Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Sorginak]

I cam show how they were inspired by the same Spirit.

The spirit of creativity for the relevance of population control, certainly. 

[popsthebuilder]

If all Judeo-Christian religions refer to the same god, then there should not be multiple denominations due to people not being able to agree on interpretation of what god is.

As far as Hinduisim:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism

Buddhism:

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

You should seriously brush up on your religions before posting crap.

There are divisions among all people. Hinduism indeed believes in one GOD ultimately. Some sects may refute this, most don't. Buddhist do indeed believes in a singular causal force though much of Buddhism seems bend on void as opposed to life.

You can pull up bs from anywhere on the internet. Use the respective core texts to show your claim to be true.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Sorginak]

You can pull up bs from anywhere on the internet. Use the respective core texts to show your claim to be true.

You have not shown me that your god is real.

All you have done is declare to me your gullibility in persisting to believe in that which does not depend on reason.

[popsthebuilder]

You have not shown me that your god is real.

All you have done is declare to me your gullibility in persisting to believe in that which does not depend on reason.

Like I said; waste of time.

I'm gone for a while.


peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[trdsf]

I don't come even close to stopping there. And nothing will ever be scientifically observed beyond the light bubble of our observable universe.  That doesn't stop scientists from reasonably speculating what came before and what will happen far into the future of the universe. But academia says it so science of the gaps is cool I guess.... ;)

I'm more interested in a comprehensive and logical model that accounts for all known and unknown observations like dark matter and dark energy. Also neatly solves the asymmetry of the CMB background, and provides for the six flavors of quarks the three densities of matter quarks and the three antiquarks.

Does any scientific model of universal formation predict these things?

Whether or not there is a current complete Theory of Everything is of no relevance to determining the validity of your assertion.

Your own words:

The God before the unfolding of a universe is infinite absolute undifferentiated substance occupying all available space.....which still exists outside and between all the voided spacel universes.

What you can not do -- and what you just tried to do here -- is just declare that because there's no final explanation from science yet, therefore your idea is equally reasonable.

Not only is that a profound misunderstanding of the way evidence and proof works, it's a profound misunderstanding of the way science works.

If you're going to assert a god -- however nebulous and non-anthropomorphic -- the burden of proof is on you.  If you're going to assert any kind of explanation, the burden of proof is on you.  You need to offer evidence for your idea.  Without observational evidence and/or a solid mathematical underpinning, all you have here is an idea -- not even a particularly original idea, and certainly not a theory.  That's the difference between a scientific speculation, and making stuff up.

If you want your idea to be taken seriously, show your data and provide your repeatable observations.  Defending it is not "You can't explain something, so my idea's valid!"  That's punting on your responsibility.

If you can't or won't do that, don't be surprised when I fail to give you any credence.

[Baruch]

All Abrahamic religions refer to same merciful benevolent GOD. Hinduism​ at it's core is monotheistic as they believe all things, including gods came from a singular creative force. Buddhism even believes in an ultimate causal GOD. Zoroastrianism, Jainism, many other schools of thought; they all reference the same things for the same reasons. Those things are the will of GOD towards IT's creation (mankind specifically), and the reason for them is the sake of existence, and not self.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

The common origins of culture and religion, are caused by the common psychology of human beings.  Variant people (not necessarily broken) have variant views because of their variant psychology.  Hence gay vs straight.  Non-conformists are of course; anti-society, anti-law, anti-morality, anti-ethics, anti-legality ... etc depending on how they are variant from conformism.  And most relevantly ... there are variant people, non-conformists ... who are anti-religion.  And out of these variant people, is where we usually get our creative forces in art and science.  Conformists don't do art or science, rebels do.  In fact, rebels create new religions.  Moses was a murder, David was an adulterer ... non-conformists.

[Baruch]

The spirit of creativity for the relevance of population control, certainly.

Populations must be controlled ... in number and behavior.  Human beings are weeds, but like dandelions, can be useful, if put to proper use.  You either self control, or society will do it for you.  But then as Marx would agree ... conformance and rebellion are a living dialectic.

[Baruch]

Oh but I do believe in god. I believe that man has created hundreds of thousands of gods. None of them real of course, because if ten thousand are made up....the idea that the 10,001st is real...is the stuff of mental gymnastics of which you seem to excel.

The only real human, would be one human.  Monotheism for atheists?  Since there are many humans, billions in fact ... that means that humanity is made up, it isn't real, rational or scientific.  Also a random cloud of atoms can't create anything ... yet we claim rationality?  Science is a tool for scientists and engineers ... not for regular folks.  Science isn't meant to answer most questions, let alone all questions.  Technology is for technologists ... a 12 year old with an iPhone isn't an engineer.  It is a child with delusions of grandeur.

[Baruch]

If you deny a singular causal force behind all existence then that is your business.  If you deny that the different names that refer to the same One Creator GOD then I would suggest you don't research yourself and display some intellectual honesty afterwards. But that to is your business.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Aitm clearly isn't into anthropomorphism (see avatar).  At times people here are anti-human (one temporary member left two years ago because of this).  Misanthropes usually are.  Some love of animals, is because we can't get any love from human beings or we are self hating, and get love by projection from other mammalian species.  I do that myself.  But as a humanist, even though humans are the most interesting and irritating species I know, I commit to humanity, such as it is, not as idealists imagine it to be.

[Baruch]

I didn't say all gods man has named are a reference to the same One Creator GOD. But it is apparent by comparing the core sacred texts of many religions, that they mostly do reference the same GOD.

I could post page upon page of evidence of this, but it most likely would do little good. One must find these things out for themselves in most cases in order to give it it's​ due credit in my opinion.

I used to lie to myself about many things. Things that nearly destroyed me and others. Once you break that barrier you generally are able to spot self deception very easily. Of course seeing or knowing a thing and changing from it are two different things.

I strive to be honest on all levels generally, and reflect on my own processes and motives almost continually. 

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

All humans are demigods.  All humans are poo throwing ape-ish megalomaniacs.  Which is exactly how I would describe Heracles cleaning out the stables of King Augeus.  There are as many gods as there are people at any given time (pagan gods not monotheism).  Polytheism is the default human position, not monotheism, not atheism ... both of which are Greek.  Monotheism comes from Platonic idealism, the Jews weren't monotheist before Plato ... before the Babylonian Exile even G-d had a spouse.  It was Plato who invented Greek pagan theology ... and this was eventually incorporated into Abrahamic religions.

So is there one ideal triangle of which each real triangle is a broken description?  Or are ideals and math ... bullshit.  For atheists, in the context of monotheism (but not polytheism) ... some ideals are bullshit ... there can't be a Logos that is an ideal Human ... which is the claim of the Gospel of John, though that prologue is actually borrowed from Greek Platonic theology.  Atheists do accept Euclidean geometry, even though that doesn't correspond to nature (which isn't flat).

[Baruch]

I didn't say all gods man has named are a reference to the same One Creator GOD. But it is apparent by comparing the core sacred texts of many religions, that they mostly do reference the same GOD.

I could post page upon page of evidence of this, but it most likely would do little good. One must find these things out for themselves in most cases in order to give it it's​ due credit in my opinion.

I used to lie to myself about many things. Things that nearly destroyed me and others. Once you break that barrier you generally are able to spot self deception very easily. Of course seeing or knowing a thing and changing from it are two different things.

I strive to be honest on all levels generally, and reflect on my own processes and motives almost continually. 

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Integrity is faith.  The unfaithful, both religious and non-religious, don't have faith (tautology).  Define X as shit, so that we can reject X.  Jesus is shit, so now we can reject Jesus ... etc.  In Buddhism the Buddha is compared to the stick you used to clean your ass of stubborn turds.  So many fallacies, so many posts.

[Baruch]

You seem to have the same definition of evidence as drew.

Yes ... psychology is shit?  No mental state is evidence ... of a mental state, because all mental states are false?  If I dream of having sex with a beautiful woman, that doesn't mean I had actual sex with that woman ... in a waking state of mind.  Her husband might object.  But it is a fact that I had that dream or that lust.  The waking state of mind, is only one of the mind's states.  Because you can't form a PhD committee too prove that I had that dream or lust, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Behaviorism was an attempt at psychology that denied that the mind even existed, because you can't see it, but external behavior you can.  Nobody believes that shit anymore ;-)  Skinner merely used it to justify the neurolinguistic programming of society.  Something the CIA, thru the MSM, does every day.

Non sequitur by all the posters, all the time, because honest conversation is bull shit here, by bullshitters.  Ad hominems on ever page.  In English, most words have more than one definition.  Claiming that only definition 3c is the right one ... is elitist monomania ... it is so Bright of y'all ... enlightening us Dims.

[Baruch]

There are divisions among all people. Hinduism indeed believes in one GOD ultimately. Some sects may refute this, most don't. Buddhist do indeed believes in a singular causal force though much of Buddhism seems bend on void as opposed to life.

You can pull up bs from anywhere on the internet. Use the respective core texts to show your claim to be true.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Buddha's view on gods is ... that they are irrelevant to personal salvation or harmful.  Not that they don't exist.  Buddha struggled with Maya, on the night of his own enlightenment.  Some Buddhists now claim to be non-theists ... not atheists.  This is because there was a branch of Hinduism that made the same claim, atheist Vedanta.  We had an atheist Vedantist visit us here.  Buddhists reacted to that (around the same time, mid-first-millenium CE).  Some physicists like to cling to Zen as atheism ... so that they seem to be spiritual.  Oppenheimer did this with the Gita (though that is theistic, not non-theistic or atheistic).

If the only thing that is true, is what every human agrees to be true ... then there is no truth.  If the only thing that is true, is what the tribe of atheists agree to be true ... then they are just as sectarian as Saudi Arabia.

[fencerider]

Ananta Shesha The God that Is, is objectively eternal. There is nothing objective about that statement. It is completely biased.

Ananta Shesha I call the beginning infinite formless unified state of matter, God for brevity sake. That is a major change to the common definition of the word "god".

Aitm I got a bumper sticker in a truck stop that says - The more I talk to people, the more I like my dog

[SGOS]

Rationalists need to stop using logical fallacies, that are simply more sophisticated (sophist) than the theists (casuist) are using.  Both you and Drew are using "cause to be discovered later" ... a bit like a D and an R arguing over who gets to start the nuclear war.

So if we can't substantiate an unknown, and since spacetime and mass-energy are unknowns (cause wise) as both Drew and you agree ... then they are illogical too.  Counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Put it in front of anyone, and demonstrate the creation of a universe (by any method) ... and I will believe either of you.  I can demonstrate putting cream cheese on my cracker ... I don't need GR or QM to do that.  I believe in cream cheeses and crackers.  GR and QM curve fitting of observational or experimental data is marginally useful, if I need to do that.  But both are much less important than my supper.

If the specifics you criticized actually occurred and relate to an actual fallacy, preferably one you didn't make up, I am not going to ask you for further clarification, as my past experience has shown that you will be compelled to double down on your enigmatic style and muddy the water (an actual fallacy) even further. 

I don't remember anywhere in this thread where Drew or myself actually concluded that the cause of the universe was determined, or that a cause for the universe even exists in the first place (not sure yet where Drew is on that concept).  And I don't remember any assumptions Drew and I agreed on concerning the qualities of space-time or mass-energy.