@fmf saidThat is your opinion.
If we cannot know then any explanation will do!
If you think your "explanation will do" for you, so be it. But why do you think claiming your opinion about what is the "best" one creates a burden on anyone else to try to supercede it [or accept it] when in fact nobody knows the answer and people can only speculate?
@kellyjay saidActually, it's a question, KellyJay, that is responding to you directly and scrutinizing what you say you believe which is the sort of discourse a debate and discussion forum like this is for. But here you are sidestepping it. I mean, blimey, KellyJay, it is the thread topic after all.
That is your opinion.
@fmf saidYou go on and on about what we can know, that could be your middle name! I've
Actually, it's a question, KellyJay, that is responding to you directly and scrutinizing what you say you believe which is the sort of discourse a debate and discussion forum like this is for. But here you are sidestepping it. I mean, blimey, KellyJay, it is the thread topic after all.
put out a binary choice, mindlessness or mind with the universe and life, one or the
other, and I left the door open for something I missed. What is the most reasonable,
probable cause, a mindless, thoughtless, undirected set of processes, having all of
the necessary materials all showing up by happenstance connecting through sheer
coincidence, or a mind directing it all so that everything we see and experience is
set up by design?
Scrutinize that for a while, ponder the possibilities there, it isn't a matter of
debate, I'm asking what is it you think is the more reasonable, what is the most
likely hypothesis? Talk about side-stepping blimey, it is the burden of proof I'm
talking about if you are going to say there isn't any way to know, who cares what
is or isn't a good idea, or a good possible cause if we cannot know? According
to you, they are all the same, one is no different than the other with you we cannot
know.
@kellyjay saidYes I do. Because it's true. And it puts the speculative nature of your assertions in context. Did Dasa's Hindu belief in reincarnation - his "best explanation" - create a burden on you to prove it wasn't true? Of course not.
You go on and on about what we can know, that could be your middle name!
@fmf saidYou don't want to entertain a question don't, as I said, some prefer to ignore the
Yes I do. Because it's true. And it puts the speculative nature of your assertions in context. Did Dasa's Hindu belief in reincarnation - his "best explanation" - create a burden on you to prove it wasn't true? Of course not.
questions of beginnings one way or another. Head in the sand, whatever term suits
you, the number of possible explanations there are doesn't mean its a harder
conclusion to reach, as things are weeded out if there is but one answer that
satisfies all the variables in play. You start with the easiest to get right and go from
there, mindlessness, or mind?
@kellyjay saidBut I DO "entertain the question" of beginnings. I do NOT ignore "the questions of beginnings", KellyJay. These are your strawmen masquerading as in-good-faith conversation.
You don't want to entertain a question don't, as I said, some prefer to ignore the
questions of beginnings one way or another.
@kellyjay saidMy "head" is not "in the sand", KellyJay. Thanks for the rhetorical gimmick.
Head in the sand, whatever term suits
you, the number of possible explanations there are doesn't mean its a harder
conclusion to reach, as things are weeded out if there is but one answer that
satisfies all the variables in play.
@kellyjay saidYour reference to a "mind" suggests you are anthropomorphizing a possible creator entity [the one you have conceded is unknowable while I have conceded may well exist] - which is of course your prerogative.
What is the most reasonable,
probable cause, a mindless, thoughtless, undirected set of processes, having all of
the necessary materials all showing up by happenstance connecting through sheer
coincidence, or a mind directing it all so that everything we see and experience is
set up by design?
Your "binary choice" is a rhetorical gimmick that seeks to sweep aside the fact that none of us know what the origin of the universe and human consciousness is.
@kellyjay saidWhile I accept that there may be some kind of creator entity, and while I also acknowledge that nobody knows what the origin of the universe and human consciousness is, I think "the most likely hypothesis" is that ever-expanding scientific knowledge is probably giving us an ever-expanding understanding of the nature of a creator entity if there is one.
I'm asking what is it you think is the more reasonable, what is the most
likely hypothesis?
And that's the nearest we can get as things currently stand. Indeed, I see it as being "the more reasonable" stance to take than your speculations about a humanoid God that leads to mythology about immortality and torture.
It's extremely interesting that science is continuously giving us insights into the nature of the universe and consciousness. I feel no need to settle for a theological explanation although I am willing to listen to such explanations by the likes of you and Dasa [i.e. theists].
@fmf saidIt was a binary question.
While I accept that there may be some kind of creator entity, and while I also acknowledge that nobody knows what the origin of the universe and human consciousness is, I think "the most likely hypothesis" is that ever-expanding scientific knowledge is probably giving us an ever-expanding understanding of the nature of a creator entity if there is one.
And that's the nearest ...[text shortened]... on although I am willing to listen to such explanations by the likes of you and Dasa [i.e. theists].
@fmf saidWell, I guess where you are concerned you know what I'm thinking even when I'm not
And I have responded head-on to your rhetorical device of reducing such a question to a "binary" and I have given you detailed reasoning about what I believe and what I make of what you believe - which of course you are blanking out.
thinking it. You are welcome to your opinion.