Posts: 657
Threads: 2
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:34 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 6:55 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: How would you describe something that is without physical bounds or within complete human comprehension, in literal terms?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
How can you be certain such things exist at all? It dwells within us all. Dormant in most. It is causal to life, not just the physical trappings of it. There is some life force or energy that isn't simply the product of the physical parts, but is the reason for the parts, or what gives the parts purpose.
Everything happens for a reason. With that being said; significance is in what you do, not what you attain.
My personal knowledge of the soul or spirit will no doubt sound like lunacy or drivel to the third party. I only hope that through honest introspection, the selfless conscience, patience, lack of bias and pride, and the will of the Creator, that those actually, heartfully seeking, might find.
Peace
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:36 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2016 at 9:36 pm by Mystic.)
(January 7, 2016 at 9:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Ok I'm not going to quote cause I have hard time with that today.
You said how does it follow.
If a Creator can create morality/goodness out of nothing (a), then it can make it the case goodness/morality is such that it is good/moral to torture a innocent forever (b)
It cannot be that goodness/morality is such that it can be good/moral to torture an innocent being forever in any possible world (not b)
Therefore a Creator can't create goodness out nothing (not a)
There is a rule in logic.
A->B
Not B
Therefore Not A.
Right! But do you realize that you are just assuming A?! A is the topic of our debate!
No I'm not assuming A to be true or even possible. I'm saying if it is possible (a), then (b) is possible. However (b) is impossible, therefore (a) is impossible.
I don't believe God can create morality out of nothing. Rather he is ultimate morality and knowledge of it of it's various stages and hues and colors is all in his knowledge of himself.
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:36 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Ok moving on.
If you accept that much, then the next premise is a Creator can hypothetically create evolution.
Therefore if a Creator can't create morality out of nothing, and it can create evolution
It follows evolution can't create morality either.
Tell me if you disagree or don't follow?
Omg...you think that God invented evolution? I'm sorry but that is so beyond common sense. You say atheists just don't want to believe. I say you want to believe so desperately that you will forgo rational thought. And I have had some wine, and I still think what you just said is nonsensical!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:37 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Right! But do you realize that you are just assuming A?! A is the topic of our debate!
No I'm not assuming A to be true or even possible. I'm saying if it is possible (a), then (b) is possible. However (b) is impossible, therefore (a) is impossible.
I don't God ca create morality out of nothing. Rather he is ultimate morality and knowledge of it of it's various stages and hues and colors is all in his knowledge of himself.
Okay. So the sum and total of my response on the matter to you is: what if A (God exists) isn't true?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:40 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:37 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: No I'm not assuming A to be true or even possible. I'm saying if it is possible (a), then (b) is possible. However (b) is impossible, therefore (a) is impossible.
I don't God ca create morality out of nothing. Rather he is ultimate morality and knowledge of it of it's various stages and hues and colors is all in his knowledge of himself.
Okay. So the sum and total of my response on the matter to you is: what if A (God exists) isn't true?
We are using Creator as place holder to understand the nature of morality. This creator can be the flying pasta monster like Atheists always talk about. It doesn't assume it exists in reality or that even if it's rationally possible. It's putting as a place holder in the argument, to show morality always existed.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:42 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:36 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Ok moving on.
If you accept that much, then the next premise is a Creator can hypothetically create evolution.
Therefore if a Creator can't create morality out of nothing, and it can create evolution
It follows evolution can't create morality either.
Tell me if you disagree or don't follow?
Omg...you think that God invented evolution? I'm sorry but that is so beyond common sense. You say atheists just don't want to believe. I say you want to believe so desperately that you will forgo rational thought. And I have had some wine, and I still think what you just said is nonsensical!
God can create evolution is differently then to say he did. Whatever the case is, it's rationally possible for a Creator to create through means of evolution. However if God can't create morality and can create evolution, it follows evolution can't create it either.
Do you follow? Maybe we should continue this discussion without alcohol's effect!
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:47 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:36 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Omg...you think that God invented evolution? I'm sorry but that is so beyond common sense. You say atheists just don't want to believe. I say you want to believe so desperately that you will forgo rational thought. And I have had some wine, and I still think what you just said is nonsensical!
God can create evolution is differently then to say he did. Whatever the case is, it's rationally possible for a Creator to create through means of evolution. However if God can't create morality and can create evolution, it follows evolution can't create it either.
Do you follow? Maybe we should continue this discussion without alcohol's effect!
BELIEVE me...it's not the alcohol that is messing up this discussion, lol. I don't understand why you feel human morality can't exist without a creator God.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:54 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: God can create evolution is differently then to say he did. Whatever the case is, it's rationally possible for a Creator to create through means of evolution. However if God can't create morality and can create evolution, it follows evolution can't create it either.
Do you follow? Maybe we should continue this discussion without alcohol's effect!
BELIEVE me...it's not the alcohol that is messing up this discussion, lol. I don't understand why you feel human morality can't exist without a creator God.
I have actually many arguments other then this one as well as other reflections that lead me to believe human morality and God go together and cannot be separated. But let's see if you understand this argument for starters.
I think if you understand it, they will open up, to other arguments. They all reinforce one another, and the reason is because light of time is mixed with that of eternity as far morality goes.
The foremost reason I believe this to be the case is because I can see the truth of it's eternity or link to the utmost high and absolute and I see it's living reality, not simply conceptual, not a program, no a real living reality.
That is besides the point. I can spray paint all my arguments about it here in one shot but let's discuss one argument at a time.
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: BELIEVE me...it's not the alcohol that is messing up this discussion, lol. I don't understand why you feel human morality can't exist without a creator God.
I have actually many arguments other then this one as well as other reflections that lead me to believe human morality and God go together and cannot be separated. But let's see if you understand this argument for starters.
I think if you understand it, they will open up, to other arguments. They all reinforce one another, and the reason is because light of time is mixed with that of eternity as far morality goes.
The foremost reason I believe this to be the case is because I can see the truth of it's eternity or link to the utmost high and absolute and I see it's living reality, not simply conceptual, not a program, no a real living reality.
That is besides the point. I can spray paint all my arguments about it here in one shot but let's discuss one argument at a time.
WTF are you talking about?! None of that constitutes an argument. You aren't SAYING anything.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 1314
Threads: 14
Joined: December 1, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2016 at 10:05 pm by God of Mr. Hanky.)
MysticKnight:
Quote:We are using Creator as place holder to understand the nature of morality. This creator can be the flying pasta monster like Atheists always talk about. It doesn't assume it exists in reality or that even if it's rationally possible. It's putting as a place holder in the argument, to show morality always existed.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very real, and His Noodly Appendage can reach across 1 million universes to zap down and boil the unbeliever! 
Actually, its purpose is to satirize the utter silliness in people believing the myths of Yahweh, Hindu gods, Jesus, or Allah, or any one of thousands which so many very mortal and very unenlightened people have created in their own images. You choose not to believe you're being silly, but that doesn't change the facts.
FSM also exists to publicly lampoon all the special pleading of religious believers, and their activism has pointed out the problem of allowing religious exemptions to circumvent the purpose of public safety measures, such as the license photo.
Mr. Hanky loves you!
|
