Thorham

That's very clear, but I don't. To me, it's about all of reality. How much of it can you understand with your simple human mind?

That doesn't apply to things which are in principle not possible. Those invisible pink unicorns are a good example that I didn't realize before. While a unicorn might not be impossible, an invisible pink one certainly is. All you need for a unicorn is a bubble universe with physics that looks like magic to us, so that certainly doesn't seem impossible.

Obviously they would've been wrong, because a B747 is perfectly possible. An invisible pink unicorn on the other hand is of course not possible, because something that's invisible doesn't have a color.

Some things are completely impossible. One example is being omnipotent and immortal at the same time. Impossible, because you could kill yourself (meaning you can die, and you're not immortal when you can die). Omnipotence in the sense of being able to do everything is impossible because it creates contradictions like the one I just mentioned.

Yeah, I think that, because I don't think that something's impossible just because it sounds ridiculous. How ridiculous do you think a Boeing 747 wold sound to someone from a thousand years ago? Probably totally bonkers.

So, I'm insane now? Thanks for that Good thing you're not my shrink, or I'd be in trouble.

It's apparently not so easy. You see this on this forum all the time (in some threads). But why would you hope for something when you assume it doesn't exist? Isn't it better to assume nothing about things for which there is no evidence?

It's not. Admitting you don't know is the easiest. Hoping something exists and assuming it doesn't exist seem mutually exclusive. It's no easier than just saying that you don't know and then move on.

Indeed. That's why I hope it exists instead. You don't have to assume anything. Just admit that you don't know and move on. It prevents pointless discussions about things we don't know, such as free will and creator beings. Seems more practical to me.

So, basically we just don't know.

I Didn't say it exists And who exactly decides that? I'll decide for myself that I don't know whether it does or does not exist, thank you very much.

That's not how reality works. We know plenty of things for which there was once no evidence.

And you know that how exactly?

This thread can be described by the following BASIC program: 10 print "God exists." 20 print "No, he doesn't." 30 print "Yes, He does." 40 goto 20

You're not scum for making a world where the beings on it have to take care of themselves and you don't do everything for them. As for worship, it's not a matter of who does or doesn't deserve it, it's a matter of it being a useless invention by a child species. Indeed.

I didn't say that it excludes determinism, I said that it seems there should be more to free will than determinism and randomness in relation to our mathematical physics models. This is related to what I wrote earlier:

I said seems and suggest, not that it is so, but I can say something about it that's perhaps not unreasonable: Current physics models are a collection of mathematical formulae. It seems that for free will to exist there has to be more than determinism and chance, and it seems that maths doesn't provide that.

Current physics models seem to suggest that we're automatons.

Not to mention that not knowing anything about the world around us and being stuck in the stone age simply isn't acceptable.

How insulting

Deleted. Time and time again do I get into these useless arguments. Enough is enough.

That's probably best.

It's a fact, plain and simple. Well, yes, mostly. The only things we know about are things we can observe. There could be many things that we can't observe yet. In fact, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that we've only just begun to look at the tip of a rather larger iceberg. Could be a whole bunch of crazy stuff going on right now, and we'd be blissfully unaware of it all. The true nature of reality is unknown, so yeah, it could be almost anything. I don't believe it's the case, rather I don't know whether it's the case or not, and you don't either. No, I don't know that. Just because it sounds ridiculous doesn't mean that it is ridiculous. If you could go back in time 10000 years, and tell people back then how the world is right now, they'd think you're insane. What we perceive as ridiculous (because we don't understand it) is NOT relevant. No there isn't. Who says that humans are only physical? For all I know humans are made of more than just atoms. I don't know, you don't know and science doesn't know. Not any that science knows of. Apparently they're fakes. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. None, but I'm not claiming anything other than that we don't know, so do I really need any? You gave me a down vote for merely stating something might exist. I'm not the one who's wrong here. It's not nonsense. You're just stating that it isn't telepathy while you have no proof that it isn't. Stop pretending that you know what science doesn't.

Drivel? Nonsense. Lack of evidence isn't proof for something not existing.

Depends on how that being experiences time. 1. A creator being doesn't imply anything supernatural. 2. We don't know whether supernatural things exist or not. 3. We don't know what is and is not necessary. We don't know that they're delusions. Could be that some people who hear voices in their minds are communicating telepathically.