God's Ways Are Not Our Ways Vs. The Knowledge Of Good And Evil

[Guest end3]

Here's one for you Chris. You say science has tested the waters and the mountains. But science also speculates on a multiverse. And the Bible touts levels of Heaven. You given thought that God might be sitting at the bar in the new hottest club in universe #72?

 

Probably not....simple country docs don't get that deep.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

So science can make confirmed predictions about everything else but the infinite and you're ready to disregard and deny it all?

 

That impossible condition is the only thing you'll accept before you acknowledge science's validity?

 

It's perfection or nothing?

 

Not at all. Just would like people to quit POSTURING like perfection....including me.

[bornagainathiest]

 

MM, how many examples must I cite where one day science says X and people move their behavior in one direction only to find out later that a new study finds a contrary stance.

 

 

Anything that changes and improves itself is invalid because it changes and improves itself?

 

Conversely, anything that doesn't change must be valid?

 

Really?

[bornagainathiest]

 

Not at all. Just would like people to quit POSTURING like perfection....including me.

 

 

Catch is End, when I cite something or link to it, I'm faithfully reporting what's been found or discovered or confirmed.

 

THAT'S not posturing!

 

THAT'S accurate reportage.

 

If you can't handle the facts, that's not my problem.

[bornagainathiest]

Now, answer the question.  (3rd time of asking)

 

Are you saying that all human constructs are invalid?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Exact knowledge isn't necessary to acquire a good, working knowledge of the mind.

 

For example, I've never personally met anyone on this forum, but I've acquired a good, working knowledge of how certain people think by carefully reading what they post.

 

Quite why knowledge becomes invalid to you because it's inexact/imperfect/incomplete is a mystery to me.

 

By definition, imperfect and incomplete knowledge is all humans will ever have of anything - yet it's a historically undeniable fact that we now know more about the way reality works today, than we did a century ago.

 

Unless, of course, you want to deny the historical record of science's advances too? 

 

 

(Bump!)

[Guest end3]

Now, answer the question.  (3rd time of asking)

 

Are you saying that all human constructs are invalid?

I'm saying that the definition of a "human construct" is short for we don't fucking know.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Now, answer the question.  (3rd time of asking)

 

Are you saying that all human constructs are invalid?

I'm saying that the definition of a "human construct" is short for we don't fucking know.

 

 

Please answer the question (with a Yes or No) as it was phrased.

 

Are you saying that all human constructs are invalid?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

MM, how many examples must I cite where one day science says X and people move their behavior in one direction only to find out later that a new study finds a contrary stance.

 

 

Anything that changes and improves itself is invalid because it changes and improves itself?

 

Conversely, anything that doesn't change must be valid?

 

Really?

 

 

(Bump!)

[Guest end3]

 

 

Now, answer the question.  (3rd time of asking)

 

Are you saying that all human constructs are invalid?

I'm saying that the definition of a "human construct" is short for we don't fucking know.

 

 

Please answer the question (with a Yes or No) as it was phrased.

 

Are you saying that all human constructs are invalid?

 

I don't know the complete list of human constructs so I have no idea. For good and evil, I have stated my opinion.

[bornagainathiest]

Alright, how about this, End?

 

You say that which is incomplete and imperfect is invalid, right?

 

So, since all human constructs are (by definition) incomplete and imperfect, they must therefore be invalid.

 

Is that what you're saying?

[florduh]

Here's one for you Chris. You say science has tested the waters and the mountains. But science also speculates on a multiverse. And the Bible touts levels of Heaven. You given thought that God might be sitting at the bar in the new hottest club in universe #72?

 

Probably not....simple country docs don't get that deep.

You think that is "deep?"

 

Look, science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will. But is does have many testable answers. "Information" that comes in a dream or revelation or feeling is simply guesswork and imagination, not any testable theory or final answer based on facts. Competing religious/spiritual doctrines always have and always will be in conflict because none have any evidence to support their divergent views of reality. Science has reached consensus countless times.

 

So could God be sitting at a bar in Universe #72? Well, scientists have theorized multiverses and theologians have theorized a god, so this is a nonsense question until at least one or the other is proven.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Exact knowledge isn't necessary to acquire a good, working knowledge of the mind.

 

For example, I've never personally met anyone on this forum, but I've acquired a good, working knowledge of how certain people think by carefully reading what they post.

 

Quite why knowledge becomes invalid to you because it's inexact/imperfect/incomplete is a mystery to me.

 

By definition, imperfect and incomplete knowledge is all humans will ever have of anything - yet it's a historically undeniable fact that we now know more about the way reality works today, than we did a century ago.

 

Unless, of course, you want to deny the historical record of science's advances too? 

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

Re-bumped!

 

Are you denying the historical record of science's advances?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

MM, how many examples must I cite where one day science says X and people move their behavior in one direction only to find out later that a new study finds a contrary stance.

 

 

Anything that changes and improves itself is invalid because it changes and improves itself?

 

Conversely, anything that doesn't change must be valid?

 

Really?

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

Re-bumped!  Please answer!

[Guest end3]

 

Here's one for you Chris. You say science has tested the waters and the mountains. But science also speculates on a multiverse. And the Bible touts levels of Heaven. You given thought that God might be sitting at the bar in the new hottest club in universe #72?

 

Probably not....simple country docs don't get that deep.

You think that is "deep?"

 

Look, science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will. But is does have many testable answers. "Information" that comes in a dream or revelation or feeling is simply guesswork and imagination, not any testable theory or final answer based on facts. Competing religious/spiritual doctrines always have and always will be in conflict because none have any evidence to support their divergent views of reality. Science has reached consensus countless times.

 

So could God be sitting at a bar in Universe #72? Well, scientists have theorized multiverses and theologians have theorized a god, so this is a nonsense question until at least one or the other is proven.

 

Then why the dedication to nonsense now if it hasn't been "proven"?

[Guest end3]

Alright, how about this, End?

 

You say that which is incomplete and imperfect is invalid, right?

 

So, since all human constructs are (by definition) incomplete and imperfect, they must therefore be invalid.

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

I don't like the word invalid. How about labeled for having no better understanding. Kind of like a folder in your file cabinet named "good" or "evil" without much in the folders.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Here's one for you Chris. You say science has tested the waters and the mountains. But science also speculates on a multiverse. And the Bible touts levels of Heaven. You given thought that God might be sitting at the bar in the new hottest club in universe #72?

 

Probably not....simple country docs don't get that deep.

You think that is "deep?"

 

Look, science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will. But is does have many testable answers. "Information" that comes in a dream or revelation or feeling is simply guesswork and imagination, not any testable theory or final answer based on facts. Competing religious/spiritual doctrines always have and always will be in conflict because none have any evidence to support their divergent views of reality. Science has reached consensus countless times.

 

So could God be sitting at a bar in Universe #72? Well, scientists have theorized multiverses and theologians have theorized a god, so this is a nonsense question until at least one or the other is proven.

 

Then why the dedication to nonsense now if it hasn't been "proven"?

 

 

Science never seeks to prove anything.

 

Proof would require perfect and absolute knowledge and that's impossible for any human.

 

So please stop asking science to attain a perfect standard, when you know no human can get there.

 

Setting the bar to infinity is just wrong!

[bornagainathiest]

 

Alright, how about this, End?

 

You say that which is incomplete and imperfect is invalid, right?

 

So, since all human constructs are (by definition) incomplete and imperfect, they must therefore be invalid.

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

I don't like the word invalid. How about labeled for having no better understanding. Kind of like a folder in your file cabinet named "good" or "evil" without much in the folders.

 

 

There are rules and abiding by them means using the correct words, correctly and in their correct context.

 

In this case, the correct word to use in this question (and in your answer) is 'invalid'.

 

I'm sorry if you don't like it End, but there are right ways and wrong ways of doing things.

 

Invalid is the right way.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Alright, how about this, End?

 

You say that which is incomplete and imperfect is invalid, right?

 

So, since all human constructs are (by definition) incomplete and imperfect, they must therefore be invalid.

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

I don't like the word invalid. How about labeled for having no better understanding. Kind of like a folder in your file cabinet named "good" or "evil" without much in the folders.

 

 

There are rules and abiding by them means using the correct words, correctly and in their correct context.

 

In this case, the correct word to use in this question (and in your answer) is 'invalid'.

 

I'm sorry if you don't like it End, but there are right ways and wrong ways of doing things.

 

Invalid is the right way.

 

No, invalid is not right. It's valid in that they named this thing they don't understand. This doesn't mean at all that the definition "human construct" is invalid.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Here's one for you Chris. You say science has tested the waters and the mountains. But science also speculates on a multiverse. And the Bible touts levels of Heaven. You given thought that God might be sitting at the bar in the new hottest club in universe #72?

 

Probably not....simple country docs don't get that deep.

You think that is "deep?"

 

Look, science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will. But is does have many testable answers. "Information" that comes in a dream or revelation or feeling is simply guesswork and imagination, not any testable theory or final answer based on facts. Competing religious/spiritual doctrines always have and always will be in conflict because none have any evidence to support their divergent views of reality. Science has reached consensus countless times.

 

So could God be sitting at a bar in Universe #72? Well, scientists have theorized multiverses and theologians have theorized a god, so this is a nonsense question until at least one or the other is proven.

 

Then why the dedication to nonsense now if it hasn't been "proven"?

 

 

Science never seeks to prove anything.

 

Proof would require perfect and absolute knowledge and that's impossible for any human.

 

So please stop asking science to attain a perfect standard, when you know no human can get there.

 

Setting the bar to infinity is just wrong!

 

You have heard "it's a proven fact"....you know, that confidence is extremely fucking high. What in the hell are you saying that science isn't trying to "prove" something. Is this a semantics exercise?

[mymistake]

 

Now, answer the question.  (3rd time of asking)

 

Are you saying that all human constructs are invalid?

I'm saying that the definition of a "human construct" is short for we don't fucking know.

 

 

 

Yet another opinion of yours where you are wrong.  That isn't what construct means.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Here's one for you Chris. You say science has tested the waters and the mountains. But science also speculates on a multiverse. And the Bible touts levels of Heaven. You given thought that God might be sitting at the bar in the new hottest club in universe #72?

 

Probably not....simple country docs don't get that deep.

You think that is "deep?"

 

Look, science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will. But is does have many testable answers. "Information" that comes in a dream or revelation or feeling is simply guesswork and imagination, not any testable theory or final answer based on facts. Competing religious/spiritual doctrines always have and always will be in conflict because none have any evidence to support their divergent views of reality. Science has reached consensus countless times.

 

So could God be sitting at a bar in Universe #72? Well, scientists have theorized multiverses and theologians have theorized a god, so this is a nonsense question until at least one or the other is proven.

 

Then why the dedication to nonsense now if it hasn't been "proven"?

 

 

Science never seeks to prove anything.

 

Proof would require perfect and absolute knowledge and that's impossible for any human.

 

So please stop asking science to attain a perfect standard, when you know no human can get there.

 

Setting the bar to infinity is just wrong!

 

You have heard "it's a proven fact"....you know, that confidence is extremely fucking high. What in the hell are you saying that science isn't trying to "prove" something. Is this a semantics exercise?

 

 

No.  It's about being correct.

 

Math is the only branch of the sciences that employs absolute proofs.  All the other branches provide explanations to as high a confidence as possible.  These other branches do NOT deal in proofs.

.

.

.

What you're doing here is taking inexact, popular phrases and elevating them to the status of binding requirements, so that if a certain website or magazine using the words, " a proven fact"... this MUST BE how science works.

 

Well it ain't so, friend!  

 

Do the work yourself and find out how science really works.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Now, answer the question.  (3rd time of asking)

 

Are you saying that all human constructs are invalid?

I'm saying that the definition of a "human construct" is short for we don't fucking know.

 

 

 

Yet another opinion of yours where you are wrong.  That isn't what construct means.

 

 

End3 is really just fighting against the idea that his sky fairies and his related religious dogma are simply human ideas, human inventions, human constructs.  "Oh Noes!", he says.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Alright, how about this, End?

 

You say that which is incomplete and imperfect is invalid, right?

 

So, since all human constructs are (by definition) incomplete and imperfect, they must therefore be invalid.

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

I don't like the word invalid. How about labeled for having no better understanding. Kind of like a folder in your file cabinet named "good" or "evil" without much in the folders.

 

 

There are rules and abiding by them means using the correct words, correctly and in their correct context.

 

In this case, the correct word to use in this question (and in your answer) is 'invalid'.

 

I'm sorry if you don't like it End, but there are right ways and wrong ways of doing things.

 

Invalid is the right way.

 

No, invalid is not right. It's valid in that they named this thing they don't understand. This doesn't mean at all that the definition "human construct" is invalid.

 

 

Ok, you won't play by any other rules than your own.

 

Fine.

 

Then in your own words End, try to articulate why incomplete and imperfect human constructs fail to satisfy your criteria.

 

To do that you'll need to articulate what your criteria are.

 

(Please note that perfection is not a valid criterion. Only things that are possible for humans to achieve are valid criteria.)

 

Go for it!

[StillLooking]

 

You have heard "it's a proven fact"....you know, that confidence is extremely fucking high. What in the hell are you saying that science isn't trying to "prove" something. Is this a semantics exercise?

 

 

In science, fact means having the same results from experiments carried out by different people at different locations (as long as the tests are within the same conditions) so for scientists to talk easily the results are taken as facts. However, it is possible that the facts are not hold true tomorrow only if somebody can test it and the result is different.

 

end3, I feel from your posts you are looking for something absolute to be held as your life compass. I also feel that you are very uncomfortable with uncertainties. Is this assessment correct?