Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you're basically admitting that you are basing your view on blind faith, not what you see.
It's very interesting that you add this to your posts. Who are you trying to convince? Do you really imagine that one person on some message forum seeing things in one way is going to convince anybody else?
"Real Truth", capitalized and everything.
For me it was studying epistemology. Realizing that the reasons I had for my belief in god were not sound or valid. We don't decide what we believe, we are either convinced or not based on the how we evaluate the evidence. I became unconvinced based on my new and better understanding of how to evaluate evidence.
You just don't get it, do you? I am not religion. I will not nurture Beliefs. I have copied God in that I have placed knowledge in the world. It waits for those who seek that knowledge. Do you seek? What do you seek?
It is not I who is using Blind Faith!!
Did I say do not use Accumulated Knowledge?? On the other hand, one acquires more knowledge figuring out just how it works. Further, what do you Discover for yourself? You are dependent on others. You want to deal in Beliefs. You accept or reject what you hear. That is Limiting!!!!You make no sense.
In fact, the opposite is true....
"limiting" would be to NOT use and learn the accumulated knowledge of humanity.
How is it "not limiting" not to and instead try and learn and discover everything yourself?
Again, you make no sense.
Did you build your own internet device? Did you make all the parts yourself? Did the coding? Did all the research necessary to come up with all the physics etc involved in computer building?
Off course you did not. Instead, you just went to the store and bought one. A machine that is literally the result of the accumulated knowledge and discoveries past on to us by literally millions of individuals who all had their own contribution to the collective knowledge we have in science.
How is it "limiting" to take advantage of that accumulated knowledge????
It seems to me that "limiting" would be the exact opposite of that.....................................
It's about evidence.
"Real Truth", capitalized and everything.
Those capital letters are the first hint that makes my BS alarm go off.
People who feel a need to do that are trying to be impressive for no other reason then not having any evidence to support their case. So they try emotional reasoning instead like trying to inspire "awe" with their "ULTRA REAL TRUTH"
You basically said that you did. You said: "I must question. You seem to think you know so much about the sun being a terrible design but what do you really know? You lack the ability to even make one. Perhaps your view will change after a few more Discoveries."
Why do you think it bothers me? More blind faith?
Hardly, your posts are more amusing than anything else. You don't seem to understand what an objective search for truth would even look like.
" step on toes"You basically said that you did. You said: "I must question. You seem to think you know so much about the sun being a terrible design but what do you really know? You lack the ability to even make one. Perhaps your view will change after a few more Discoveries."
So, instead of looking at what is there and asking relevant question about if its purpose is such and such, you assume its purpose and then dismiss any obvious objections based on more assumption.
Difficult to think of a clearer case of blind faith.
Why do you think it bothers me? More blind faith?
It's just a bizarre thing to add. It serves no obvious purpose. If something is clear to me, I try to explain it, I don't go around telling people how clear it is to me as if that was going to convince anybody....
Hardly, your posts are more amusing than anything else. You don't seem to understand what an objective search for truth would even look like.
Ok, explain why the sun is a bad design. Now, in order to determine the sun is a bad design, you must know the sun's total purpose. What is the total purpose of the sun? Now, if you say the sun has no purpose, then it would be a bad design because it is doing so much. Clearly, it's designed to do more than nothing.You basically said that you did. You said: "I must question. You seem to think you know so much about the sun being a terrible design but what do you really know? You lack the ability to even make one. Perhaps your view will change after a few more Discoveries."
So, instead of looking at what is there and asking relevant question about if its purpose is such and such, you assume its purpose and then dismiss any obvious objections based on more assumption.
Difficult to think of a clearer case of blind faith.
Why do you think it bothers me? More blind faith?
It's just a bizarre thing to add. It serves no obvious purpose. If something is clear to me, I try to explain it, I don't go around telling people how clear it is to me as if that was going to convince anybody....
Hardly, your posts are more amusing than anything else. You don't seem to understand what an objective search for truth would even look like.
How is something that does so much with no purpose necessarily a bad design? Couldn't it be something with no purpose and no design?
They made the comment that the sun was a bad design. I disagree. As far as no purpose and no design, then it could be removed. What happens if the sun were removed? It's purpose would become very clear. As for design, it works so well and for so very long. Random chance never is that smooth. Further, how many random chance events does it take for complex designs to exist? Just look at the light company's power generation. It could never exist randomly.
That is flawed self-cented thinking. You are appealing to consequences unwanted by us as evidence that there was a intent to the sun being there. If the sun were to disappear in a poof of physics, then we would freeze to death. We would hate it, but our feels are not evidence that someone elses feels were responsible for the sun being there in the first place.
It functions adequately to your goal of being being alive. Again. Your feels are not evidence. Function is neither design, nor purpose.
None. And I am amused that you are calling the Sun, "complex".
The sun is hydrogen, heat and gravity. It's about the most unsophisticated thing you could have chosen,Voyager's Golden Records
Sorry, but it was you that said the purpose of the sun was to provide energy for life on Earth. Are you pulling away from that claim?
Only if you can demonstrate that it was designed at all. Otherwise, it is simply doing as it does.
And what is the *objective* evidence for a purpose to the sun?
Well, the easiest person to fool is yourself. It might behoove you to ask if you have really discovered anything as opposed to convincing your self of something. There is a HUGE difference.
I didn’t call you a religion, so you misinterpreted something I said.
I seek truth. And there are no gods to be found. Sorry. Whatever you think you found is not via fact and sound thinking. Most likely you adopted religious behavior from those around you.
You haven’t posted anything that suggests you have discovered some profound truth. I’d say what you write is quite superficial and pointless.
Because you clearly have no sound advice and I’m not broken. You assume I am broken because I don’t agree with your religious beliefs. You seem to suffer from excessive ego and judgment of others. You are similar to a number of other theists on this board.
No gods are known to exist and you offer no evidence or explanation that any do. You make you many fatal assumptions. So your statements and questions are irrelevant.
You started out saying the sun was to provide energy for the earth/life. It's already been pointed out why it's a bad design for that because most of its energy output doesn't go towards fulfilling its purpose. Now you're switched to some vague idea of "total purpose".
It's not clearly designed at all. We understand the natural processes that formed it and we know that it's a pretty common type of star. You have provided no evidence or reasoning at all to even suggest that it might have been designed.
I see no evidence that you are discovering anything (or 'Discovering', for that matter).
Yet it looks for all the world like you're just blindly accepting the conclusions handed to you by others.
I don't.
Unrelated aside. I like the symbology of your barefoot in grass avatar.