"Too profound"

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Stubborn till the end. The best of all Buddhist students.

It is you that is the stubborn one, and that is not necessarily a good thing.
Rather than listen to my arguments you dismiss them as me being stubborn. You believe yourself to be correct so strongly that you will not hear any counter arguments. that is the height of stubbornness. If Buddhists think that attitude makes good students then they are wrong.

(Observable means to see generally, but I do understand that it also means that which can be measured. I'm just trying to simplify this part of the argument)
When I use it, I am meaning to get information from something. We can never see neutrinos directly. But we can get information about them and thus study them. We do observe them.

My thoughts about my spirituality are meaningful to me.
That doesn't make them right.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is you that is the stubborn one, and that is not necessarily a good thing.
Rather than listen to my arguments you dismiss them as me being stubborn. You believe yourself to be correct so strongly that you will not hear any counter arguments. that is the height of stubbornness. If Buddhists think that attitude makes good students then they are wrong.
...[text shortened]...
[b]My thoughts about my spirituality are meaningful to me.
That doesn't make them right.[/b]

Oh come now. you have oobserved my language. my nod to the scientific method and atheism in general.
I believe myself so correctly as does anyone else, it seems. Fethmyjunk. Whodey. ,etc.

Counter arguments? Like , forexample our disagreement on the word " eternity"
(you think in theory it has a start and I think we have amnesia and has always existed, right? )

I am not about right and wrong but about the truth.
I am well aware on what many atheists ascribe to as the truth and, as self-described religionists/spiritualists, like myself, see as truth and they are all equally relevant, equally real. Potentially.

But are we not so sick of Potential ?
So many scientific discoveries are post -truth. .
Science changes. Einstein was banking on it.

So wjere are we? Oh yes, I have myideas,and you are here, on cue, you have 100% reprimanded me. I have offered a possibility of ideas, you have destroyed them. Sweet bro

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Oh come now. you have oobserved my language. my nod to the scientific method and atheism in general.

But you haven't observed that the scientific method can be used to study anything that we can possibly know anything about. Instead you have tried to dodge the point.

I believe myself so correctly as does anyone else, it seems. Fethmyjunk. Whodey. ,etc.
And you, like them, are wrong. Your refusal to consider that makes you stubborn. You called me stubborn not because I am stubborn but because you needed an excuse to not consider my points when your argument was shown to be flawed.

Counter arguments? Like , forexample our disagreement on the word " eternity"
(you think in theory it has a start and I think we have amnesia and has always existed, right? )
I really don't know what you are on about here. Perhaps you could expand on that in plainer English. I am fairly sure though that you are attributing thoughts to me that I do not entertain.

I am not about right and wrong but about the truth.
Practically the same thing.

I am well aware on what many atheists ascribe to as the truth and, as self-described religionists/spiritualists, like myself, see as truth and they are all equally relevant, equally real. Potentially.
No, they are not. Incoherent mumbo jumbo will never be real or the truth. Not even potentially.

So many scientific discoveries are post -truth.
Nonsense.

Science changes. Einstein was banking on it.
No, the findings of science improve. Science itself does not change. And the findings are never 'post-truth'. What nonsense is that meant to imply anyway?

So wjere are we? Oh yes, I have myideas,and you are here, on cue, you have 100% reprimanded me. I have offered a possibility of ideas, you have destroyed them. Sweet bro
Good to know I was helpful 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"I am not certain what you are saying here"

Simple as chips bro.

You cannot define a "God" without including all, including the observer , and their bias, when discussing science/god.

The Christians regurlarly discuss "God" as being a separate entitiy from creation. I see this as getting off on the wrong foot from the start.

Understand?

You are suggesting that we consider creator and created to be one and the same entity. Take a short step away from that toward dualism and we have creation to be ideas in the mind of the creator. Stepping back a bit from THAT we have those ideas that comprise creation, being the sum and substance of the creator.

Originally posted by JS357
You are suggesting that we consider creator and created to be one and the same entity. Take a short step away from that toward dualism and we have creation to be ideas in the mind of the creator. Stepping back a bit from THAT we have those ideas that comprise creation, being the sum and substance of the creator.

I wouldn't even call it an entity in any convential sense

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you haven't observed that the scientific method can be used to study anything that we can possibly know anything about. Instead you have tried to dodge the point.

[b]I believe myself so correctly as does anyone else, it seems. Fethmyjunk. Whodey. ,etc.
And you, like them, are wrong. Your refusal to consider that makes you stubborn. You called ...[text shortened]... ed a possibility of ideas, you have destroyed them. Sweet bro[/b]
Good to know I was helpful 🙂[/b]

Wow. let's just chill.

You've taken to your role with zeal.
There have always have been and awlays will be people who see the world differently.
Why do youthink this prevails? Are we all nuts? All of us?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I wouldn't even call it an entity in any convential sense

Calling it anything, even "it", might be a bad start, then.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Either you are hereby admitting that you are not using your brain for the purpose for which it was designed, or the brain was not designed to think logical thoughts.
Which is it going to be?

[b]If you believe option 2 to be true, you can never trust your thoughts.
I believe option 2, as I have stated multiple times. And I never trust my thoughts ...[text shortened]... rammer. 😛[/b]
But it does do it. You asked how it does it as if you thought it was impossible.[/b]

Of course the computer does exactly what it was designed to do. You are the one claiming the brain was not designed, and yet you compare it to a computer that was designed. If you can never trust your thoughts, how can you trust your knowledge and your experience for that matter?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
There have always have been and awlays will be people who see the world differently.
Why do youthink this prevails? Are we all nuts? All of us?

Not nuts. But definitely wrong. That is a logical necessity (that in any given set of differing contradictory opinions, at most only one can be right).
That people being so wrong prevails is at least in part a function of education and in part a problem with human brains not being all that good at logic.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Of course the computer does exactly what it was designed to do. You are the one claiming the brain was not designed, and yet you compare it to a computer that was designed.

So, do you accept that a brain is capable of thought through purely chemical processes contrary to your earlier claim?

If you can never trust your thoughts, how can you trust your knowledge and your experience for that matter?
By double-checking them.

How do you trust your thoughts? You don't seem to have given any explanation so far given that you admit that the 'designed to be trusted' doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not nuts. But definitely wrong. That is a logical necessity (that in any given set of differing contradictory opinions, at most only one can be right).
That people being so wrong prevails is at least in part a function of education and in part a problem with human brains not being all that good at logic.

If everything came about by chance and chaos (with no intelligent intervention), why do you believe in a 'logical necessity' for anything?

To me a 'logical necessity' points to some form of intelligent thought or design that has been put into our existence and not to random chaos.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, do you accept that a brain is capable of thought through purely chemical processes contrary to your earlier claim?

[b]If you can never trust your thoughts, how can you trust your knowledge and your experience for that matter?
By double-checking them.

How do you trust your thoughts? You don't seem to have given any explanation so far given that you admit that the 'designed to be trusted' doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny.[/b]

It logically makes sense for you to trust your thoughts if your brain was designed for the purpose of 'thinking trustworthy thoughts'.

It does not make sense to trust your thoughts if your brain just came about by some freak random accident and for no particular purpose in general.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If everything came about by chance and chaos (with no intelligent intervention), why do you believe in a 'logical necessity' for anything?

Who said 'everything came about by chance and chaos?

Because logic is a real thing some things are logically necessary. That's just an obvious fact that I would think wouldn't need explaining even to you.

To me a 'logical necessity' points to some form of intelligent thought or design that has been put into our existence and not to random chaos.
Why? Do you have any actual logic to back that up, or is it your illogical mind that just 'points' that way?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Who said 'everything came about by chance and chaos?

Because logic is a real thing some things are logically necessary. That's just an obvious fact that I would think wouldn't need explaining even to you.

[b]To me a 'logical necessity' points to some form of intelligent thought or design that has been put into our existence and not to random chaos.[ ...[text shortened]... have any actual logic to back that up, or is it your illogical mind that just 'points' that way?

The way I understand logic:

1. God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are, too.

2. We, being made in God's image, are capable of discovering these laws of logic. We do not invent them.

3. Therefore, I can account for the existence of the laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God, and that we are only discovering them.

But now I wonder how does an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?"

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But now I wonder how does an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?"

And you wonder this because you are yet to understand the laws of logic.