God didn't do it

[Storm]

I'm going to look into the unknown and without having the answers decide that fairies did it. You can't prove it wrong cause nobody knows anything about unknowns. You just can't see that fairies started the universe and hold everything together with fairy dust cause it is all invisible. I call this the fairies of the gaps. To me absence of proof should be a logical reason to dismiss something exists. Just arbitrarily sticking a supernatural realm behind reality is just like saying we haven't explored every inch of the universe so supernatural is there where we haven't looked yet and have yet to discover.

Translation: you don't have a rebuttal, but won't concede the point.

YEC tactic.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not actually defending the argument, just trying to illustrate that it's not necessarily GotG.

But it is a GotG. Without the gap of a fuse needing to be lit, there is no reason to posit a god lighting it.

 

[idav]

Translation: you don't have a rebuttal, but won't concede the point.

You ignored it twice now.

 

[Jose Fly]

To use Jose's phrasing, science can never "show that the universe "pulled its own trigger" or that there wasn't even a trigger to be pulled."

I said the exact opposite. According to Stephen Hawking, science has done exactly that, and without invoking any deities.

 

[Storm]

But it is a GotG. Without the gap of a fuse needing to be lit, there is no reason to posit a god lighting it.

The fuse/ lack thereof is an unprovable opinion.

You ignored it twice now.

I ignored nothing. I've responded to every point I've seen. If I missed one, I'm happy to address it, but mockery will get you nowhere.

 

[Storm]

I said the exact opposite. According to Stephen Hawking, science has done exactly that, and without invoking any deities.

I was borrowing your phrase, not attributing my opinions to you.

We disagree, but the quote articulated the point quite well.

No offense or misrepresentation intended.

 

[Jose Fly]

The fuse/ lack thereof is an unprovable opinion.

Ok, and since you first mentioned it as a descriptor of your dad's deism, I guess we can dispense with it.

I was borrowing your phrase, not attributing my opinions to you.

You borrowed it to make the exact opposite point that I used it for. But whatever...

Getting back to the original point, the cosmological argument is indeed a GotG argument. I have yet to see anyone formulate it in such a way that it isn't.

 

[idav]

I ignored nothing. I've responded to every point I've seen. If I missed one, I'm happy to address it, but mockery will get you nowhere.

Sorry, in defense of the yec comment.

Anyway, what I've seen is argument that anything we find cause for, there is no way of proving that god (or fairies) still isn't involved is another way of saying we have more realms to explore cause there might just be some supernatural realm hiding that we having found yet. I know people want to believe in the supernatural and explain every single thing that seems unexplainable and with our wonderful imaginations it just comes natural.

 

[Storm]

OK, guys. I'm kinda busy with mod stuff atm, but if you're amenable, I think we should all start over, or agree to disagree.

Shall I summarize my arguments, or should we just let this go? I'm cool either way.

 

[Acim]

So part of my questioning is where do persons vary on where god influences?

I know I'm isolating this quote a bit, and is something that goes back a few pages, but it also seems to be recurring inquiry.

For me, the God influence in this world comes in terms of forgiveness.

I think that will be seen as "having nothing to do" with the Creationist / Evolutionist topic that is intrinsic to this thread. In my understanding, there is direct correlation, though would take awhile and would very likely be different tangents than Creationists arguments that I am familiar with.

I will say, that forgiveness is an illusion that greatly aids in escaping the fundamental illusion that we are, here in this universe, separate from God (aka our Creator).

I don't wish to proselytize (too much) here. I would just say that in understanding this, it is necessary to put away old school interpretations on many things, not the least of which is forgiveness. You essentially are forgiving you're own self for what amounts to an attack on God, but a) God (of my understanding) doesn't see it as attack and b) until the fundamental error is truly forgiven (that I am separate from God), it will, IMX, show up as forgiveness of "others" and have next to nothing to do with Creator.

I believe I understand the fundamental error intellectually, I am still working on correcting it in terms of experience.

I wish to reiterate that this really really does relate, for me, to what I read in OP and is ongoing discussion in this this thread, though I recognize we (humanity) are having a whole other side discussion that makes the one I am bringing up, seem incompatible to "god of gaps" rhetoric.

God's not hiding, period.

He sure has fooled a lot of us if he is right in front of us.

I find it foolish to not look within. "In front of us" is a non sequitur if understanding fundamental error (belief in separation).

I have asked many times elsewhere, where is the objective evidence for the physical, with the stipulation that you / we cannot use physical senses as part of "objective" proof? Leaps of logic are made in this establishment, which I assert ultimately rests on faith. And yet, I don't care to dispute this, as I'm okay with idea I am in a body (now). But I cannot provide objective evidence of this.

I will also just add that scientific explanation, more often than not, is telling us what and how, and rarely why. Why can be more challenging especially when having awareness of what is behind that sort of inquiry. But why can be had, and science generally doesn't do this, in way that works for me. This doesn't mean I don't think scientific research and practice is "bad." It does mean I look to alternative explanations, i.e. theosophy or art for the why that works for me. Perhaps not 100%, but enough of the time.

 

[idav]

OK, guys. I'm kinda busy with mod stuff atm, but if you're amenable, I think we should all start over, or agree to disagree.

Shall I summarize my arguments, or should we just let this go? I'm cool either way.

I understand your viewpoint though I disagree with some details that fall in the unknown region. I appreciate you hashing it out with me.

 

[Orias]

I'm going to look into the unknown and without having the answers decide that fairies did it.

It is a shame that people do that. Just like its a shame that people actually think there is objectional material behind their quagmire of metaphysical words.

You can't prove it wrong cause nobody knows anything about unknowns.

You can't prove anything right or wrong because nobody knows anything about anything.

You just can't see that fairies started the universe and hold everything together with fairy dust cause it is all invisible. I call this the fairies of the gaps.

Is this supposed to be a comparison to dark matter/energy?

To me absence of proof should be a logical reason to dismiss something exists.

Thats asinine, its like assuming the door is locked without proofing it. But you wouldn't care to do that, since you already dismissed it.

Just arbitrarily sticking a supernatural realm behind reality is just like saying we haven't explored every inch of the universe so supernatural is there where we haven't looked yet and have yet to discover.

Well anything outside of what we have distinguished as natural within our own world is considered "supernatural", so its hardly arbitrary. Its just that supernatural is misleading, and comes with a plethora of biases, and is most commonly tied in with Christian dogma.

I don't see how saying the Opposite is doing anything to gain the upperhand of this dichotomy, since you are essentially doing the same exact thing that you claim others are doing.

I wonder where balance comes in within this role...

 

[Storm]

I understand your viewpoint though I disagree with some details that fall in the unknown region. I appreciate you hashing it out with me.

Yeah, I'm having a great time! :yes: Do you want to continue?

That said, I've been all over the place. Sorry bout that.

 

[idav]

Thats asinine, its like assuming the door is locked without proofing it. But you wouldn't care to do that, since you already dismissed it.




Well anything outside of what we have distinguished as natural within our own world is considered "supernatural", so its hardly arbitrary. Its just that supernatural is misleading, and comes with a plethora of biases, and is most commonly tied in with Christian dogma.

I don't see how saying the Opposite is doing anything to gain the upperhand of this dichotomy, since you are essentially doing the same exact thing that you claim others are doing.

I wonder where balance comes in within this role...

Haha, I knew there was a reason I'm not atheist at the same time as not believing in supernatural. Nevertheless I find that the person with the upperhand would be the one with no need to rely on faith based claims.

 

[idav]

Yeah, I'm having a great time! :yes: Do you want to continue?

That said, I've been all over the place. Sorry bout that.

Sure, I don't see why not.

The last argument I presented was that claiming of supernatural as necessity behind our reality or even the beginning of the universe is relying on gaps of knowledge saying that we just haven't explored all the realms of existence. Is there a reason we should believe there are other realms of existence where a god can transcend to?

 

[Jose Fly]

I be leaving for the weekend. Happy 4th!

 

[Storm]

Sure, I don't see why not.

The last argument I presented was that claiming of supernatural as necessity behind our reality or even the beginning of the universe is relying on gaps of knowledge saying that we just haven't explored all the realms of existence. Is there a reason we should believe there are other realms of existence where a god can transcend to?

AH!

I don't think it's a necessity. Some people think it's the truth, others don't, and we're all just speculating.

 

[Storm]

I be leaving for the weekend. Happy 4th!

You too, doll!

 

[Orias]

Haha, I knew there was a reason I'm not atheist at the same time as not believing in supernatural.

Thats what makes us pantheists

Nevertheless I find that the person with the upperhand would be the one with no need to rely on faith based claims.

Haha, most of them don't.

I met a priest once who didn't believe in "God", it was just a job to him.

You'll come to observe that most manipulators don't believe in their own devices, though the most worshipped and followed actually seem to believe in their own devices.

I think that a good definition of reality could be manipulation, since what do we truly know outside of ourselves (considering everything man has created and brought into existence), and invocation.

The earliest found translation for the word "God" comes from the ancient Sankskrit word (dating back over 15,000 years ago) "Hu" or diety, which roughly translates into to invoke, to implore, to call upon. I'd say thats the original feeling you get when trying to comprehend such a being, wonderment. I'd say thats sincere enough for me, but I don't know about you.

To invoke something is to delve into the Aspect that we separate from and pull out of oblivion.

 

[Thief]

Thats what makes us pantheists




Haha, most of them don't.

I met a priest once who didn't believe in "God", it was just a job to him.

You'll come to observe that most manipulators don't believe in their own devices, though the most worshipped and followed actually seem to believe in their own devices.

I think that a good definition of reality could be manipulation, since what do we truly know outside of ourselves (considering everything man has created and brought into existence), and invocation.

The earliest found translation for the word "God" comes from the ancient Sankskrit word (dating back over 15,000 years ago) "Hu" or diety, which roughly translates into to invoke, to implore, to call upon. I'd say thats the original feeling you get when trying to comprehend such a being, wonderment. I'd say thats sincere enough for me, but I don't know about you.

To invoke something is to delve into the Aspect that we separate from and pull out of oblivion.

So do you believe in an afterlife....with a God and angels waiting....
to see what stands up from the dust?