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!
Yes this is what I call the Source, the mind body isn't who we truly are, the ego doesn't exists, its nothing more than an illusion, so in truth that which Is, isn't the ego, the ego is nothing more than a shadow of what IS. The Source is not temporary, its always there, what is temporary is the mind body organism, its there and gone, just like a wave on the ocean.
Its what it is, and nothing else.
Tautologies are rarely informative, seldom helpful, and in this case pointless. A=A doesn't do help us understand A or anything else. You could have, for example, commented on the relationship to posts in this thread and logical positivism, rather than offering a tautology as a response.
Just because you don't have any understand of what is been said here, doesn't mean anything to anyone, if you don't have anything that is worth while then why the hell are you here, what have you to offer that has already been shared here, come on give it to me.
Well, it certainly doesn't mean a lot to me.
Boredom, usually.
In a thread about what the sciences can say, I have the advantage of being a scientist.
Well Ernestine, this is also a religious topic, not just science, so don't be so greedy.
I don't have anything to offer as a religious individual, because I'm not one. However, it hardly seems logical or practical to inquire what the sciences have to offer and require that only non-scientists speak to this (or that only religious scientists do). Also, as the OP asks about God (not religion or even religions which have gods, but "G"od), it isn't really a religious topic. It concerns what the sciences have to say about one aspect of a tiny, tiny minority of religions so different from religions in general that they didn't exist until a fairly recently in human history.
There you are, you had your say, let other also have theirs, this world is more than just science, in case you didn't know.
You've had 25 posts in this thread, I've had 5 (including this one).
Who's counting ?.
Apparently you.
If I've had my say, you've had many more times that. If you are going to accuse me of not letting others have their say, you may wish to
Don't twist this all around, others can speak whenever they want, they don't need you as their saviour.
I'm all for the use of formal systems (even semi-formal or pseudo-formal systems) in argumentation/debate/discussion. But I have no idea what on earth this could mean other than that either A=A or A/ =A
I didn't claim to be anybody's savoir. I am just one of those "others" who (according to you) "can speak whenever they want", but apparently (according to you) shouldn't speak when you don't want me to.
Don't play the old victim game with me, you do whatever you want to do, and let others do what they want.......simple.
Given the proposition P which asserts "science can say something about the existence of [a] deity", then according to the above science can say something about the existence of [a] deity.
Science can't do what the former claim asserted it can. What is the relation between the claims? Or, put differently, what is the point of the post?
I'm not. It's called logic. You asked me to let others speak after having said more than I whilst offering no basis for saying I haven't let others speak (particularly in light of the fact that you have limited this thread far more than I have given that you have made far more posts which have determined its direction). I objected to having done so, given what you've posted here and have continued to post.
Unlike you, I haven't even suggested they do otherwise.
