Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[gnostic]

Being aware of different 'tree' models is not model hopping, all models have some truth in them, some more than others, but no single model has all the truth. Reality is always on the other side of the conceptualization of it, remember that, so all models have their limits.

I have no idea what you mean wrt "seeds from space" that I brought up. can you explain?

Wrt mixing religion and theoretical cosmologies, that is the forest and tree analogy. The student of the forest is naturally interested in the trees that constitutes it, but the student of the tree excludes the forest, hence the saying, gnostic can't see the forest for the trees.

I really don't care about the metaphor.

You have a religion, and you should be satisfied what you believe in. But you are not satisfied, because you are trying to mix your religion up with science (eg Big Bang vs (debunked) Steady-State) or "science-like" concepts (eg theoretical model like Multiverse; Multiverse isn't science, it is a proposed concept).

That posed no problem to me on a personal level, but it does make you seemingly desperate to validate your belief with science, something that other Christian creationists have been doing for decades.

When I mentioned model-hopping, I meant earlier on in the thread, you tried to advocate for Multiverse, but more recently you seemed to have abandoned Multiverse for Steady-State, for whatever reason. Hence one of my question, is to ask why the "switch"?

What is your reasoning for ditching Multiverse for one that have already been debunked twice and the 3rd one seemingly dead?

As to the seeds from space. I am sorry. It wasn't you, but someone else who wrote this at Darwin's Illusion thread. Between focusing on Darwin's Illusion and Let's not talk about the Big Bang...I forgot where I was, when I wrote my post, and who wrote what. Again, I apologise for confusing the other guy's post with yours. That was my mix up.

 

[Polymath257]

Let me rephrase. In order for something to be a fact, would you say that 'fact' would have to be true?
A poster said, "But they cannot ask others to accept them as fact." So the question is, if something is called a 'fact,' does that mean it's true? Or does it mean that if something is true, it might not be called a fact?

Being accepted as a fact is different than being a fact.

 

[Polymath257]

Your atheist beliefs are limited, that's all, reality is on the other side of belief.

Certainly. I try to limit my beliefs to those that are likely to be true.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I really don't care about the metaphor.

You have a religion, and you should be satisfied what you believe in. But you are not satisfied, because you are trying to mix your religion up with science (eg Big Bang vs (debunked) Steady-State) or "science-like" concepts (eg theoretical model like Multiverse; Multiverse isn't science, it is a proposed concept).

That posed no problem to me on a personal level, but it does make you seemingly desperate to validate your belief with science, something that other Christian creationists have been doing for decades.

When I mentioned model-hopping, I meant earlier on in the thread, you tried to advocate for Multiverse, but more recently you seemed to have abandoned Multiverse for Steady-State, for whatever reason. Hence one of my question, is to ask why the "switch"?

What is your reasoning for ditching Multiverse for one that have already been debunked twice and the 3rd one seemingly dead?

As to the seeds from space. I am sorry. It wasn't you, but someone else who wrote this at Darwin's Illusion thread. Between focusing on Darwin's Illusion and Let's not talk about the Big Bang...I forgot where I was, when I wrote my post, and who wrote what. Again, I apologise for confusing the other guy's post with yours. That was my mix up.

Ok, so if you don't care that your understanding is limited, keep on the path you are on.

Everything is real as it happens, being in the here and now is being one with the forest and allows one to observe the 'trees' in time, but all the 'trees' exist simultaneously as integral parts of the 'forest', ie., BBT, the MultiverseT, the SSUT. etc..

Not a worry gnostic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Certainly. I try to limit my beliefs to those that are likely to be true.

Just be aware, keep an open mind, if you believe in one concept or another too soon, you may dismiss a new one the emerges later that is more instructive than the others. The most important thing to understand is that conceptualizations can only ever represent a reality, they are not the reality they represent, that way your mind is 'seeing' from the perspective of the forest, and manifesting some of the inner discernment potential that is always present.

 

[exchemist]

There was no '?', it was a statement.

Whut?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Whut?

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

There is a vast gap between understanding an idea and believing that idea. I *understand* the TLT and SSU. I find that they have been contradicted by the evidence. I *understand* about the concepts of universal self and how we are all part of a greater consciousness. I just find those ideas to...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, of course. Science is limited to those things that can be tested and verified. It cannot deal with goals, or morality. It cannot determine aesthetics, or legality. It cannot determine what we *should* do.

What it *can* do is inform us of *some* of the consequences of our actions. But it cannot determine whether those consequences are desirable or undesirable.

In essence, science can determine truth, but it cannot determine opinion.

Well, yes.
But for certain limited cases of truth, you hit limited cognitive relativism and leave the realm of truth and reenter opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By realization, which is a subjective process so there is no 'verifiable evidence'.

So it's just opinion with no underlying verifiable truth.
So just as I said: indistinguishable from sheer fantasy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My goodness, he's really triggered, try some yoga, or still mind mediation is even better, it will put you in touch with the forest.

You consider that "triggered"?

 

[exchemist]

You consider that "triggered"?

Yes, from the nature of his responses it is fairly clear who is "triggered"....

 

[ratiocinator]

You are endlessly doing that.

And another false claim. I, and several others, have explained exactly why your 'realisation' is nothing more than an unsupported belief unless you can provide evidence. I have also explained (and you've studiously ignored) the simple practical problem of accepting such unsupported assertions without evidence, in that we'd have to give them equal weight, so we'd end up with multiple, mutually contradictory beliefs. The world is full of people who claim 'revelation' or 'spiritual realisation', the problem is that they don't agree with each other.

 

[PureX]

It is best to say 'claims of truth are contradictory. Human knowledge does not met the criteria of what would called 'Truth' in any absolute sense.

Good point. Yes, the contradiction is occurring in our brains because of the way our brains cognate information, and because we inhabit a singular point of experience. While the truth is a unified and holistic event.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So it's just opinion with no underlying verifiable truth.
So just as I said: indistinguishable from sheer fantasy.

So I take that as evidence that you've never had a spiritual experience, sad.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You consider that "triggered"?

Yes!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The observation that atheist beliefs are limited is elementary dear Watson Polymath.

Well, all beliefs are limited. That is not unique to atheists. That is a consequence of cognitive relativism and that applies to us all, unless you are actually God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And another false claim. I, and several others, have explained exactly why your 'realisation' is nothing more than an unsupported belief unless you can provide evidence. I have also explained (and you've studiously ignored) the simple practical problem of accepting such unsupported assertions without evidence, in that we'd have to give them equal weight, so we'd end up with multiple, mutually contradictory beliefs. The world is full of people who claim 'revelation' or 'spiritual realisation', the problem is that they don't agree with each other.

Haha, if I do not provide evidence that I exist, how do you know that my claim to exist is just an unsupported belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Haha, if I do not provide evidence that I exist, how do you know that my claim to exist is just an unsupported belief.

Well, that you exist is in effect a tautology or X is X. But that is at its core solipsism, so you still have to explain how you know that I exist as different from you.

 

[ratiocinator]

Haha, if I do not provide evidence that I exist, how do you know that my claim to exist is just an unsupported belief.

Running from all the points I made (again). What on earth are you gibbering on about now? Somebody is posting your messages (unless your a bot - which is possible, they don't seem to involve much thought).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Running from all the points I made (again). What on earth are you gibbering on about now? Somebody is posting your messages (unless your a bot - which is possible, they don't seem to involve much thought).

That happens in all debates, when they reach a certain point.
It becomes 2 persons debating what is the correct way to think about the world and in most cases, they both claim that their individual way of thinking is true and the other false in effect.
The problem is that they are both in the everyday world apparently, so it is case of that they both take their own cognition for granted as in effect objective and only treat the other as subjective.
We are in effect playing limited cognitive relativism for most debates of what the world really is.