Enwhitenment"

FL

The Irreverent Al Sharpton would be all over that.

I ever even thought about that.
That's how you know the US has racial issues.
You mention "black" or "white" and it's always reduced to skin colour.

As Michael Jackson once sung, "It doesn't matter if you're black or white. Yee hee!"
That's one man who attained enwhitenment.

Proinsias wrote:Rick, does non-physical existence imply God? my ventures into Buddhism are consistent with both non-physical mind alongside the pointlessness of making an internal decision as to the source. I don't buy into dualism of the body/mind but it seems perfectly reasonable to make such a distinction without invoking God.

If not God, my I ask how Buddhism fills the vacuum of a non-physical reality?
Your venture into Buddhism seems to suggest that you ventured out.
So what say you about such matters?

Take up consciousness.
Do you think it makes sense to say something like from physical, physical things come. And from consciousness, consciousness comes?
Perhaps consciousness is actually a part of the fabric of the world, such that some sort Pantheism is true.
That is a possible option I suppose.

Is that what you are leaning towards when you say the immaterial (non-physical things) doesn't imply God?

Kurieuo wrote:

Proinsias wrote:Rick, does non-physical existence imply God? my ventures into Buddhism are consistent with both non-physical mind alongside the pointlessness of making an internal decision as to the source. I don't buy into dualism of the body/mind but it seems perfectly reasonable to make such a distinction without invoking God.

If not God, my I ask how Buddhism fills the vacuum of a non-physical reality?
Your venture into Buddhism seems to suggest that you ventured out.
So what say you about such matters?

Take up consciousness.
Do you think it makes sense to say something like from physical, physical things come. And from consciousness, consciousness comes?
Perhaps consciousness is actually a part of the fabric of the world, such that some sort Pantheism is true.
That is a possible option I suppose.

Is that what you are leaning towards when you say the immaterial (non-physical things) doesn't imply God?

I dont think it makes sense to try to hammer a round peg into a square hole.

1) I didn't ask you, but it is a public forum soo, ok.
2) If you're going to disagree with what is perhaps the most common sense interpretation to the majority of people of all time, then you need to have something else to offer.

Otherwise it's like having a kid play in a game who just likes to run off with the ball and offers nothing really.