Well, if scientists want to think they already know the answer to the question "Is there at least one god or not?"...who am I to argue?
I would hope, though, that more scientists acknowledge they do not know than who pretend that they do.
And if the question is still open...I would be asking, "Why are you not trying to find the answer?"
0 Replies
thack45
1
Sat 13 Jun, 2015 09:03 am
I will not respect science until the possibility of the existence–somewhere in the universe–of purple 8-legged unicorns, are seriously weighed by the entire community. Actually, once that request is granted, I'll think up another beast and demand science consider it as well. This is gonna take a while..
I will not respect science until the possibility of the existence–somewhere in the universe–of purple 8-legged unicorns, are seriously weighed by the entire community. Actually, once that request is granted, I'll think up another beast and demand science consider it as well. This is gonna take a while..
Sure,
You can say that because you are hiding all the purple 8-legged unicorns in your back yard so 'science' can never find them. But, hey, anything to discredit 'science', right?
I will not respect science until the possibility of the existence–somewhere in the universe–of purple 8-legged unicorns, are seriously weighed by the entire community. Actually, once that request is granted, I'll think up another beast and demand science consider it as well. This is gonna take a while..
You'd do better to respect logic, Thack...and maybe to respect yourself enough to acknowledge that my original comment makes sense...and is logical.
This inflated nonsense about what I have said with regard to science is just deflection...mostly by Farmerman right now...so that he does not have to acknowledge I am correct.
Hey...atheists have been getting away with the nonsense that science, logic and reason show that either "there are no gods or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one"...for way too long.
It is about time they got challenged on that.
Kinda funny the way they are handling it...dodging and weaving...rather than doing the stand-up thing of acknowledging that I have a point here.
Oh well...belief systems have that effect on people.
0 Replies
thack45
1
Sat 13 Jun, 2015 10:06 am
@neologist,
Negative. I am merely obstinate in my belief that if I can imagine something, that thing should be relegated–post haste–to the field of possible existence, and should likewise be taken most seriously
Negative. I am merely obstinate in my belief that if I can imagine something, that thing should be relegated–post haste–to the field of possible existence, and should likewise be taken most seriously
Of course!
Imagine a few extra bucks in the bank; see if they take it seriously.
0 Replies
Frank Apisa
-1
Sat 13 Jun, 2015 10:25 am
@neologist,
People like Thack think that if they come up with imaginary items that cannot be shown to exist or not...
...they cast doubt on the comment, "I do not know if gods exist in the REALITY of existence." Atheists have been doing that stuff when debating agnostics for a very long time.
If they want to do the "purple teapot circling Neptune", "fling spaghetti monster", "CPA working on Ceres" nonsense...fine with me.
Bottom line though, is that it is little more than a diversion. The fact is that I do not know if gods exist in the REALITY of existence...and it is possible at least one god does exist.
If Thack had the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that he doesn't either...he would have more ethical wherewithal than he currently possesses.
Consciousness is the fact that all other so called facts exist inside of. Physics is fictisiouness inside factual consciousness. Consciousness is the God of physics that adam and eve fell from. Love the creator is consciousness.
0 Replies
FBM
1
Sun 14 Jun, 2015 07:35 pm
@hingehead,
Yep. That's the way it works.
0 Replies
martinies
-1
Sun 14 Jun, 2015 10:25 pm
@hingehead,
Thought experiment. Say that in amongst the junk of facts on the table of the first cartoon picture the was a photograph. The photo would then exist as a physical fact . But the photographer (observer) who took the photo in the past also then must have existed as a fact and still exists as a fact with any observation of the photo. Because a photo represents observation as a fact. So observation all though invisable is a fact.
You made some sense of it then new there was something in it. Ha
0 Replies
martinies
-1
Wed 17 Jun, 2015 03:20 am
@parados,
Ok parados have rediscovered my train of thought regards creation and consciousness. If we take the design of a motor car for example it has to be the product of the awareness of an observer or observers and when we as an observer our selves look at the car our awareneess will either appreciate the design of the car or not. Consciousness has both then hosted the creation of the car and the appreciated the cars design. The car exists as a fact designed by consciouness as a fact and is appreciated by consciouness as a fact. The piont here is consciousness can be seen to be creating and appreciating the creation that has taken place with in it.
You have basically restated what is known as the 'design argument', briefly:
'Complexity of the things observed proves existence of designer.'
Works for me. But I'm not everybody.
Many consider it a non sequitur.
0 Replies
ehBeth
1
Wed 17 Jun, 2015 09:30 am
I recently lost a few FB ''friends'' when ... in response to this
I'll ask my patients, "Do you want to see your own brain?" and some of them say, "Yes," and some say, "No."
If they say "Yes," I'll say, "Well, now you're going to be one of the few members of the human race who has ever actually seen their own brain."
It's a strange, strange thing to experience. I've actually had an operation on the visual areas of the brain, with the patient awake, at the back of the brain.
I've had some of my patients — the visual cortex looking at itself on a television screen — and you feel there should be a philosophical equivalent of acoustic feedback.