"Our Universe's space-time can very well be expanding within the infinite space-time.
There's no way to know that it's not the case, so you can't shut down that possibility and insert a super powerful conscious entity in there."
I could just as easily say you can't insert an infinite space time theory when we have reason to believe this to be so. Cosmologists like sean carrol are on the defensive. I agree with alot of the off hand points he made about theism and general science, but wasn't impressed with his dissmisal of the contrary.
"So you think that space-time existing since all eternity and for all eternity is more of a stretch than the existence of a conscious, Universe-creating, eternal entity?
Occam's Razor, dude... which is simpler?"
Seeing how eternal universe theory has been demostratedly unestablished (even by your friend sean carrol here), and just the impossability of self existing naturalism. I'll side with a creator. Where we find B, there is always and A. Why wouldn't the universe follow the same logic?
"Yes I am serious. Anyone can quote or study "facts" and then draw whatever crazy conclusions they choose to. Facts alone don't bring you closer to understanding the world around you."
I agree, deductive reasoning is essential. What does this have to do with what i was saying. You are still missing the point
"Case in point - why not consider one of the most famous assassinations in the history of the world: the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans. Most classicists think that Pilate snuffed him out for becoming unruly at the Jerusalem temple where he may have also become violent. That's deduced from an understanding of the ancient world that looks beyond what his followers passed on about the ordeal. So, facts only tell you so much."
How is a crucifixion an assassination? Sources please.
"I think I can see your point. For example, if we are all a product of this creator, then we would naturally possess its various attributes and be subject to its laws. As a result, making use of reason, logic, and comprehending immaterial laws will help people on their quest for objective truth, because they are using the tools of their creator; this validates the means by which these people pursue truth. However, I feel that this ultimately has validity to a specific population of people, namely those who subscribe to supernaturalism."
The claim isn't that athiests can't count, the claim is they can't account for there counting. You want to see a prime example of what happens when people can't justify the use of objectivity? Go back and look at all the self contradictions. Or visit my new thread on the topic, and see all the anti-intellectual brain barf being spewed around trying to shut me up.
"This website presents concrete evidence of secular and non-theistic people who are logical and rational and who understand immaterial laws; yet, the supernatural has no validity or personal relevance to them. IMO, this suggests that these traits need not be associated with the supernatural; people can cultivate them just fine without it. However, to be fair, theists and non-theists ultimately use rationality to make their arguments and understand reality, yet neither side has a definitive, conclusive answer. Hence, since rationality, whether it be applied through a supernatural or natural lens, is presently incapable of unraveling and explaining the mysteries and secrets of reality, would you say that there are other ways to search for truth and understand reality that are outside of rationality and have not been discovered yet? Perhaps neither side is going about their search in the right way?"
Okay so you understand this already, the difference is you don't see supernaturalism as a better justification then the brain justifying the brain is that it? And to answer your question, i think it's clear it has to be one or the other. Now i asked you earlier:
"There are only two possible answers to this problem. Either matter made mind, or mind made matter. Supernatural cause, or natural cause. All theory will fall into either of these catagories would you agree?"
Please stick with me on this kernel, your aproach is a breath of fresh air
There's no way to know that it's not the case, so you can't shut down that possibility and insert a super powerful conscious entity in there."
I could just as easily say you can't insert an infinite space time theory when we have reason to believe this to be so. Cosmologists like sean carrol are on the defensive. I agree with alot of the off hand points he made about theism and general science, but wasn't impressed with his dissmisal of the contrary.
"So you think that space-time existing since all eternity and for all eternity is more of a stretch than the existence of a conscious, Universe-creating, eternal entity?
Occam's Razor, dude... which is simpler?"
Seeing how eternal universe theory has been demostratedly unestablished (even by your friend sean carrol here), and just the impossability of self existing naturalism. I'll side with a creator. Where we find B, there is always and A. Why wouldn't the universe follow the same logic?
"Yes I am serious. Anyone can quote or study "facts" and then draw whatever crazy conclusions they choose to. Facts alone don't bring you closer to understanding the world around you."
I agree, deductive reasoning is essential. What does this have to do with what i was saying. You are still missing the point
"Case in point - why not consider one of the most famous assassinations in the history of the world: the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans. Most classicists think that Pilate snuffed him out for becoming unruly at the Jerusalem temple where he may have also become violent. That's deduced from an understanding of the ancient world that looks beyond what his followers passed on about the ordeal. So, facts only tell you so much."
How is a crucifixion an assassination? Sources please.
"I think I can see your point. For example, if we are all a product of this creator, then we would naturally possess its various attributes and be subject to its laws. As a result, making use of reason, logic, and comprehending immaterial laws will help people on their quest for objective truth, because they are using the tools of their creator; this validates the means by which these people pursue truth. However, I feel that this ultimately has validity to a specific population of people, namely those who subscribe to supernaturalism."
The claim isn't that athiests can't count, the claim is they can't account for there counting. You want to see a prime example of what happens when people can't justify the use of objectivity? Go back and look at all the self contradictions. Or visit my new thread on the topic, and see all the anti-intellectual brain barf being spewed around trying to shut me up.
"This website presents concrete evidence of secular and non-theistic people who are logical and rational and who understand immaterial laws; yet, the supernatural has no validity or personal relevance to them. IMO, this suggests that these traits need not be associated with the supernatural; people can cultivate them just fine without it. However, to be fair, theists and non-theists ultimately use rationality to make their arguments and understand reality, yet neither side has a definitive, conclusive answer. Hence, since rationality, whether it be applied through a supernatural or natural lens, is presently incapable of unraveling and explaining the mysteries and secrets of reality, would you say that there are other ways to search for truth and understand reality that are outside of rationality and have not been discovered yet? Perhaps neither side is going about their search in the right way?"
Okay so you understand this already, the difference is you don't see supernaturalism as a better justification then the brain justifying the brain is that it? And to answer your question, i think it's clear it has to be one or the other. Now i asked you earlier:
"There are only two possible answers to this problem. Either matter made mind, or mind made matter. Supernatural cause, or natural cause. All theory will fall into either of these catagories would you agree?"
Please stick with me on this kernel, your aproach is a breath of fresh air
