Thief
Rogue Theologian
Boiled down to the essentials.....like deciding of Spirit preceded substance?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who has the burden of proof?
- Thread starter Delta-9
- Start date
Boiled down to the essentials.....like deciding of Spirit preceded substance?
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
No, like instead of arguing who has the burden of proof, taking a look at the evidence as it is.
outhouse
Atheistically
I keep him on ignore for lack of reason while using perverted imagination in the light of ZERO evidence.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Very nice rhetoric. Go all the way...where? What is your foregone conclusion you try so hard to reach?
In your mind accurate implies creator. It must be nice to have a sacred model of the world from which to determine reality, rather than observing reality to infer a working model of the world.
McBell
Unbound
Can't do that.
Cause then god goes poof...
Better to avoid the inevitable poofing...
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Well if the burden is held to people who won't accept cause and effect....
This thread is headed to useless retort.
Oh....look!
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Start at the singularity.....go for it....
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Coming from one who basically asked to first define the cause, then ask how we can explain the effect in light of our assumptions? Haha.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
You say start at the 'god,' and you try to transfer what I said to start at the singularity? What I said is take a look at all evidence, regardless of who presents it.
It is presuming 'god' to be the cause that has led us to 911, exploitation of religions fervor, crusades, etc.
It is looking at the effect that has led us to conceive of the singularity. See the difference?
An intelligent, rational being does not start with a cause, then look to either support or refute it! A rational intelligent being looks at the the evidence and attempts to construct a working model that explains the facts.
It's like working on a jigsaw puzzle. You start with 1000 individual facts and you keep woking at it until the pieces fit together nicely and form a working model that is internally consistent.
The atheist says I do not see a piece called god. Actually, the atheist says look at the myriad of god-pieces presented in the past, none of them fit. Funny how there has never been a god-piece that fits. And in today's age all the god-pieces are of the invisible form that can't be compared to the 'real' pieces to check for constancy.
The thiest says well I assume god, therefore the piece must be invisible, or hidden, or missing, regardless how silly the model looks while preserving a hole for that which cannot be found. THIS IS THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE!!!
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Nay....I have always sent my would be opponent back to the singularity.
Science can also take you that far.
When you get there....choose....Spirit first?....or substance?
Substance is not 'self' starting.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
You just confirmed what I said, you project on me as 'starting at the singularity.' The singularity is the current END OF THE ROAD. You seem to have some need to begin at the ending and find your way to where we are.
LOL, "substance is not self starting?" HAHA, spirit does not exist! Spirit has no self-start and no other-start. Substance IS, Spirit IS NOT!
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Not the end of the road......the starting 'point'.
If spirit does not exist....neither do you.
Ask 'godnotgod' about that.
He's around here somewhere.
oh that's right....he doesn't exist either.
Ask him.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Any evidence of that?
Perhaps we do not use spirit in the same way. I tend to use spirit to denote something 'supernatural' Regardless of any other aspect of your definition, is spirit supernatural to you?
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
The starting point of existence, yes. Yet it knowledge does not begin at the beginning of the story. knowledge begins with our senses in the here and now, and progresses outwards. In context of the story of existence, knowledge reaches back. In this sense the singularity is currently the furthest reach of knowledge. Our understanding of the singularity is based on our understanding of the here and now.
I have inferred that you seem to suggest that one should start at the singularity in order to derive understanding of the here and now. This is backwards.
The singularity is the end of line, for now. Not the beginning of line.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
To me that sounds backwards.
But...if you think the acquisition of knowledge could 'begin' there.....
And it would be interesting if the formation of the singularity could be observed.
So many people here at the forum can't seem to focus in thought.....
So many seem to think you can't know without the input of sight and touch.
I for one believe we CAN know.
You just have to think about it.
McBell
Unbound
None that he has ever presented.
Of course, he is still unable (or perhaps unwilling) to define "spirit" in a meaningful or useful way.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Really? And who ever heard, or imagined, or 'thought' about the singularity? It was observation and painstaking experimentation, step by step, that allowed us to imagine, and then test, the singularity. Yes thinking is involved, but thinking in a vacuum seldom, if ever, leads to discovery of truth.
Thinking leads to almost unlimited possibilities. Yet it is the comparison of thoughts to the external world that eliminates 99.9% of the imagined possibilities from the realm of truth, and leaves us with those thoughts that, at least for awhile, appear be consistent with existence.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
No one has.....and no one will ever.....test the singularity.
The experiment won't fit in the petri dish.
Thinking in a vacuum?....of course it can be done.
What do you 'think' God was doing?........breathing?
outhouse
Atheistically
He only uses his vivid imagination to describe his views here.
McBell
Unbound
Yes, but then, you are not throwing out the very logic, reason, science, etc. you used to get you to god out the window the second you reach god.