Heaven & Hell (Open to Everyone)

[Saint Guinefort]

Oh I see, you want to invoke the cause and effect logic of the scientific experimental method for the limited amount of knowledge we do have of the universe,
But you don't want there to be causes for questions you can't answer.

I never said there was no cause. I said there was no "Meaning" to the existence of stuff. (In your post you said "meaning", not "reason" or "cause".)

 

[Into the Night]

No, it certainly is not.

It certainly is. Your attempt to redefine words isn't going to work. Semantics fallacy.

Agnostics are the honest people, those who admit we simply do not know.

Here I would agree. They simply do not know the character or form of any god or gods.

I've seen no evidence supporting the idea of a god or gods.

It exists. See the Bible, the organized factors in nature, personal testimonies of people on the effects of a god or gods, the Earth itself, etc.

Nor have I seen evidence precluding the idea of a god or gods.

It exists. See conflicts in the Bible, nature (as explained through processes that do not involve any god or gods, the existence of the Church of No God, etc.

I know for a fact that the Koran is crap, the Torah is crap, and the Gospels are crap.

Not facts. An opinion. Learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'universal Truth' nor 'proof'.
A fact is merely an assumed predicate between parties.

Since your statement assumes the predicate between everyone, you are attempting to speak for everyone (omniscience fallacy). There ARE people that believe the Koran is True, or that the Torah is True, or that the Gospels are True.

All you know is your own opinion here.

The bhagavad gita is laughably childish, primitive.

Another opinion.

Even so, we have no ability to understand, much less explain the marvels of the quantum universe.

The universe isn't quantum. Quantum mechanics isn't the universe either. It is simply theories of science.

What we know is a molecule in an ocean, limited and driven by our physical perceptions.

Science isn't 'perceptions'. It is not observation or the data created by such observations. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
The study of perception, observations, and the data resulting from them is a branch of philosophy known as 'phenomenology'. This branch also defines words like 'real' and gives the reasoning behind such definitions.

Only a fool would claim that we can preclude the ideal of a greater intelligence.

Calling most people a fool doesn't help you. Every religion (even fundamentalist ones) DOES have a reasoning for it, even if it is based on faith. Many of them wander into various fallacies (fundamentalist religions commit a circular argument fallacy by definition), but they ALL have reasoning for them.

We not only don't know, we lack the ability to know.

This is correct. It is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods, and it is not possible to prove that no god or gods exist.

 

[Cypress]

I never said there was no cause. I said there was no "Meaning" to the existence of stuff. (In your post you said "meaning", not "reason" or "cause".)

Nope, you said there was no reason

Why do you need there to be a reason?

I asked you to explain how the big bang happened. Something you have repeatedly failed to do.

You're the one that claims science has made you omniscient, and has disproven any source of underlying transcendent reality to the universe.


I claim agnosticism. You absolute certainty and omniscience.

The Big Bang left evidence in the form of the cosmic microwave background.

There is no "meaning" to creation. It just is.

Just because someone can't explain something DOES NOT MEAN GOD IS REAL. That's bad logic. And even worse theology.

Not that you would know what bad logic looks like.

"It just is "

Now that's some magical thinking.

Even cosmologists wonder what caused the Big Bang, and they acknowledge it's a metaphysical question outside the ability of science to answer.

Militant atheists always want a higher transcendent power to be reduced to the preposterous caricature of an old bearded guy in a white robe. That's not how most religious people in the world concieve of a higher transcendent power.

Being agnostic means being willing to say you don't know.

Science knows a lot less than laypersons like you think. Ordinary matter and energy only make up five percent of what we can detect in the universe.

Leaping out of your chair and hollering that the universe "just is", and there is zero possibility of any higher transcendant reality human brains cannot perceive, is jumping the gun and getting way ahead of ourselves. We are only souped up chimpanzees, with limited brains, and omniscience is beyond our capabilities.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Nope, you said there was no reason

In my response to your original post I said there was no meaning. I still don't see a reason for there to be a "meaning" to anything.

You're the one that claims science has made you omniscient,

Why do you lie?

I claim agnosticism. You absolute certainty and omniscience.

More lies, of course. I never said anything even remotely like that.


Why all the lies now? I thought you were a defender of all thing "honest"?

 

[Into the Night]

Look, I'm OK with dispensing with miracles.

Why? It's a miracle that you are even alive. It means that:
* your mother was pro life.
* you managed to make it through the foolhardiness of childhood and teenage years without killing yourself.
* you managed to survive this long after driving on the nation's roadways.
* some nut case with a gun hasn't shot you.
* everything necessary to sustain life in your body still works despite all the cuts, scrapes, bruises, age, harsh weather, bad food, invasive bacteria and viruses, etc that has been imposed upon it.

I call that a miracle.

Despite all that modern medicine offers, it STILL depends on the body's ability to repair and renew itself.

Let's move onto something that matters:

Miracles matter, especially to someone that experiences one.

people claim to have a direct personal experience of God.

Yes. Some people do. Who are YOU to say they didn't?

How is that possible if God is not interacting with physical reality?

He does. That's how miracles happen.

And, of course, the Bible as well as the entirety of Church history has many examples of people having contact directly with God or his Angels or his Mom.

So?

What's the difference between that and hallucination?

A hallucination is seeing, hearing, touching, or smelling things that aren't there.

You don't know what these people saw or heard.

 

[Cypress]

In my response to your original post I said there was no meaning. I still don't see a reason for there to be a "meaning" to anything.



Why do you lie?



More lies, of course. I never said anything even remotely like that.


Why all the lies now? I thought you were a defender of all thing "honest"?

Still can't answer what caused the Big bang?

You claimed that you knew all the answers through science, and you could claim with 100 percent certainty that all questions about the possibility of a transcendant reality have been answered.

Your claim is a claim of omniscience, any way you slice it.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Still can't answer what caused the Big bang?

Do I have to? I just said there was no MEANING. I said NOTHING about the cause. That is unknown.

You claimed that you knew all the answers through science

That is a HUGE lie. In fact I've said exactly the opposite. But you like to lie, apparently. Who knew!

, and you could claim with 100 percent certainty that all questions about the possibility of a transcendant reality have been answered.

Again, another lie! WHY ARE YOU SUDDENLY SO DEDICATED TO LYING????

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Lies LIes

Look, Cyprissy The Liar, if you aren't going to read my posts don't fucking respond.

 

[Into the Night]

"It just is "

Now that's some magical thinking.

Even cosmologists wonder what caused the Big Bang, and they acknowledge it's a metaphysical question outside the ability of science to answer.

Quite right. The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory and a religion.

Militant atheists always want a higher transcendent power to be reduced to the preposterous caricature of an old bearded guy in a white robe. That's not how most religious people in the world concieve of a higher transcendent power.

By 'militant atheists' you mean the Church of No God. Atheists don't care if there is a god or not. They are not religious.

Being agnostic means being willing to say you don't know.

Same with an atheist.

Science knows a lot less than laypersons like you think.

Science doesn't know anything. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Ordinary matter and energy only make up five percent of what we can detect in the universe.

Math error. Failure to declare boundary.

Leaping out of your chair and hollering that the universe "just is",

He didn't. He was talking the Theory of the Big Bang. The Universe, however, just is. It exists. No further explanation about the Universe is necessary for the Universe to exist.

and there is zero possibility of any higher transcendant reality human brains cannot perceive, is jumping the gun and getting way ahead of ourselves.

Buzzword fallacy. What is 'transcendant reality'?

We are only souped up chimpanzees, with limited brains, and omniscience is beyond our capabilities.

Man is not a chimpanzee. They are separate species. Otherwise, correct.

 

[Into the Night]

It won't. Sorry. But made up hypotheticals don't count.

Gravity is not a 'hypothetical'. It exists.

At least I'm a clown who actually understands what he's talking about.

No, you don't understand what you are talking about. You routinely deny and discard theories of science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy.

 

[Cypress]

Do I have to? I just said there was no MEANING. I said NOTHING about the cause. That is unknown.



That is a HUGE lie. In fact I've said exactly the opposite. But you like to lie, apparently. Who knew!



Again, another lie! WHY ARE YOU SUDDENLY SO DEDICATED TO LYING????

Nice backtracking.

As a militant atheist, you claimed it was scientifically proven there was zero possibility of any transcendent reality.

As an agnostic, I see that as a claim of omniscience. I think there is knowledge that our souped up chimpanzee brains can never acquire. And we might not even comprehend the answers even if someone told us. Our language might not even have the words to describe a higher transcendant reality.

And while you claim certainty and omniscience, I leave open the possibility that human brains and our limited cognition might not have access to certain kinds of higher truths, some of which might be an underlying organizing principle of the universe.

But I also can't rule out the militant atheist position that the universe and everything in it just happened for no reason at all.

 

[Into the Night]

When you tell me how to measure those peoples experiences in a way that checks for the existence of 'God' we'll have gotten somewhere. It is most probably some bad shrimp.

Hint: You can't.

The Bible is fiction. Maybe you want science to start investigating Harry Potter and Lord Voldermort too. That'll be fun!!!

Science cannot prove that no god or gods exist. Science is atheistic.

 

[Into the Night]

Why do you need there to be a reason?



New Age Bullshit.



And it's a position you do not hold for any other thing in all of the universe.



Name ONE OTHER THING in the universe you are "agnostic" about.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

 

[Into the Night]

I never said there was no cause. I said there was no "Meaning" to the existence of stuff. (In your post you said "meaning", not "reason" or "cause".)

The existence of anything has meaning.
If nothing else, it means it exists. Proof by identity.

 

[BidenPresident]

Nice backtracking.

As a militant atheist, you claimed it was scientifically proven there was zero possibility of any transcendent reality.

As an agnostic, I see that as a claim of omniscience. I think there is knowledge that our souped up chimpanzee brains can never acquire. And we might not even comprehend the answers even if someone told us. Our language might not even have the words to describe a higher transcendant reality.

And while you claim certainty and omniscience, I leave open the possibility that human brains and our limited cognition might not have access to certain kinds of higher truths, some of which might be an underlying organizing principle of the universe.

But I also can't rule out the militant atheist position that the universe and everything in it just happened for no reason at all.

The universe exists, we know that. Claiming it was caused needs an explanation. After "God did it," people never have anything further to say.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Nice backtracking.

Another lie! You are on fire today, Cypussy.

As a militant atheist, you claimed it was scientifically proven there was zero possibility of any transcendent reality.

WHERE DID I SAY THAT???? I have NEVER said that. NOT ONCE.

Wow. You are just on fire with the lies!

As an agnostic, I see that as a claim of omniscience.

Of course you would. I never said it though, Liar.

 

[Cypress]

The universe exists, we know that. Claiming it was caused needs an explanation. After "God did it," people never have anything further to say.

I don't have an explanation, that's part of what makes me agnostic.

God, Brahman, Li, The Dao are just avatars for the mystery of the infinite. Unlike those that atheists who claim certainty or omniscience, I think there is a vast amount of knowledge humans can never acquire or know because our chimpanzee brains aren't capable of knowing, and our methods of scientific induction are to limited.

Out of all the silly myths and tales found in world religions, one really good insight they had is that there may be higher truth, a meaning to the cosmos that is unfathomable to humans and completely beyond our tools of science to grasp.

 

[Into the Night]

Nice backtracking.

As a militant atheist, you claimed it was scientifically proven there was zero possibility of any transcendent reality.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'. You have not yet defined 'transcendent reality'.

As an agnostic, I see that as a claim of omniscience.

Fine.

I think there is knowledge that our souped up chimpanzee brains can never acquire.

Man is not a chimpanzee.

And we might not even comprehend the answers even if someone told us. Our language might not even have the words to describe a higher transcendant reality.

Buzzword fallacy.

And while you claim certainty and omniscience, I leave open the possibility that human brains and our limited cognition might not have access to certain kinds of higher truths, some of which might be an underlying organizing principle of the universe.

Buzzword fallacies.

But I also can't rule out the militant atheist position that the universe and everything in it just happened for no reason at all.

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'. Atheism has no position and is no religion at all.
The Universe just is. It doesn't need a reason.

There are two competing theories concerning the Universe: the Theory of the Big Bang, and the Theory of the Continuum. One says the Universe has a beginning (and an end). The other says the Universe as always existed and always will.

 

[Into the Night]

The universe exists, we know that. Claiming it was caused needs an explanation. After "God did it," people never have anything further to say.

How could God create the Universe? To do that, God would have to be outside the Universe, which means the Universe isn't the Universe.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Agreed on all points...especially the latter ones. His stealing Cypresses username is akin to his pedo accusations using Gaugin in Tahiti and Prince Andrew; he thinks he's being sly but he's not fooling any normal or better adult.

Perry's greatest incongruency, IMO, is his claim of accomplishments compared to his obvious lack of maturity. From there it's downhill into what you've observed and described; his envy, his fear and his hatred of others.

Ah yes. We've seen that here many times, haven't we? PMP, Toxic, pEarl, Stoner, ExLax, Jits, etc. All claim to have respected degrees, but write and behave like juveniles. No offense to any actual juveniles present, of course. lol