Theory....again

[Thief]

I think I've said so....repeatedly.....
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

The beginning.....won't fit in the petri dish.

You just have to think about it.

Science will take you TO the singularity.
YOU have to make up your mind what CAUSED it.

Cause and effect cannot be separated.
Science means nothing if you do so.

Something caused the event.

Spirit First.

 

[McBell]

I think I've said so....repeatedly.....
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

The beginning.....won't fit in the petri dish.

You just have to think about it.

Science will take you TO the singularity.
YOU have to make up your mind what CAUSED it.

Cause and effect cannot be separated.
Science means nothing if you do so.

Something caused the event.

Spirit First.

Yes, you are broken record of faith who cannot accept the fact that no one is interested in buying your snake oil.


I have been telling you for the last year or so you need to get a new song and dance.....

 

[McBell]

Cause and effect cannot be separated.
Something caused the event.

Spirit First.

What caused the spirit?

What is comical is that you declare cause and effect for your reason for god, but then toss your cause and effect rule out the window for god.

Once you start making exceptions, you cannot simply pick and choose what is and is not an exception without under minding your whole argument.

But Seeing as I have explained this numerous times over the last five years, I am pretty sure you will merely ignore it once again.

 

[gnostic]

I think I've said so....repeatedly.....
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

The beginning.....won't fit in the petri dish.

You just have to think about it.

Science will take you TO the singularity.
YOU have to make up your mind what CAUSED it.

Cause and effect cannot be separated.
Science means nothing if you do so.

Something caused the event.

Spirit First.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I thought this thread of yours would be to determine the meaning of THEORY in relation to science, but this topic is just a farce so that you can preach the nonsensical "spirit first" or "spirit before substance".

I was hoping to getaway from these baseless and useless mottos of yours, but you have to bring bl@@dy up, again, in this new topic.

Next time, you start a new topic, put a warning sign that you are going to preach "spirit first", so that we can avoid your threads.

 

[LuisDantas]

I must agree. For a while at least, Thief, your posts keep being little more than the vaguest of appeals to the need to believe that:

1. "Cause and effect" are somehow a supreme reality, which sustains science and oh so much more.

2. Therefore, God exists.

3. We somehow should believe in an afterlife and fear it.

This is not only unconvincing and arbitrary; it also lacks coherency and, in the case of the first item, is outright inaccurate.

 

[Thief]

I must agree. For a while at least, Thief, your posts keep being little more than the vaguest of appeals to the need to believe that:

1. "Cause and effect" are somehow a supreme reality, which sustains science and oh so much more.

2. Therefore, God exists.

3. We somehow should believe in an afterlife and fear it.

This is not only unconvincing and arbitrary; it also lacks coherency and, in the case of the first item, is outright inaccurate.

That you don't understand ...dosn't mean I'm wrong.
Try harder.

 

[Thief]

Garbage in, garbage out.

I thought this thread of yours would be to determine the meaning of THEORY in relation to science, but this topic is just a farce so that you can preach the nonsensical "spirit first" or "spirit before substance".

I was hoping to getaway from these baseless and useless mottos of yours, but you have to bring bl@@dy up, again, in this new topic.

Next time, you start a new topic, put a warning sign that you are going to preach "spirit first", so that we can avoid your threads.

So you got off on the wrong foot....

Someone had to be First.
Something caused the universe.

 

[LuisDantas]

That you don't understand ...dosn't mean I'm wrong.
Try harder.

I would need a reason to.

And some kind of hint of how to "try", too.

 

[Thief]

I would need a reason to.

And some kind of hint of how to "try", too.

Start at the beginning...and decide.....
WHAT came first?

And you need a reason to try?
THAT brings the question...WHAT are you trying to do here at a religious forum?

Hoping no one can have a reason to believe?
You've already confessed you hold belief as dangerous.....

 

[LuisDantas]

Start at the beginning...and decide.....
WHAT came first?

I don't know even whether that question makes sense. Nor do I find it particularly important.

For all I know, existence simply "is" and there is no meaningful answer to "where it came from".

And you need a reason to try?

I certainly don't have one right now. Then again, it is hardly a problem that I do not.

THAT brings the question...WHAT are you trying to do here at a religious forum?

Discuss religious matters. In my view that hardly connects with "what came first".

Hoping no one can have a reason to believe?

Believe in what? God? A First Cause of some kind?

I happen to find those concepts counterproductive from a religious perspective, sure, if that is what you are asking.

They end up being distractions from the core matters of ethical, social and ecological responsibility.

You are free to disagree, of course. But you can hardly simply expect others to share your perspective. It is not a matter of just insisting that we must.

You've already confessed you hold belief as dangerous.....

Belief in God, sure. It is way too easy to abuse, often unintentionally and even without conscious malice.

 

[Thief]

I don't know even whether that question makes sense. Nor do I find it particularly important.

For all I know, existence simply "is" and there is no meaningful answer to "where it came from".




I certainly don't have one right now. Then again, it is hardly a problem that I do not.




Discuss religious matters. In my view that hardly connects with "what came first".




Believe in what? God? A First Cause of some kind?

I happen to find those concepts counterproductive from a religious perspective, sure, if that is what you are asking.

They end up being distractions from the core matters of ethical, social and ecological responsibility.

You are free to disagree, of course. But you can hardly simply expect others to share your perspective. It is not a matter of just insisting that we must.




Belief in God, sure. It is way too easy to abuse, often unintentionally and even without conscious malice.

I shall disagree.
And as you have taken a stance less that interested.......
And declared belief to be dangerous.....
And seem at odds with anything of religion....

I don't see that you can form an important view.
Yet you claim to discuss religion?

 

[Thief]

Theory.....

an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but not known or proven to be true

the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject.



And I still believe in God because of science.

Can't prove it.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, no experiment.

You just have to think about it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I shall disagree.

So it seems.

And as you have taken a stance less that interested.......
And declared belief to be dangerous.....

Belief centered on the concepts of god and afterlife often is.

Then again, it is also of dubious religious value. Many people have an afinity with one, the other or both and use it wisely. Many more fail to.

"God", specifically, is a very troublesome concept which IMO should be deemphasized even in strictly theistic religious teachings. It lacks a clear meaning, yet is often mistaken for a clear and definite concept. It usually leads to misunderstand and confusion as people impose themselves a hard time before even finding out whether they have similar or compatible beliefs just because they happen to both have some conception of God. It is time and effort ill spent, which has little chance of convincing anyone and could be better put to use in actual religious matters.

In any case, I do not think either belief in God nor in afterlife should be pursued. Respected when they arise, sure. But not pursued. There are safer, more advisable and even less speculative ways of expressing religious content.

And seem at odds with anything of religion....

For those who define religion as deriving from beliefs in god and in afterlives, I suppose it does seem that way.

I don't see that you can form an important view.

Just because I reject such unimportant concepts as First Cause, God, and Afterlife?

Really?

If you say so.

Yet you claim to discuss religion?

Yes, I do. I often try to explain why it is not a contradiction.

I wonder how often it helps. Not always, certainly.

 

[Thief]

So it seems.




Belief centered on the concepts of god and afterlife often is.

Then again, it is also of dubious religious value. Many people have an afinity with one, the other or both and use it wisely. Many more fail to.

In any case, I do not think either should be pursued. Respected when they arise, sure. But not pursued. There are safer, more advisable ways of expressing religious content.




For those who define religion as deriving from beliefs in god and in afterlives, I suppose it does seem that way.




Just because I reject such unimportant concepts as First Cause, God, and Afterlife?

Really?

If you say so.




Yes, I do. I often try to explain why it is not a contradiction.

I wonder how often it helps. Not always, certainly.

Not buying one word of your post.
It would be obvious why not.

Contrary?.....yeah I would say so.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not buying one word of your post.

In the sense of doubting my sincerity, or simply of disagreeing?

If the second, then it is fine. It would not be reasonable to expect many people to agree on these matters.

It would be obvious why not.

It actually isn't. I know that you are very much a theist and thinks of that as an important element of religious belief, which means that we will always be at odds on those matters. But what do you mean by "buying" my posts?

I really do not know. I am not so much trying to convince you as telling you why you have no chance of convincing me, in case that is not clear yet.

Contrary?.....yeah I would say so.

Pardon me? What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Thief]

In the sense of doubting my sincerity, or simply of disagreeing?

If the second, then it is fine. It would not be reasonable to expect many people to agree on these matters.




It actually isn't. I know that you are very much a theist and thinks of that as an important element of religious belief, which means that we will always be at odds on those matters. But what do you mean by "buying" my posts?

I really do not know. I am not so much trying to convince you as telling you why you have no chance of convincing me, in case that is not clear yet.



Pardon me? What is that supposed to mean?

Let's see....
You have discounted God.....
any need to consider the afterlife......
and the First Cause means nothing to you....

yet you claim to have some stance about religion.....as dangerous....

Contrary?.....yeah.....I think so

 

[Thief]

I hope back to topic.....

Theory.....

an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but not known or proven to be true

the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject.



And I still believe in God because of science.

Can't prove it.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, no experiment.

You just have to think about it.

 

[gnostic]

I think I've said so....repeatedly.....
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

The beginning.....won't fit in the petri dish.

You just have to think about it.

Science will take you TO the singularity.
YOU have to make up your mind what CAUSED it.

Cause and effect cannot be separated.
Science means nothing if you do so.

Something caused the event.

Spirit First.

You CAUSE-AND-EFFECT has nothing to do with science. Your "spirit before substance" or "spirit first" is not science.

There is far more to CAUSE-AND-EFFECT than what you are claiming.

In science, you will have to show evidences to the CAUSE, as much as providing evidences for the EFFECT. And then you have to provide that link the between the CAUSE and the EFFECT.

Like you said you can't put the "beginning", on the petri dish.

Well, guess what, I'm sure as hell, you can't put this biblical deity on the petri dish.

So if you can't put this "god" or "spirit" on the proverbial petri dish, how do you expect us to accept hollow claim that your god or spirit is the CAUSE?

You contradicting yourself with this CAUSE-AND-EFFECT. If you can't present god in any way (like on this petri dish of yours) to being the CAUSE of the creation, of the universe, of the Earth and Sun, and of the creation of everything listed in Genesis 1, including human, then you are only kidding yourself with this spirit-first rubbish.

And this:

And I still believe in God because of science.

Can't prove it.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, no experiment.

You just have to think about it.

This clearly demonstrate that YOU don't understand what science mean.

IF you can't provide observation, evidence, testing, experiment and equation, then it isn't science. Have you figure that out yet. Science required empirical EVIDENCES or repeatable TESTS or EXPERIMENTS, to verify and to validate the THEORY. Without EVIDENCE, TEST or EXPERIMENT, then it isn't science.

Your academic is certainly not in the science. What are your qualifications?

This is the last thing I want to say in this thread. This thread is nothing more than bait to lure people, to listen you prattle on about "spirit first".

 

[wannabe]

You just have to think about it.

but not everyone is you thief, thusly asking people to think like you is rather problematic

 

[Thief]

but not everyone is you thief, thusly asking people to think like you is rather problematic

Indeed!