A God Without Limitations

[Ken Fabian]

On 4/29/2022 at 11:51 PM, Phi for All said:

You don't have to claim god(s) don't exist if you just ignore them until they do something observably god-like.

I wonder if this is the most common sort of atheism - people who don't know and don't care.

And the most common sort of theism is going along with and repeating the common beliefs of those around us, without much thinking about it.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Ken Fabian

[Aman Uensis]

On 4/29/2022 at 9:51 PM, Phi for All said:

In science, "take into account" means analyzing the evidence. You can remain neutral (null hypothesis) while waiting for such evidence to be presented, but I really don't see how you can consider the possibility of god(s) without any. You don't have to claim god(s) don't exist if you just ignore them until they do something observably god-like.

That's just it though. Our human mind is trained to ignore things that cannot be proven or are useless. Like infinity. It's acknowledged in science maths etc, but you can't really do much with it, so it's just there. In plain sight.

Ignoring the possibility of God means ignoring what people believe. How can we possibly advance the stalemate if we don't compromise?

I certainly do believe in some cases that rules were made by man to justify the fact that we can't explain everything. That we are afraid of the chaos. Systems of rules made by man are put in place to limit that which we dare not or cannot explain. We're afraid of the chaos. So we put our own fences up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I'm getting the sense (as I've gotten with all forums) that you're all quite good at forum debating. That is, cherry-picking my little mistakes and attacking them, all the while ignoring my comments regarding observable structures, my numerical application of existence etc. Which, by the way, is what I'm here to get opinions on.

I'm here for you to poke holes, but the holes you're poking are the same old holes. That is, God cannot be proven, this is not a formal scientific theory, I made a spelling mistake etc.

By all means, continue poking holes. But try to impress me with something new. That's what I'm here for. To advance my inquiry, pick up on things I may not have thought of. NOT regarding the existence of God or any derivative arguments for or against.

At the risk of repeating...  science vs God is a game, it's a stage and we're all actors playing our parts. We've been enacting this play for many years now, but never have paused to question the stage which allows us to do so in the first place due to our relative position within this stage.

I'm not here to enact the same old play. I want to take the stage apart.

[Genady]

29 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

That's just it though. Our human mind is trained to ignore things that cannot be proven or are useless. Like infinity. It's acknowledged in science maths etc, but you can't really do much with it, so it's just there. In plain sight.

Ignoring the possibility of God means ignoring what people believe. How can we possibly advance the stalemate if we don't compromise?

I certainly do believe in some cases that rules were made by man to justify the fact that we can't explain everything. That we are afraid of the chaos. Systems of rules made by man are put in place to limit that which we dare not or cannot explain. We're afraid of the chaos. So we put our own fences up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I'm getting the sense (as I've gotten with all forums) that you're all quite good at forum debating. That is, cherry-picking my little mistakes and attacking them, all the while ignoring my comments regarding observable structures, my numerical application of existence etc. Which, by the way, is what I'm here to get opinions on.

I'm here for you to poke holes, but the holes you're poking are the same old holes. That is, God cannot be proven, this is not a formal scientific theory, I made a spelling mistake etc.

By all means, continue poking holes. But try to impress me with something new. That's what I'm here for. To advance my inquiry, pick up on things I may not have thought of. NOT regarding the existence of God or any derivative arguments for or against.

At the risk of repeating...  science vs God is a game, it's a stage and we're all actors playing our parts. We've been enacting this play for many years now, but never have paused to question the stage which allows us to do so in the first place due to our relative position within this stage.

I'm not here to enact the same old play. I want to take the stage apart.

The starting point for consideration is evidence. Not a proof or use.

[iNow]

50 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

Our human mind is trained to ignore things that cannot be proven or are useless

Quite the opposite. Our minds tend to invent narratives in an attempt to explain incoming stimuli before actually understanding things. Fictions like gods, for example. 

51 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

science vs God is a game

Have fun playing with yourself 

52 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

We've been enacting this play for many years now, but never have paused to question the stage which allows us to do so in the first place

You have NO IDEA what me and others here have paused to question. Comments like these are not just ignorant, but arrogant. 

1 hour ago, Aman Uensis said:

I'm not really forced to explain anything

Good, because thus far you’ve done a lot of asserting and zero explaining. 

1 hour ago, Aman Uensis said:

because we are special.

Apparently some of us in a short bus kinda way. 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Aman Uensis said:

because we are special.

In a limited sense only. We are special simply because we are probably the most intelligent  life form on Earth. Yet we have only been present for a short spanse of time, with Earth being formed 4.5 billion years ago. We are made of the same elements that are found throughout the universe, whereever we have looked. We are nothing but star stuff, born in the belly of stars, and spat out again. We are no more then an accident of evolution.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

We are special simply because we are probably the most intelligent  life form on Earth.

Only because we’re the ones defining what I means to be intelligent. 

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Only because we’re the ones defining what I means to be intelligent. 

How do you define it? 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/orangutans-are-only-non-human-primates-capable-talking-about-past-180970827/

Orangutans Are the Only Non-Human Primates Capable of ‘Talking’ About the Past

Mothers waited several minutes before alerting offspring to potential predators, pointing toward capacity for displaced referencing:

Orangutan mothers waited an average of seven minutes before alerting infants to a potential predator's presence 

One of the most distinguishing features of human speech is displaced reference, or the ability to discuss objects and events not physically present at a given time. Although we tend to take this phenomenon for granted, it’s actually quite an impressive feat—for perspective, imagine your pet dog regaling a neighborhood pal with tales of a recent trip to the park by drawing on memories of long-gone ball throws and belly rubs.

more at link.....................

 

"displace reference":

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28975298.pdf

1. Displaced reference and the language evolution debate In the debate about language evolution, the fact that there is no direct evidence about the emergence of language plays an important role. Researchers from various backgrounds have developed ways to collect indirect evidence and sketch a picture of how human language came about. In this article we will focus on a phenomenon that is relevant for many aspects of language evolution:

displaced reference. Below we will focus on different kinds of research in which displaced reference is studied, but let us first look at what displaced reference is, and why it is interesting to study from the perspective of evolution of language. ‘Displaced reference’ (henceforth DR) means reference to things that are not present here and now. In other words, to objects or events that are remote in space or in time. It has been indicated as interesting from the point of view of language evolution as early as the 1960’s. Charles Hockett, in an article on the origin of speech (Hockett (1960)), lists four design features that are unique (or practically unique) to human communication. ‘Displacement’ is one of them:

Man is apparently almost unique in being able to talk about things that are remote in space or time (or both) from where the talking goes on. DR is present in human communication, and seems to be absent in animal communication. But, according to Hockett, it would not be in principle impossible to have displacement in simple communication systems:

 

the paper concludes thus..........................

But the story provided here is still not completely satisfactory. The two branches of research that were presented do support each other’s conclusions, but the evolutionary path that was sketched is still not complete. A remaining issue is, for example, the question of what conditions should be fulfilled for an animal to start using displaced reference in communication. In other words, if an animal performs well on the most complex displacement tasks, what next is necessary to start using displaced reference in communication? This is an important question and to answer it, we need much more indirect evidence. The story above, however, indicates that when more indirect evidence is available, it is useful – and possible – to put together different kinds of results from different kinds of research.

Edited May 2, 2022 by beecee

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

I looked up the definition of theory and it seems to suggest a supposition or system of ideas used to explain something else? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

We're a science site. A scientific theory is rather more than ideas used to explain something. It also involves testing the idea and having it be falsifiable.

[iNow]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

How do you define it? 

There are MULTIPLE different types of intelligence (ability to solve math problems, ability to communicate effectively, ability to understand and relate to the emotions of others, the ability to generate music, and so on), and none are universally agreed upon.

We've had many threads on this and still not found a consensus answer other than, "It depends on what you're measuring."

On that note, another measure of MY and YOUR intelligence will be to recognize that's off-topic here. 

[Intoscience]

On 5/2/2022 at 1:06 AM, Aman Uensis said:

What I'm merely suggesting is that if there is a God, then God is subject to the limitations that existence imposes, one of which is that non-existence is not allowable

So in the whole of this thread, you are basically saying that a god with no limitations actually has limitations because he/she/it is limited to it's very own existence. Well , yeah from our own logical perspective.

On 4/29/2022 at 11:55 AM, dimreepr said:

So essentially the limits of God are the limits we decide it has.

Yep 

15 hours ago, iNow said:

There are MULTIPLE different types of intelligence (ability to solve math problems, ability to communicate effectively, ability to understand and relate to the emotions of others, the ability to generate music, and so on), and none are universally agreed upon.

We've had many threads on this and still not found a consensus answer other than, "It depends on what you're measuring."

On that note, another measure of MY and YOUR intelligence will be to recognize that's off-topic here. 

I like your post, +1

However, it then got me thinking, are we just by including physical capability as a measure of intelligence? 

The gold fish might "know" exactly how to climb the tree but is limited to do so by its physicality. Does this make it less intelligent than the monkey?

I do understand the premise of the picture analogy and the point you were making, I was just considering it that's all.🙂 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Intoscience

[Aman Uensis]

On 5/2/2022 at 9:24 AM, Genady said:

The starting point for consideration is evidence. Not a proof or use.

And what I'm proposing is that there can be no evidence of what I speak of (frustratingly convenient, yes I know). Rather like a virtual avatar in a virtual world not being able to access the computer hardware upon which it is being hosted. If they've been programmed sufficiently then they can surmise it (absolute free will of thought), but never actually prove it. We might program them to alter the programming language (ie. their own dna), but never the hardware.

If I wished to make a world and observe its inhabitants in their most natural state (as most scientific observers wish to observe beasts in their natural habitat, creepy animal cameras and such), I'd make the container as unnoticeable as possible. Out of reach, or at least impenetrable, so they turn their attentions to the other things inside the container.

What I'm proposing is a mere inquiry, of no practical use other than to possibly place things into perspective.

Nevertheless, it still stands - science, theology, philosophy etc. may be able to answer everything except why anything exists at all. Again, we can argue about evidence and lack thereof, but what I'm proposing transcends manmade rule based systems that were put in place to keep order. It is a consideration of the fact of existence, something that cannot be denied by atheists or theists alike.

On 4/29/2022 at 6:55 PM, dimreepr said:

Science doesn't try, it's a question for philosophy

And philosophy can't render any hard evidence either. So I'm proposing we take science and combine it with philosophy.

I know very few things for sure in this life, but the one thing I have observed is that all things seek a balance of sorts. Hell, even existence itself is a perfect balance.

I don't think we will find the answer (or at least pointing in the right direction) by going our separate ways. We need a rather balanced approach.

On 4/29/2022 at 6:55 PM, dimreepr said:

We know all the Bible's were written by people, all of which describe a different type of God/essence/way of life; it's rather silly to assume the author's were inspired by anything other than the thoughts of man.

Agreed. The one thing I did actually do was spend a brief amount of time researching the punctuation mistakes in the Old Testament, as if the whole thing had been copy and pasted over the years.

On 4/29/2022 at 6:55 PM, dimreepr said:

So essentially the limits of God are the limits we decide it has.

As I've said before I am speculating on God based on the tools I have in front of me. I don't care either way, but if theists insist on saying that God can do things, then I will insist that God must play by the rules of existence like us.

The only thing I know for sure is that I exist. But I really don't wish to go into absolute truths etc. here.

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

what I'm proposing is that there can be no evidence of what I speak of

Which means it’s indistinguishable from make believe, fiction, and even fantasy.

Also, redundant use of “of” there, btw. If you’re going to try sounding more formal by avoiding use of a preposition at the end of a sentence, then don’t put it twice with one of those redundant entries appearing at the end of the sentence. 

[Genady]

22 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

And what I'm proposing is that there can be no evidence of what I speak of (frustratingly convenient, yes I know). Rather like a virtual avatar in a virtual world not being able to access the computer hardware upon which it is being hosted. If they've been programmed sufficiently then they can surmise it (absolute free will of thought), but never actually prove it. We might program them to alter the programming language (ie. their own dna), but never the hardware.

If I wished to make a world and observe its inhabitants in their most natural state (as most scientific observers wish to observe beasts in their natural habitat, creepy animal cameras and such), I'd make the container as unnoticeable as possible. Out of reach, or at least impenetrable, so they turn their attentions to the other things inside the container.

What I'm proposing is a mere inquiry, of no practical use other than to possibly place things into perspective.

Nevertheless, it still stands - science, theology, philosophy etc. may be able to answer everything except why anything exists at all. Again, we can argue about evidence and lack thereof, but what I'm proposing transcends manmade rule based systems that were put in place to keep order. It is a consideration of the fact of existence, something that cannot be denied by atheists or theists alike.

I have a candidate answer to this question, Why anything exists at all. Murphy's Law: Whatever can happen, will happen.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Genady

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

And what I'm proposing is that there can be no evidence of what I speak of (frustratingly convenient, yes I know).

But worth considering that the reason for such beliefs, is the awe and wonder of the universe, as well as life around us, which can be explained reasonably well by science, at least back to about t+10-35th seconds...admittedly the closer we get to t, the less certain we are of the evidence. And of course overall with evidence for evolution and the BB, being so convincing, that even the Catholic church in their "cunningness" see no problem with that, but put both down to the work of God.(WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF COURSE 😉)

 

[Aman Uensis]

On 5/2/2022 at 9:43 AM, iNow said:

Quite the opposite. Our minds tend to invent narratives in an attempt to explain incoming stimuli before actually understanding things. Fictions like gods, for example.

I agree. The human mind can be many things though. It's quite simple. If presented with a small pebble and an immovable boulder, the human will always go for the pebble eventually. And will learn to stay with the pebble.

I'm not quite sure why you're fighting me on something as simple as this?

On 5/2/2022 at 9:43 AM, iNow said:

Have fun playing with yourself

There's really no need for this kind of comment. It adds nothing. If you're not upset then I'm not sure why you would inject something like this into the discussion?

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

I'm not quite sure why you're fighting me on something as simple as this?

I’m correcting things you say that are false. That’s not fighting, that’s helping. 

5 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

There's really no need for this kind of comment. It adds nothing.

It adds criticism to your idea that differing approaches between science and religion is just a game and it does so in a lighthearted, humorous, pithy way.

That battle is not a game, and it affects the lives of real people in very real (and often traumatic) ways. 

I don’t want what you’re selling, but you keep peddling it anyway. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by iNow

[Aman Uensis]

On 5/2/2022 at 9:43 AM, iNow said:

Comments like these are not just ignorant, but arrogant.

I have been told that I am arrogant. And I have been told to behave myself in order to get my message across by acquaintances. But you must understand that being ignored forum after forum without having my more interesting ideas even being mentioned or contradicted is frustrating for me as well. In terms of my observations of structures, numbers, infinity and whatnot, even a simple I agree or I disagree would be welcome. But nothing but radio silence. Forum after forum. For many years. That in itself tells me something.

[iNow]

Just now, Aman Uensis said:

I have been told that I am arrogant.

You should do something about that, then. 

1 minute ago, Aman Uensis said:

Forum after forum. For many years. That in itself tells me something.

That your ideas are bunk, maybe?

[Aman Uensis]

On 5/2/2022 at 9:43 AM, iNow said:

You have NO IDEA what me and others here have paused to question.

But I can infer based on your responses. I never affirmed the existence of God, merely invited people to, for a moment, entertain the prospect. But it seemed business as usual, using all the things I've seen used against theists in forums. Business as usual it seemed to me.

And as I've confirmed before, your responses are fairly similar to other forums, other people. Which is why I say that people within this debate are comfortable in their own lanes.

It's as if people on both sides don't know any other way but to debate in the same manner they always have. Same war, same weapons.

That those weapons don't apply to my inquiry and why that still isn't picked up upon is a troubling sign.

On 5/2/2022 at 9:43 AM, iNow said:

Good, because thus far you’ve done a lot of asserting and zero explaining.

Yes, I've asserted based on observations of structures that can be apprehended in all aspects of life and pieced them together into a system.

Like I said before, there is still a leap of faith to be had, but rather smaller than from unicorns and such.

On 5/2/2022 at 9:43 AM, iNow said:

Apparently some of us in a short bus kinda way.

I'll point out that your above comment was in response to my comment of "us being special" which in turn was the leap of faith I refer to earlier. Please refrain from cherry picking as not only does it waste my time but yours as well.

On 5/2/2022 at 10:19 AM, beecee said:

In a limited sense only. We are special simply because we are probably the most intelligent  life form on Earth. Yet we have only been present for a short spanse of time, with Earth being formed 4.5 billion years ago. We are made of the same elements that are found throughout the universe, whereever we have looked. We are nothing but star stuff, born in the belly of stars, and spat out again. We are no more then an accident of evolution.

Agreed.

However, I don't think that this is the only universe in existence.

Not sure if you saw my earlier post but I will try to be succinct. If infinity is true, and there is no such thing as non-existence (in that even a vacuum or void is still something, hence there is still existence), then we can use numbers to represent my model of existence.

We can see that a system of rules needs a structure of sorts in order to hold it together. It's the basic premise of a collection, in that a collection of things is a smaller subset of a larger set of things. If we use numbers, then this universe is merely one such subset from the grander infinite set of numbers. Even if we don't think there are other universes existing side by side with ours, the larger subset of numbers still represents another "universe" or plane of existence.

On 5/2/2022 at 10:19 AM, beecee said:

We are no more then an accident of evolution.

I absolutely agree. Which brings to mind an interesting question which I may present in another thread.

On 5/2/2022 at 6:32 PM, swansont said:

We're a science site. A scientific theory is rather more than ideas used to explain something. It also involves testing the idea and having it be falsifiable.

I do get that. Which is why I thought it strange you had a section for religion, given that if we can't test for God then we might necessarily have to delve into philosophy? Or is this particular section of the forum here to assert the usual arguments against God only?

Not a sarcastic question. Just genuinely wishing to know the custom here as I'm new.

20 hours ago, Intoscience said:

However, it then got me thinking, are we just by including physical capability as a measure of intelligence? 

The gold fish might "know" exactly how to climb the tree but is limited to do so by its physicality. Does this make it less intelligent than the monkey?

I do understand the premise of the picture analogy and the point you were making, I was just considering it that's all.🙂

This is a really great point and one that never occurred to me. Personally, I agree that there are differing degrees of intelligence but the one defining factor (other than our perceived higher intellect) is a matter of restraint. That is, the ability to refrain from a certain course of action, at least when it comes to base urges like eating something when hungry etc.

Don't quote me on this though. I haven't explored this idea fully.

[Genady]

24 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

Which is why I thought it strange you had a section for religion, given that if we can't test for God then we might necessarily have to delve into philosophy? Or is this particular section of the forum here to assert the usual arguments against God only?

Not a sarcastic question. Just genuinely wishing to know the custom here as I'm new.

This is a common question here. The answer is that study of religion is a scientific discipline as explained e.g. here:

Religious studies - Wikipedia

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

there is still a leap of faith to be had, but rather smaller than from unicorns and such.

You are making a distinction without a difference. Your leap of faith applies equally to both. One is just more culturally acceptable than the other for adults to maintain. 

But fine… Why not a leap,of faith toward Zeus… or Thor… or Poseidon… or any of the other thousands of god(s) laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology?

If you’re going to make up your own answers… answers beyond the reach of evidence… then why not unicorns? It really is all the same when faith and wish thinking alone are your guide. 

Just now, Genady said:

This is a common question here. The answer is that study of religion is a scientific discipline as explained

It’s also a bit of a lightning rod to help keep his particular brand of woo out of the biology and physics forums. 

29 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

if we can't test for God then we might necessarily have to delve into philosophy?

Most of philosophy begins with defining our terms. So, define “god” in a unambiguous way. Go ahead. I’ll wait. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

I do get that. Which is why I thought it strange you had a section for religion, given that if we can't test for God then we might necessarily have to delve into philosophy? Or is this particular section of the forum here to assert the usual arguments against God only?

Not a sarcastic question. Just genuinely wishing to know the custom here as I'm new.

It’s because people invariably try to inject religion into science discussions, which is inappropriate. There is also a tendency to over-reach regarding claims about how the world work, that don’t have scientific backing. Those can be rebutted by science.

Note that what I said was not in reference to any scientific evidence regarding the existence of a supreme being. Just the definition of theory. You had an explanation. The problem with “A explains B” is that it’s inconclusive if C, D and E also explain B. Scientific reasoning, even if it’s not science.

[Aman Uensis]

On 5/4/2022 at 10:43 AM, Genady said:

I have a candidate answer to this question, Why anything exists at all. Murphy's Law: Whatever can happen, will happen.

That's an interesting one. It kind of aligns with my thoughts about time and existence - that everything is already in existence at once. Every possible iteration of our lives, our universe, timelines all already in existence, and what we perceive as being the present is just a sequential pointer of sorts.

But just because something is, and given enough time will be, doesn't quite go to explaining why it exists at all.

But give me a bit of time to look it up properly. Perhaps I'm missing a subtlety here that isn't quite registering at the moment, and thank you for alerting me to it.

On 5/3/2022 at 2:44 PM, Intoscience said:

So in the whole of this thread, you are basically saying that a god with no limitations actually has limitations because he/she/it is limited to it's very own existence. Well , yeah from our own logical perspective.

Precisely, and yes from our logical perspective which is the only tool I have. If I have to assume that God transcends logic then I'm going to have to accept the theist proposition that "God is magic etc".

But if they claim that God learns and thinks and desires outcomes, then some part of God must be posited within our own realm. Within the limitations of a being that thinks and learns and desires an outcome etc.

On 5/4/2022 at 10:40 AM, iNow said:

Which means it’s indistinguishable from make believe, fiction, and even fantasy.

Also, redundant use of “of” there, btw. If you’re going to try sounding more formal by avoiding use of a preposition at the end of a sentence, then don’t put it twice with one of those redundant entries appearing at the end of the sentence. 

 

On 5/2/2022 at 9:24 AM, Genady said:

I'm here for you to poke holes, but the holes you're poking are the same old holes. That is, God cannot be proven, this is not a formal scientific theory, I made a spelling mistake etc.

And there it is. Grammatical correction. I was only joking when I put spelling into the list of potential attacks against me but there you go. Murphy's law indeed hahah

On 5/4/2022 at 10:53 AM, iNow said:

I’m correcting things you say that are false. That’s not fighting, that’s helping.

If you think it's false then I accept that. But what I said is similar to dimreepr's comment about a baby eventually moving on from why to how. 

On 5/4/2022 at 10:53 AM, iNow said:

It adds criticism to your idea that differing approaches between science and religion is just a game and it does so in a lighthearted, humorous, pithy way.

That battle is not a game, and it affects the lives of real people in very real (and often traumatic) ways. 

I don’t want what you’re selling, but you keep peddling it anyway.

Yes, I do keep peddling it. In a forum thread. That I created. And you entered. And are free to leave.

In all seriousness though, you'd be part of the 99.99% of people that reacted the same way.

If you read over my responses then you might have picked out the "structure" of which I mention over and over again. To me a game is merely a structure that binds rules together, of which people (players) abide by. Nothing more, nothing less. A game can have serious consequences if that is what the game calls for (and don't get me started about bureaucrats making decisions that destroys lives thousands of miles away - if that's not a sick game I don't know what is).

But I can readily see where you are coming from with that.

On 5/4/2022 at 10:48 AM, beecee said:

But worth considering that the reason for such beliefs, is the awe and wonder of the universe, as well as life around us, which can be explained reasonably well by science, at least back to about t+10-35th seconds...admittedly the closer we get to t, the less certain we are of the evidence. And of course overall with evidence for evolution and the BB, being so convincing, that even the Catholic church in their "cunningness" see no problem with that, but put both down to the work of God.(WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF COURSE 😉)

What, in your experience, has been the Catholic church's explanation for evolution? Is it that God allowed for evolution to occur, or something such?

On 5/4/2022 at 10:57 AM, iNow said:

You should do something about that, then.

I'm touched that you are concerned with how people perceive me. I pay it no mind.

On 5/4/2022 at 10:57 AM, iNow said:

That your ideas are bunk, maybe?

I wondered that for a while too. But if my ideas were really bunk then they would elicit more response, especially my more intriguing ideas. Like outright abuse, counter arguments, general reasons why they feel I'm wrong. At least one measured opinion.

But they remain absolutely untouched.

So far they have done as you have. Say I'm full of it but can't pinpoint the precise reason.

[Aman Uensis]

On 5/4/2022 at 11:30 AM, iNow said:

You are making a distinction without a difference. Your leap of faith applies equally to both. One is just more culturally acceptable than the other for adults to maintain. 

But fine… Why not a leap,of faith toward Zeus… or Thor… or Poseidon… or any of the other thousands of god(s) laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology?

If you’re going to make up your own answers… answers beyond the reach of evidence… then why not unicorns? It really is all the same when faith and wish thinking alone are your guide.

No, see you're cherry picking again. trying to muddy the waters. I'll have none of it

"Answers beyond reach" refers to my my inquiry broadly. The leap of faith applies to this question - given that the structures I mention are present in all aspects of observed life, can we say that structure does not apply to our circumstances? If not, then we are essentially saying we are a special case, that this reality is special. Also see my use of numbers and the structure of "collections" to represent my proposed model of existence.

I rather think it does give more than just "you need to believe in unicorns because I say so". I'm not making up observable structures of things nor am I inventing the act of substituting numbers to model things in life. It's something children do subconsciously before they learn 1 + 1.

On 5/4/2022 at 11:30 AM, iNow said:

Most of philosophy begins with defining our terms. So, define “god” in a unambiguous way. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Lol you've got some sass, I'll give you that. I don't care to define God. Doesn't interest me.

However, I'm still waiting for you to pick apart some of my stuff that you've ignored. Still waiting.

No seriously, though, that's why I go onto forums every now and then. To get people to pick things apart. You're in good company because I've been waiting forever.

On 5/4/2022 at 10:57 PM, swansont said:

It’s because people invariably try to inject religion into science discussions, which is inappropriate. There is also a tendency to over-reach regarding claims about how the world work, that don’t have scientific backing. Those can be rebutted by science.

Note that what I said was not in reference to any scientific evidence regarding the existence of a supreme being. Just the definition of theory. You had an explanation. The problem with “A explains B” is that it’s inconclusive if C, D and E also explain B. Scientific reasoning, even if it’s not science.

Ironically enough, this was my attempt to inject some rationality into religious discussions. It didn't go down well with the theists I presented it to.

Then again rationality and reason are not things some theists understand. I once had a lady try to tell me that if she gave car keys to her drunk friend, her friend would get done for DUI and not her, hence absolving her of any culpability. I said, well you wouldn't get done for DUI, but if they died you would bear some onus. This was in response to my interjection that God did bear some culpability for both our good and our sins if God did indeed create us piece by piece, impulse by impulse.

On 5/4/2022 at 11:29 AM, Genady said:

This is a common question here. The answer is that study of religion is a scientific discipline as explained e.g. here:

Religious studies - Wikipedia

Thank you for the link.

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

Ironically enough, this was my attempt to inject some rationality into religious discussions. It didn't go down well with the theists I presented it to.

Did they object to your faulty logic? Or was it something else?