Why don't some people like being created?

[McBell]

It seems a majority of people spend there lives trying to deny what is real.For whats important in my life, I spend a lot of time in rehabs and homeless shelters trying to reach people that are hurting and who have been taken down with mental diseases and such.
I write songs that encourages and lifts others up. At the end of the day this is whats real and important!

Perhaps this time you can actually answer the question?

in your favoured method, how does one distinguish between what is real and what is not real?​

 

[McBell]

I already did!
I open up my awareness to reality with faith and use logic to rationalise the reality!

So you have faith that you actually answered my question?
So reality is irrelevant if it contradicts your faith?

Here is why I dismiss your "faith" argument:

Faith is a device of self-delusion, a sleight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up. Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breathe life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes.
​

Now since you have completely ignored the above quote the last two times, I figure that you will ignore it this time as well.

But I understand.
Your faith is not strong enough for you to address it.

 

[Walkntune]

I have answered your questions and you think I am wrong and don't make sense.
Do the honourable thing and correct me by explaining what this quote is saying!

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” ~ Albert Einstein

I have given my explanation .
If any of you can without rabbit trailing.

 

[LittleNipper]

in your favoured method, how does one distinguish between what is real and what is not real?

Seems to me that you just pick one, declare it is the real one, and hope you are right.

GOD reveals reality. If we accept it fully, we have the truth. If we tweek it, abandon it, distort it, then we have maybe some part of what is real, but not the entire picture...

 

[Autodidact]

GOD reveals reality. If we accept it fully, we have the truth. If we tweek it, abandon it, distort it, then we have maybe some part of what is real, but not the entire picture...

And what method do you think is effective in determining what God is revealing?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I like it, the idea of my family being a special creation thousands of years ago, and being related to every other living human on the planet.

Why don't some people like this concept?

Because it's just a "concept" of it actually taking place. Multiple cultures around the globe have a creation story. Why yours and not theirs?

 

[McBell]

I have answered your questions and you think I am wrong and don't make sense.
Do the honourable thing and correct me by explaining what this quote is saying!


I have given my explanation .
If any of you can without rabbit trailing.

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Who is in charge at a zoo?

Nice side step now how about answering my original question.

How are you in charge of the situation when a mother bear - in the wild- is charging you and you have no way of defending yourself?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

No, the reason they are in the zoo is because we have control of them.

And yet animals persistently exist outside of zoos where we have no control over them.

Show me where you have control over anything in nature.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have answered your questions and you think I am wrong and don't make sense.
Do the honourable thing and correct me by explaining what this quote is saying!

No, you have not answered my questions. In case you missed the main one, here it is again:

How are "awareness and intuition" a better means for distinguishing fact from fiction than the scientific method?

Quote-mining Einstein does not help to prove your point, especially considering that Einstein was not religious and wholeheartedly believed that the scientific method was the best available method to determine what is true and what is not.

I have given my explanation .
If any of you can without rabbit trailing.

Why not just answer the questions put to you rather than playing martyr? Is it so difficult to justify your statements?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have answered your questions and you think I am wrong and don't make sense.
Do the honourable thing and correct me by explaining what this quote is saying!

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” ~ Albert Einstein

I have given my explanation .
If any of you can without rabbit trailing.

IMO, it's a play on a quote from Kant:

"Percepts without concepts are empty. Concepts without percepts are blind."

I don't think Einstein was talking about religion in the sense of organized worship or god-belief. More like acknowledgement of higher principles and concepts (though I personally dislike equivocating this with "religion").

 

[Walkntune]

Quote-mining Einstein does not help to prove your point, especially considering that Einstein was not religious and wholeheartedly believed that the scientific method was the best available method to determine what is true and what is not.

Its not the scientific method that is in and of itself that is bad. It is it's usage.Einstein was led by intuition and used the scientific method to determine what was true or not but he always stepped out in intuition into great discoveries and paved the way for the rest.As did Tesla .
Share with me who you think the greatest scientist of today is?
Actually to think about it, Einstein is a great example of how intuition comes leads into greater awareness of reality and answers this question.

How are "awareness and intuition" a better means for distinguishing fact from fiction than the scientific method?

INTUITION IN-DEPTH: EINSTEIN'S INTUITION

How ironic you bring him up with such a question.

 

[RedOne77]

Multiple cultures around the globe have a creation story. Why yours and not theirs?

Because mine has a talking snake and a magical garden.

 

[Walkntune]

I don't think Einstein was talking about religion in the sense of organized worship or god-belief.

I agree with you here!

More like acknowledgement of higher principles and concepts (though I personally dislike equivocating this with "religion").

Hmmm? Not sure what you mean? You mean higher principles and concepts than what logic offers? From where do they come?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Its not the scientific method that is in and of itself that is bad. It is it's usage.Einstein was led by intuition and used the scientific method to determine what was true or not but he always stepped out in intuition into great discoveries and paved the way for the rest. As did Tesla .

But neither of them used their intuition as means of determining what was real and what wasn't: they used the scientific method to do that. They may have had great insight and awareness, but that was not their sole stock and store and played no part in their determining of facts. Both relied on evidence, testability and rationality to determine facts.

Share with me who you think the greatest scientist of today is?

No idea.

Actually to think about it, Einstein is a great example of how intuition comes leads into greater awareness of reality and answers this question.

Sure it can. But my point is, and always has been, that it is not better at determining fact from fiction than the scientific method is. Do you understand the difference?

INTUITION IN-DEPTH: EINSTEIN'S INTUITION

How ironic you bring him up with such a question.

Not one part of that article addresses my question, nor does any of it suggest that Einstein's intuition was what he used to determine reality - just what he used to form hypotheses.

You're still refusing to actually answer the question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with you here!

Hmmm? Not sure what you mean? You mean higher principles and concepts than what logic offers? From where do they come?

They come from different places for different people. The message that I take from Einstein's quote is that merely generating hypotheses and testing them doesn't do a lot of good unless some consideration is given to which hypotheses you're testing and why... i.e. making some attempt to do science of value.

 

[Walkntune]

You're still refusing to actually answer the question.

Then I don't know how to answer your post and i will answer it from a post by a guy named timothy in a different forum!

Why must logic or reason coincide with reality or existence itself, if existence precedes human mind and reality flows from the human mind?
Where does the consistency between logic and reason, and existence or reality arise from?
Why must our mind necessarily determine how things actually are? To say things must be logical or reasonable is to say that we decide how things must be. To think solely within the realms of logic or reason, is to think within boundaries that will never illuminate that which is, to us, unreasonable or illogical.

Furthermore, must logic and reason conform to reality, or must reality conform to logic and reason? If the former, how can we say things must be logical or reasonable? If the latter, how can we say 'we' do not decide how reality appears? Or where does logic and reason appear beyond the human mind? To say that everything is or must be logical or reasonable is to say that the universe is wrought of mind.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... Why must our mind necessarily determine how things actually are? ...

I can certainly understand why you identify so strongly with "Timothy". You are absolutely on the same plane.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then I don't know how to answer your post and i will answer it from a post by a guy named timothy in a different forum!

Why must logic or reason coincide with reality or existence itself, if existence precedes human mind and reality flows from the human mind?
Where does the consistency between logic and reason, and existence or reality arise from?
Why must our mind necessarily determine how things actually are? To say things must be logical or reasonable is to say that we decide how things must be. To think solely within the realms of logic or reason, is to think within boundaries that will never illuminate that which is, to us, unreasonable or illogical.

Furthermore, must logic and reason conform to reality, or must reality conform to logic and reason? If the former, how can we say things must be logical or reasonable? If the latter, how can we say 'we' do not decide how reality appears? Or where does logic and reason appear beyond the human mind? To say that everything is or must be logical or reasonable is to say that the universe is wrought of mind.

Which still has not answered the question. Where do I state anything along the lines of what this post is claiming? I have never once said that we can only deduce things through logic, I have only stated that the scientific method is the best known method for establishing fact from fiction. I'm getting seriously tired of asking now.

Here is the question one last time before I give up entirely and assume you simply typed without thinking:

I asked: "Do you agree that the scientific method is the best and most reliable method of distinguishing fact from fiction?"

You responded: "No its not the best method. I think your instinctive awareness of reality is first and foremost."

And now I ask, for what feels like the hundredth time: "In what way is intuition and awareness a more reliable method for determining fact from fiction?

Stop diverging from the question with these meaningless "all knowledge is subjective" and "intuition expands our awareness" nonsense. Just deal with the question of how and why intuition is a better method of determing fact and fiction than the scientific method is.

 

[RedOne77]

Furthermore, must logic and reason conform to reality, or must reality conform to logic and reason?

Reality is reality whether we conform to it or not, or even understand it. What humanity has been doing since its birth is to systematize reality into a logic and ordered place. What science has done is take the principles of figuring out how the natural world works and devised a rigorous methodology to tackle the great and mysterious unknown.