@kellyjay saidI have addressed your "mindlessness and mind" framing of this over and over and over again. You are just ignoring it over and over and over again. You are not conversing in good faith.
So when I am talking about mindlessness and mind, and you interject all of the
other things you said even implying my motivation was simply to say it is all about
me and what I thought that isn't changing the subject?
@fmf saidYou have addressed it by adding so many other things to the question that had
I have addressed your "mindlessness and mind" framing of this over and over and over again. You are just ignoring it over and over and over again. You are not conversing in good faith.
absolutely nothing to do with it, it becomes meaningless due to all the other things
you push into the discussion. If you stop at the one point settling down into what
that means, it eliminates so many other things regardless of all that comes after, if
we are not seeking the answers to these types of questions we are ignoring them,
or putting them off. You preach daily we cannot know, for you, I believe that is true,
you don't want to know so you tell yourself that it cannot be known.
@kellyjay saidI 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.
You have addressed it by adding so many other things to the question that had
absolutely nothing to do with it, it becomes meaningless due to all the other things
you push into the discussion. If you stop at the one point settling down into what
that means, it eliminates so many other things regardless of all that comes after, if
we are not seeking the answers to these t ...[text shortened]... r you, I believe that is true,
you don't want to know so you tell yourself that it cannot be known.
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 saidYou should read your response and look for a head-on answer, there isn't one.
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.
The only thing you said it is possible, that isn't a head-on answer, it is simply
acknowledging the question without giving a definitive response, your version
of answering head-on and mine are two different things. Rhetorical devices you
use all of the time "faith speech" and the list goes on, casting a rhetorical response
on a discussion to ignore the points in, you are the king there.
1 edit
@fmf saidYou accept there may be, is also saying at the same time you accept there may not
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 we can ...[text shortened]... on although I am willing to listen to such explanations by the likes of you and Dasa [i.e. theists].
be, wow, what a head-on response, please. The only thing you commit to is that
you don't want to commit.
@kellyjay saidIf mankind does not know - yet - what the origin of the universe is, then why do I need "to commit"?
You accept there may be, is also saying at the same time you accept there may not
be, wow, what a head-on response, please. The only thing you commit to is that
you don't want to commit.
You have your own psychology which is not mine. You apparently need to "fill the gap" in human knowledge with theology and an anthropomorphized creator entity with your notions of its "mind".
Meanwhile, science represents the closest I think mankind has got thus far to exploring the nature of the universe which I perceive as also being the nature of the creator entity, if there is one.
You seem to think that your "committing" to what you personally see as "the best answer" creates a burden of proof for others to address the hypothesis you have settled for... a hypothesis that seems to have eradicated your curiosity and the openness of your mind.
@kellyjay saidEnough with this sorry-for-yourself babble.
You should read your response and look for a head-on answer, there isn't one.
The only thing you said it is possible, that isn't a head-on answer, it is simply
acknowledging the question without giving a definitive response, your version
of answering head-on and mine are two different things. Rhetorical devices you
use all of the time "faith speech" and the list goes on, casting a rhetorical response
on a discussion to ignore the points in, you are the king there.
@fmf saidYou don’t have to do anything including replying to a question you admit that you have no idea about, and even the pondering of it you think cannot tell us anything. Head in sand!
If mankind does not know - yet - what the origin of the universe is, then why do I need "to commit"?
You have your own psychology which is not mine. You apparently need to "fill the gap" in human knowledge with theology and an anthropomorphized creator entity with your notions of its "mind".
Meanwhile, science represents the closest I think mankind has got thus far to exp ...[text shortened]... tled for... a hypothesis that seems to have eradicated your curiosity and the openness of your mind.