freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2020 23:48:33 GMT
And what about when religion expects belief in things that are scientifically impossible? Impossible? Or unpredictable? Oh, I can take this one.
Faith not only requires that you accept as true that which is not provable, it DEMANDS it. Put succinctly, it is a choice, pure and simple, with massive benefits.
Freon
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,958
|
Post by petep on Jul 7, 2020 1:28:46 GMT
Conscious humans in the universe is not equivalent to the universe itself being conscious. We ARE the universe. We ARE the very stars that you see at night, just permutated through nova to exist as we do today. To say we are IN the universe actually makes no sense. Can you go out of the universe?
With respect, your point of view, looking at Earth and humans as the end-all, be-all, is so incredibly minuscule compared to the incomprehensible vastness of infinity. Your religion likely claims you are part of something bigger, yet your belief is grounded on one little ball, in one little solar system, in one little galaxy among trillions of trillions. Whereas I am saying you are a conscious part of infinity itself. You are the universe trying to understand the universe. It is baffling that fictional stories are more impressive to you than this.
Freon
In my life, I've never met a "literalist" religious person...I know they exist....all I've evr met are contextualists... |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 7, 2020 1:55:53 GMT
We ARE the universe. We ARE the very stars that you see at night, just permutated through nova to exist as we do today. To say we are IN the universe actually makes no sense. Can you go out of the universe?
With respect, your point of view, looking at Earth and humans as the end-all, be-all, is so incredibly minuscule compared to the incomprehensible vastness of infinity. Your religion likely claims you are part of something bigger, yet your belief is grounded on one little ball, in one little solar system, in one little galaxy among trillions of trillions. Whereas I am saying you are a conscious part of infinity itself. You are the universe trying to understand the universe. It is baffling that fictional stories are more impressive to you than this.
Freon
In my life, I've never met a "literalist" religious person...I know they exist....all I've evr met are contextualists... I've never heard of either term. Care to elaborate?
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 7, 2020 8:22:16 GMT
And what about when religion expects belief in things that are scientifically impossible? Impossible? Or unpredictable? Flying on a donkey, and coming back from the dead, are impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 7, 2020 8:24:08 GMT
Conscious humans in the universe is not equivalent to the universe itself being conscious. We ARE the universe. We ARE the very stars that you see at night, just permutated through nova to exist as we do today. To say we are IN the universe actually makes no sense. Can you go out of the universe?
With respect, your point of view, looking at Earth and humans as the end-all, be-all, is so incredibly minuscule compared to the incomprehensible vastness of infinity. Your religion likely claims you are part of something bigger, yet your belief is grounded on one little ball, in one little solar system, in one little galaxy among trillions of trillions. Whereas I am saying you are a conscious part of infinity itself. You are the universe trying to understand the universe. It is baffling that fictional stories are more impressive to you than this.
Freon
You should have done sleeve notes for 70s prog-rock. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 18:13:38 GMT
Oh, I can take this one.
Faith not only requires that you accept as true that which is not provable, it DEMANDS it. Put succinctly, it is a choice, pure and simple, with massive benefits.
Freon
That may be the post-Enlightenment definition of "faith" that most people today accept (including Christians), but that is not the "faith" that is described in the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 18:15:01 GMT
Flying on a donkey, and coming back from the dead, are impossible. Are they? Or...have you simply not seen it before? More precisely, they are extremely highly improbable. Keep in mind that in the day of Jesus, everybody knew that "people don't come back from the dead." And yet they bet their lives on this highly improbable claim (even when there were more obvious and logical options). |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 18:15:38 GMT
We ARE the universe. We ARE the very stars that you see at night, just permutated through nova to exist as we do today. To say we are IN the universe actually makes no sense. Can you go out of the universe?
With respect, your point of view, looking at Earth and humans as the end-all, be-all, is so incredibly minuscule compared to the incomprehensible vastness of infinity. Your religion likely claims you are part of something bigger, yet your belief is grounded on one little ball, in one little solar system, in one little galaxy among trillions of trillions. Whereas I am saying you are a conscious part of infinity itself. You are the universe trying to understand the universe. It is baffling that fictional stories are more impressive to you than this.
Freon
There might be a false equivalency in there. For example, humans are atoms. But atoms aren't necessarily humans. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 7, 2020 18:45:41 GMT
We ARE the universe. We ARE the very stars that you see at night, just permutated through nova to exist as we do today. To say we are IN the universe actually makes no sense. Can you go out of the universe?
With respect, your point of view, looking at Earth and humans as the end-all, be-all, is so incredibly minuscule compared to the incomprehensible vastness of infinity. Your religion likely claims you are part of something bigger, yet your belief is grounded on one little ball, in one little solar system, in one little galaxy among trillions of trillions. Whereas I am saying you are a conscious part of infinity itself. You are the universe trying to understand the universe. It is baffling that fictional stories are more impressive to you than this.
Freon
There might be a false equivalency in there. For example, humans are atoms. But atoms aren't necessarily humans. Heh, you are arguing the trees, when the topic is the forest. Worse, the cardinal sin, the ONLY sin when talking Faith, is using science to prove or justify it.
It's like you are hiding in your turtle shell of dogma, so as not to face or discuss the issue. This suggests an incomplete sense of Faith, purpose and place.
I eagerly await for you to finish your journey discovering Faith, so we can discuss this as enlightened equals.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 19:19:27 GMT
Heh, you are arguing the trees, when the topic is the forest. Worse, the cardinal sin, the ONLY sin when talking Faith, is using science to prove or justify it.
It's like you are hiding in your turtle shell of dogma, so as not to face or discuss the issue. This suggests an incomplete sense of Faith, purpose and place.
I eagerly await for you to finish your journey discovering Faith, so we can discuss this as enlightened equals.
Freon
Frankly, I have no idea what relevance your response has to what I posted... |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 7, 2020 19:33:17 GMT
Heh, you are arguing the trees, when the topic is the forest. Worse, the cardinal sin, the ONLY sin when talking Faith, is using science to prove or justify it.
It's like you are hiding in your turtle shell of dogma, so as not to face or discuss the issue. This suggests an incomplete sense of Faith, purpose and place.
I eagerly await for you to finish your journey discovering Faith, so we can discuss this as enlightened equals.
Freon
Frankly, I have no idea what relevance your response has to what I posted... Nor yours, to mine.
Touche
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 20:07:42 GMT
Nor yours, to mine.
Touche
Freon
Ah, okay. Point taken. So you say that we are the universe. Okay, but that is not equivalent to the universe is us. I think I understand you seeing humanity as a "self-aware" part of the universe--not just "aware of ourselves," but "the universe aware of itself." Would that be correct? If so, that's what I'm saying may be a false equivalence. That "we are the universe" is not the same as "the universe is us." There's a grammatical name that refers to this that I forget. To press further, would you say that we are the result of some kind of conscious attempt of the universe to "understand itself"? |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 7, 2020 20:26:25 GMT
Flying on a donkey, and coming back from the dead, are impossible. Are they? Or...have you simply not seen it before? More precisely, they are extremely highly improbable. Keep in mind that in the day of Jesus, everybody knew that "people don't come back from the dead." And yet they bet their lives on this highly improbable claim (even when there were more obvious and logical options). You're clutching at straws or your tongue is in your cheek. Dead people don't get up and walk around. Donkeys don't fly to Jerusalem. Neither are improbable. They're impossible. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 7, 2020 20:40:30 GMT
Ah, okay. Point taken. So you say that we are the universe. Okay, but that is not equivalent to the universe is us. I think I understand you seeing humanity as a "self-aware" part of the universe--not just "aware of ourselves," but "the universe aware of itself." Would that be correct? If so, that's what I'm saying may be a false equivalence. That "we are the universe" is not the same as "the universe is us." There's a grammatical name that refers to this that I forget. To press further, would you say that we are the result of some kind of conscious attempt of the universe to "understand itself"? That is precisely correct. If you see a false equivalence, is that because you do not see yourself as natural, but instead a product of conscious design? I'm betting the answer is yes, and that is another area where our opinions diverge. I see humanity as being a total natural occurrence, and not just because I have a strong science background that supports the perspective. If you are right, and I am wrong, then that means that of the trillions and trillions of galaxies, we are alone. THAT is truly depressing, and so incredibly improbable, that were it to be true, it would be evidence of your version of G-d. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 21:45:00 GMT
You're clutching at straws or your tongue is in your cheek. Dead people don't get up and walk around. Donkeys don't fly to Jerusalem. Neither are improbable. They're impossible. Is crossing the Red Sea impossible? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 21:46:20 GMT
That is precisely correct. If you see a false equivalence, is that because you do not see yourself as natural, but instead a product of conscious design? I'm betting the answer is yes, and that is another area where our opinions diverge. I see humanity as being a total natural occurrence, and not just because I have a strong science background that supports the perspective. If you are right, and I am wrong, then that means that of the trillions and trillions of galaxies, we are alone. THAT is truly depressing, and so incredibly improbable, that were it to be true, it would be evidence of your version of G-d. Freon It's probably a false dilemma to suggest that I must choose between "natural" and "a product of conscious design." Further, you have suggested that we are a manifestation of the universe striving to understand itself. Am I correct? If so, doesn't "striving" imply conscious intent? It does not follow that "if I am right, we are alone." Further, if God exists, then we are most certainly "not alone." |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 7, 2020 22:46:33 GMT
That is precisely correct. If you see a false equivalence, is that because you do not see yourself as natural, but instead a product of conscious design? I'm betting the answer is yes, and that is another area where our opinions diverge. I see humanity as being a total natural occurrence, and not just because I have a strong science background that supports the perspective. If you are right, and I am wrong, then that means that of the trillions and trillions of galaxies, we are alone. THAT is truly depressing, and so incredibly improbable, that were it to be true, it would be evidence of your version of G-d. Freon It's probably a false dilemma to suggest that I must choose between "natural" and "a product of conscious design." Further, you have suggested that we are a manifestation of the universe striving to understand itself. Am I correct? If so, doesn't "striving" imply conscious intent? It does not follow that "if I am right, we are alone." Further, if God exists, then we are most certainly "not alone." I think you are playing with me. I think you understand my meanings and are choosing to act as if you don't.
Interesting discourse, you've taught me a lot about you. I look forward to discussions related to politics.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 8, 2020 0:19:27 GMT
You're clutching at straws or your tongue is in your cheek. Dead people don't get up and walk around. Donkeys don't fly to Jerusalem. Neither are improbable. They're impossible. Is crossing the Red Sea impossible? By boat? No. On foot? Yes, unless there's some kind of tectonic/volcanic event. Of course, the location is in some doubt. Maybe it was a trickly little tributary during the dry season? Who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 8, 2020 0:20:56 GMT
MFA, was it you who had that picture of a guy not taking part in Nazi salutes? If so, can you give me a link to the image/story?
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 8, 2020 0:22:01 GMT
That is precisely correct. If you see a false equivalence, is that because you do not see yourself as natural, but instead a product of conscious design? I'm betting the answer is yes, and that is another area where our opinions diverge. I see humanity as being a total natural occurrence, and not just because I have a strong science background that supports the perspective. If you are right, and I am wrong, then that means that of the trillions and trillions of galaxies, we are alone. THAT is truly depressing, and so incredibly improbable, that were it to be true, it would be evidence of your version of G-d. Freon It's probably a false dilemma to suggest that I must choose between "natural" and "a product of conscious design." Further, you have suggested that we are a manifestation of the universe striving to understand itself. Am I correct? If so, doesn't "striving" imply conscious intent? It does not follow that "if I am right, we are alone." Further, if God exists, then we are most certainly "not alone." We're not alone. We have each other. |
|
