Guest end3 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Was just trying to convey that our ability to predict is limited.....and wonderfully so when prediction approaches infinity....i.e God. We fool ourselves that we know something at the moment.....like this conversation about good and evil. Hell, we can't even define good and evil except for "they are human constructs"....real, but not really. But ultimately, they are real because they are real, instantaneous physical, and invoke physical change. We appear at some verge of qualification, but are simultaneously a long way from understanding. Where did I make a prediction about infinity? You made a specific claim about me. That you were talking about my action was the clearest part about that cryptic statement you made. On the other hand you are the one who claims you know the infinite creator of the universe so stop and ask yourself who is really making a prediction about infinity. "The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty." So this is a load of crap, isn't it? I said it was fool-hearty to come to a conclusion. You have come to a conclusion, or am I just misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 And someone explain to me a human construct in a factual context. Surely y'all can do this. (Oh I forgot, the burden is always on me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Was just trying to convey that our ability to predict is limited.....and wonderfully so when prediction approaches infinity....i.e God. We fool ourselves that we know something at the moment.....like this conversation about good and evil. Hell, we can't even define good and evil except for "they are human constructs"....real, but not really. But ultimately, they are real because they are real, instantaneous physical, and invoke physical change. We appear at some verge of qualification, but are simultaneously a long way from understanding. Where did I make a prediction about infinity? You made a specific claim about me. That you were talking about my action was the clearest part about that cryptic statement you made. On the other hand you are the one who claims you know the infinite creator of the universe so stop and ask yourself who is really making a prediction about infinity. "The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty." So this is a load of crap, isn't it? I said it was fool-hearty to come to a conclusion. You have come to a conclusion, or am I just misunderstanding. You are the one who thinks there is an infinite heaven, an infinite hell, an infinite creator. I don't. You are the one making infinite predictions. Not making an infinite prediction is not somehow magically making an infinite prediction. Now look at how foolharty you said it was to make such predictions. Are you going to question your beliefs about this infinite God, heaven or hell? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/construct "2Construct: :something (such as an idea or theory ) that is formed in people's minds." (Oh I forgot, the burden is always on me) Only when you are the one claiming that your invisible friend created the universe, inspired the Bible and is going to extract infinite judgment on all people. It's your delusion, why should anybody share it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Was just trying to convey that our ability to predict is limited.....and wonderfully so when prediction approaches infinity....i.e God. We fool ourselves that we know something at the moment.....like this conversation about good and evil. Hell, we can't even define good and evil except for "they are human constructs"....real, but not really. But ultimately, they are real because they are real, instantaneous physical, and invoke physical change. We appear at some verge of qualification, but are simultaneously a long way from understanding. Where did I make a prediction about infinity? You made a specific claim about me. That you were talking about my action was the clearest part about that cryptic statement you made. On the other hand you are the one who claims you know the infinite creator of the universe so stop and ask yourself who is really making a prediction about infinity. "The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty." So this is a load of crap, isn't it? I said it was fool-hearty to come to a conclusion. You have come to a conclusion, or am I just misunderstanding. You are the one who thinks there is an infinite heaven, an infinite hell, an infinite creator. I don't. You are the one making infinite predictions. Not making an infinite prediction is not somehow magically making an infinite prediction. Now look at how foolharty you said it was to make such predictions. Are you going to question your beliefs about this infinite God, heaven or hell? Which one makes the most sense to you....which is ultimately more true. Predicting the infinite based on what we do know, or understanding we don't know and holding ourselves open to this knowledge. In other words, part of our knowledge base is understanding we don't know the infinite and never will. Do we heed this or not? Do we rationally accept this or not. Rationally accepting this, to me, means not declaring a complete understanding. You may disagree. As I have said, Christianity provides me with the best fit based on what we do know and balances with what we don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/construct "2Construct: :something (such as an idea or theory ) that is formed in people's minds." (Oh I forgot, the burden is always on me) Only when you are the one claiming that your invisible friend created the universe, inspired the Bible and is going to extract infinite judgment on all people. It's your delusion, why should anybody share it? the mind is a physical function....specifics??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Which one makes the most sense to you....which is ultimately more true. Predicting the infinite based on what we do know, or understanding we don't know and holding ourselves open to this knowledge. In other words, part of our knowledge base is understanding we don't know the infinite and never will. Do we heed this or not? Do we rationally accept this or not. Rationally accepting this, to me, means not declaring a complete understanding. You may disagree. As I have said, Christianity provides me with the best fit based on what we do know and balances with what we don't know. You have no business using the word "rationally" in a sentence. Christianity does not give you any kind of a fit because you cannot provide any legitimate answers. However you were brainwashed so when you box yourself into a corner you go back to your brainwashing. I have made no prediction about infinity. Notice how you changed it to "conclusion" when I called you on your bullshit? But not believing in God isn't a prediction about the infinite. And you do not hold yourself open to the knowledge that Zeus is real and the king of the gods. You don't hold yourself open to the knowledge that Ra is the real God. You don't hold yourself open to the knowledge that any of the tens of thousands of other gods might be the real God. So your reasoning is bullshit. You reject all the religions that fall outside of your brainwashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/construct "2Construct: :something (such as an idea or theory ) that is formed in people's minds." (Oh I forgot, the burden is always on me) Only when you are the one claiming that your invisible friend created the universe, inspired the Bible and is going to extract infinite judgment on all people. It's your delusion, why should anybody share it? the mind is a physical function....specifics??? That doesn't follow. What are you bullshiting about now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Which one makes the most sense to you....which is ultimately more true. Predicting the infinite based on what we do know, or understanding we don't know and holding ourselves open to this knowledge. In other words, part of our knowledge base is understanding we don't know the infinite and never will. Do we heed this or not? Do we rationally accept this or not. Rationally accepting this, to me, means not declaring a complete understanding. You may disagree. As I have said, Christianity provides me with the best fit based on what we do know and balances with what we don't know. You have no business using the word "rationally" in a sentence. Christianity does not give you any kind of a fit because you cannot provide any legitimate answers. However you were brainwashed so when you box yourself into a corner you go back to your brainwashing. I have made no prediction about infinity. Notice how you changed it to "conclusion" when I called you on your bullshit? But not believing in God isn't a prediction about the infinite. And you do not hold yourself open to the knowledge that Zeus is real and the king of the gods. You don't hold yourself open to the knowledge that Ra is the real God. You don't hold yourself open to the knowledge that any of the tens of thousands of other gods might be the real God. So your reasoning is bullshit. You reject all the religions that fall outside of your brainwashing. As Chris says, that's a cogent answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/construct "2Construct: :something (such as an idea or theory ) that is formed in people's minds." (Oh I forgot, the burden is always on me) Only when you are the one claiming that your invisible friend created the universe, inspired the Bible and is going to extract infinite judgment on all people. It's your delusion, why should anybody share it? the mind is a physical function....specifics??? That doesn't follow. What are you bullshiting about now? You just said the mind forms a idea or theory....."mind forms", "mind forms". There then has to be a series of chemical reactions that are associated with the ideas of good and the ideas of evil. Do you know these chemical reactions, the mechanism for development, etc??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 There are many examples, I'm sure, about reductionism, epigenetics, etc., that we have attempted to discuss before. You always default to the what you just wrote. It's a copout. No. It's the rules of language, logic and evidence. Rules which you refuse to abide by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 And someone explain to me a human construct in a factual context. Surely y'all can do this. (Oh I forgot, the burden is always on me) No. that's not correct, End. The burden is on you when you make an unsubstantiated or unsupported claim/assertion. Not always. Please learn the rules and abide by them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Do you know these chemical reactions, the mechanism for development, etc??? I'm not a neurologist and this is way off topic. If you want to talk about God's ways are not our ways then you know where to find me. The God of the Old Testament is an evil monster. The God of the New Testament is a "sinner" and as sadistic monster. Believing in either one is making a prediction about the infinite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/construct "2Construct: :something (such as an idea or theory ) that is formed in people's minds." (Oh I forgot, the burden is always on me) Only when you are the one claiming that your invisible friend created the universe, inspired the Bible and is going to extract infinite judgment on all people. It's your delusion, why should anybody share it? the mind is a physical function....specifics??? We have precedence over you, End. We asked for specifics to justify your claims. It falls to you to satisfy our requirements before you ask us anything. Please learn the rules and abide by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 And someone explain to me a human construct in a factual context. Surely y'all can do this. (Oh I forgot, the burden is always on me) No. that's not correct, End. The burden is on you when you make an unsubstantiated or unsupported claim/assertion. Not always. Please learn the rules and abide by them The reason it's called a "human construct" is simply because we don't know the mechanisms to call it any other thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Do you know these chemical reactions, the mechanism for development, etc??? I'm not a neurologist and this is way off topic. If you want to talk about God's ways are not our ways then you know where to find me. The God of the Old Testament is an evil monster. The God of the New Testament is a "sinner" and as sadistic monster. Believing in either one is making a prediction about the infinite. Oh good god. It's not off topic, it's where the topic has evolved. Get back to me when science can make a prediction about the infinite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Was just trying to convey that our ability to predict is limited.....and wonderfully so when prediction approaches infinity....i.e God. We fool ourselves that we know something at the moment.....like this conversation about good and evil. Hell, we can't even define good and evil except for "they are human constructs"....real, but not really. But ultimately, they are real because they are real, instantaneous physical, and invoke physical change. We appear at some verge of qualification, but are simultaneously a long way from understanding. Where did I make a prediction about infinity? You made a specific claim about me. That you were talking about my action was the clearest part about that cryptic statement you made. On the other hand you are the one who claims you know the infinite creator of the universe so stop and ask yourself who is really making a prediction about infinity. "The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty." So this is a load of crap, isn't it? I said it was fool-hearty to come to a conclusion. You have come to a conclusion, or am I just misunderstanding. You are the one who thinks there is an infinite heaven, an infinite hell, an infinite creator. I don't. You are the one making infinite predictions. Not making an infinite prediction is not somehow magically making an infinite prediction. Now look at how foolharty you said it was to make such predictions. Are you going to question your beliefs about this infinite God, heaven or hell? Which one makes the most sense to you....which is ultimately more true. Using what makes more sense to anyone is an invalid method of discovering truth. Predicting the infinite based on what we do know, or understanding we don't know and holding ourselves open to this knowledge. In other words, part of our knowledge base is understanding we don't know the infinite and never will. Do we heed this or not? Do we rationally accept this or not. Rationally accepting this, to me, means not declaring a complete understanding. You may disagree. As I have said, Christianity provides me with the best fit based on what we do know and balances with what we don't know. And you still haven't justified your 'best fit' claim, End. Please play by the rules and do so, before raising new points and asking us questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 The reason it's called a "human construct" is simply because we don't know the mechanisms to call it any other thing. Wrong! The reason we call them constructs is because we know exactly what a construct is and these two concepts fit that definition exactly. We call them constructs because they fit the definition, in other words because they are constructs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Do you know these chemical reactions, the mechanism for development, etc??? I'm not a neurologist and this is way off topic. If you want to talk about God's ways are not our ways then you know where to find me. The God of the Old Testament is an evil monster. The God of the New Testament is a "sinner" and as sadistic monster. Believing in either one is making a prediction about the infinite. Oh good god. It's not off topic, it's where the topic has evolved. Get back to me when science can make a prediction about the infinite. No, the topic has not evolved to following the path of neurons through the various structures of the brain. You are trying to dodge down a rabbit hole because you have lost all hope in the current discussion. If science can't make a prediction about the infinite then what does that say about any wild guess predictions from your religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 And someone explain to me a human construct in a factual context. Surely y'all can do this. (Oh I forgot, the burden is always on me) No. that's not correct, End. The burden is on you when you make an unsubstantiated or unsupported claim/assertion. Not always. Please learn the rules and abide by them The reason it's called a "human construct" is simply because we don't know the mechanisms to call it any other thing. Are you saying that all human constructs are invalid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 The reason it's called a "human construct" is simply because we don't know the mechanisms to call it any other thing. Wrong! The reason we call them constructs is because we know exactly what a construct is and these two concepts fit that definition exactly. We call them constructs because they fit the definition, in other words because they are constructs. I'm sorry but I can't help but call you an idiot. I tried, Lord knows I tried. But you are an idiot. We call it the mind because we have defined it as "the mind" but that doesn't mean we know the mind "exactly". I'm sorry MM, I tried. I could not overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I'm sorry but I can't help but call you an idiot. I tried, Lord knows I tried. But you are an idiot. We call it the mind because we have defined it as "the mind" but that doesn't mean we know the mind "exactly". I'm sorry MM, I tried. I could not overcome. Because accepting the reality that you are wrong is a truth you cannot bear to face. You would rather wallow in delusion than consider that you have deluded yourself. @Anybody else who was trying to follow the conversation: The two constructs I was talking about were "good" and "evil". End3 changed it to "mind" in a desperate attempt to get out of the trap he created for himself. I never claimed to know the mind. End3 made up that part just now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted September 13, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted September 13, 2015 Maybe I'm just a simple country doctor, but it seems to me this recurring argument is nothing more than the "god of the gaps" position. Did I miss anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Maybe I'm just a simple country doctor, but it seems to me this recurring argument is nothing more than the "god of the gaps" position. Did I miss anything? Yeah, acknowledging that science has one big huge gap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yunea Posted September 13, 2015 Author Share Posted September 13, 2015 Maybe I'm just a simple country doctor, but it seems to me this recurring argument is nothing more than the "god of the gaps" position. Did I miss anything? Seems quite a bit like that to me too. Both sides acknowledge there are gaps, but only one side feels the need to fill them with a god. Not understanding something doesn't mean there's magic involved. It only means we're not understanding it - and in many cases one can also add a "just yet", as well. It's a curious thing how never once yet has the scientific answer to a mystery turned out to be "it's god's work". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts