Please stop with the assumptions and misrepresentations. It is a side-show distraction.GE to me:
So please peruse the information on the excellent link you provided, and take it home. Don't invent stuff that is not there
Carry on.
Please stop with the assumptions and misrepresentations. It is a side-show distraction.GE to me:
So please peruse the information on the excellent link you provided, and take it home. Don't invent stuff that is not there
I believe so. Misleading thread topic is misleading.Hobbes' Choice wrote: You are no longer asking "god, gods, or none of the above", and really you were never interested in that question.
Are you mad?
M.B.marjoram_blues wrote:My point in introducing the 'principle of charity' (and one of many explanatory links) was a simple one.
It is not necessary to enter GL's virtual courtroom with its legalese shouts of 'Objection!' which a judge ( him or IC) can over-rule. Entertaining as that might be, it is inherently biased.
An idea, or ideas, can be explained and evaluated in turn. Clearly, it is better to focus on one view/theory and its justifications at a time. This will enable the 'seller' of the idea to clarify and explain his 'product' before any would-be customer decides to buy.
If I've got this right, IC wants to discuss the implications of the acceptance of the idea of a Creator/creators and GL has his beon theory to sell. And the process is to be 'experimental'.
So, who is judging who?
Well, we are all judge and jury here, as customers in an open market-place. Let IC and GL set out their stalls so that we can examine the produce and decide.
This could be done in a fairly, standard - traditional way. Perhaps easier to view and examine one at a time?
It could be a head-to-head debate. GL stating his view/reasons and IC examining, analysing and judging - and then v.v.
However, the issues seem to have been set-up so that it is 'None of the above' or the 'Undecided' that are on trial. The judges are the very people who wish to sell us their ideas. If we're not buying it, the judge GL wants to send us to jail.
So far, so confused?
Immanuel CanImmanuel Can wrote: Regarding your post two ago...
An interesting reply, Greylorn. Thank you.
It's interesting that you mention "Elohim." Did you know that Theists -- at least Christians -- far from ignoring the plural nature of this word are quite enthused about it? It is one of the textual evidences for Trinitarianism, actually. Just a side note.
Now, to my ensuing question. It is true that within a natural causal relationship there needs to be at least two things...say, a flammable chemical plus fire, or a chemical compound and something that reacts with it. Fine. But my suggestion would be that natural causal relationships cannot themselves be infinite, since they are by definition events in time, having a specific cause, origin point and duration. And though they may be related to other causal events, either those that came before or those produced as a consequence, each natural causal event is a discrete event in time, and is not infinite.
The maths we have show very clearly that actual infinite sequences are impossible. This, of course, has major implications for causal chains. Natural causal chains cannot be infinite, then. So whatever else we think, our trek backwards in time to the base of the causal chain is going to end in something: and that something is not going to be subject to natural causal necessities, but is rather going to be the explanation for the causal chain itself. Were it subject to natural causal necessities, it would then not be the cause of the causal chain, but rather just the first link. Moreover, it would be governed by laws greater than itself, which would then have to be explained in their own right. So then we would need an additional explanation for that link...you get the idea.
Since the explanation for the causal chain is itself cannot be a natural-causal event, it will require something other than a natural-causal description. So the characteristic of needing two things would not be a property of that original Cause. (If we did imagine it did need two things, then we would have to explain their existence -- and their duality -- as well.)
Thus I suggest that perhaps extrapolating from our present knowledge of how natural causality works may not be the right strategy for describing whatever occupies the place at the ultimate bottom of the causal chain. Perhaps super-natural causality?
Your thoughts?
I.C.Immanuel Can wrote:Well, we've established that some people don't like the topic heading. And we've heard that they feel cheated out of their chance to camp on the Theism-Atheism debate and work it yet again. So fine: people don't like the title.
Time to move on, I think. The horse is dead.
We're left with this: for this thread, and only for this one, we're not contesting the basic supposition of a Creator or creator(s), and atheism is not the starting point, since we're moving past that issue in order to address implications of those who believe in some sort of Creator.
So, Greylorn, do we go or no?
How do we insure that Amod or iMod kills such posts? After hanging out on this forum for better than a year, the only thing either has done was to drop me and my posts into never-never land for about a month, and I've yet to learn why.ReliStuPhD wrote:Unless there's work here you odn't want to abandon, I'd say start a new post with a new title. Lay out what's not being debated, then make sure AMod kills off-topic posts.
As far as I know, AMod has stated in a post that he/she will monitor discussions like these and remove threads if the creators report them as off-topic. It has to be something started on our side (as in, they're not going to follow the discussions and make that decision themselves).Greylorn Ell wrote:How do we insure that Amod or iMod kills such posts? After hanging out on this forum for better than a year, the only thing either has done was to drop me and my posts into never-never land for about a month, and I've yet to learn why.ReliStuPhD wrote:Unless there's work here you odn't want to abandon, I'd say start a new post with a new title. Lay out what's not being debated, then make sure AMod kills off-topic posts.
Do you know something that I do not, like Amod's Swiss bank account number?
Or do you expect me to go crying to mommy with my finger up my ass, instead of in some clown's eye, whenever someone intrudes upon a thread I've initiated? Methinks you are over-civilized, someone who thinks that Obama is doing all the right things.
Nonetheless, thank you for your thoughts.
Greylorn
That's new information. So far this thread has quieted down so assistance may not be needed, but I'll keep your advice in mind in case I start another thread.ReliStuPhD wrote:
As far as I know, AMod has stated in a post that he/she will monitor discussions like these and remove threads if the creators report them as off-topic. It has to be something started on our side (as in, they're not going to follow the discussions and make that decision themselves).
Trix,GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:You consider it an Absolute Miracle? It is an Absolute Curse. This world is a terrible creation that I am ashamed of.
The thing about Curses is they tend to appear unsuspecting, when you least expect it. They tend to stick too. When you think about it as a curse, it begins to make more logical sense.
As for your theory it sounds nice but you cannot prove it right...I am not so simple as mere energy particles...
Greylorn Ell wrote: Greylorn