1 edit
Originally posted by AgergThe fact of the matter is dear Agers that harmony does not rise spontaneously from
The thing is, a lack of such harmony and "apparent design" would be inconsistent with the physical laws we believe govern the universe. If we were all rolling around with our eyes in our arses, and levitating through freezing cold bonfires then that would be consistent with magic and miracles (i.e. your "G"od).
That you acknowledge the harmony manifest in t ...[text shortened]... rmony it would be physically impossible for you to be sat at your computer talking about it.
chaos, the fact that we are able to communicate is a greater miracle than the surreal
visions that you mention, the universe if governed by laws and any laws demand, of
necessity, a law maker. Thus one may gain knowledge of the workings of the
universe, but it tells us nothing of the why, the reason for it, does it, that is why
materialism or rather naturalism cannot provide a proper understanding of reality.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFace the facts, your materialism is a hindrance to understanding reality.
LOL, dude, i spent an entire summer studying all different kinds of trees, identifying,
classifying, drawing, collecting seeds from etc etc, not for a single moment was I
unconvinced of the harmony, beauty and design apparent in these majestic creations I
was studying and I didn't get that from the books I was reading. Face the facts, your
materialism is a hindrance to understanding reality.
A fundamentalist Christian accuses me of denial and not understanding reality. I'm going off to feel my bum to make sure i actually woke up this morning.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobHaha, all i am saying is that you need to unplug yourself from your naturalism, its
[b]Face the facts, your materialism is a hindrance to understanding reality.
A fundamentalist Christian accuses me of denial and not understanding reality. I'm going off to feel my bum to make sure i actually woke up this morning.[/b]
limiting your ability to determine realities. May i suggest a slight pinch on the posterior
from Mrs PK may just do the trick!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe chaos you speak about is, from a physics point of view, very well ordered - we just have difficulty making sense of it all. Indeed with an application of the same logic you use I should demand a creator of that creator (and a creator of *that* creator, and a creator of ...)
The fact of the matter is dear Agers that harmony does not rise spontaneously from
chaos, the fact that we are able to communicate is a greater miracle than the surreal
visions that you mention, the universe if governed by laws and any laws demand, of
necessity, a law maker. Thus one may gain knowledge of the workings of the
universe, but it ...[text shortened]... that is why
materialism or rather naturalism cannot provide a proper understanding of reality.
Oh wait...this infinite chain of creators stops with your claim (simply by fiat) that "G"od requires no creator.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am plugged into the evidence with an open mind. I after all evaluate the evidence with my own mind and come to my own conclusions. Can you say the same?
Haha, all i am saying is that you need to unplug yourself from your naturalism, its
limiting your ability to determine realities. May i suggest a slight pinch on the posterior
from Mrs PK may just do the trick!
1 edit
Originally posted by kd2aczI am reserving judgement on why I am here because my judgement may cast me into a role that is limiting and I may find myself over-defending and may be (independently of that) inacccurate.
I mean we are probably the best ones to know what we are thinking or what our motivations are. Are we always self serving are we all self serving? Do you not trust your inner being or do you think it to be deceptive?
Originally posted by AgergIndeed!
The chaos you speak about is, from a physics point of view, very well ordered - we just have difficulty making sense of it all. Indeed with an application of the same logic you use I should demand a creator of that creator (and a creator of *that* creator, and a creator of ...)
Oh wait...this infinite chain of creators stops with your claim (simply by fiat) that "G"od requires no creator.
Originally posted by Proper KnobBut if you DID make something up about the origins of the universe just for the hell of it you could then use it to justify what ever religion you subscribed to or created for yourself.
What?! Nobody knows the answer to that question, i'm not going to make something up just for the hell of it.
Originally posted by FMFTo claim that an honest, open-minded answer to a question is 'limiting' is a new one on me.
But if you DID make something up about the origins of the universe just for the hell of it you could then use it to justify what ever religion you subscribed to or created for yourself.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI think the adjective "limiting" here, as robbie uses it, just means he disagrees with whatever he attaches it to, but it has that little sneer thing going on too. You know, "limiting", as opposed to "deep" or "awesome", which are thus attached to whatever it is he agrees with. 😵
To claim that an honest, open-minded answer to a question is 'limiting' is a new one on me.
Originally posted by FMFonce again the slimy FMF sea monster rises to the surface, denuding every post of its
I think the adjective "limiting" here, as robbie uses it, just means he disagrees with whatever he attaches it to, but it has that little sneer thing going on too. You know, "limiting", as opposed to "deep" or "awesome", which are thus attached to whatever it is he agrees with. 😵
intellectual significance and reducing it to a carcass of personal insult.