?????Ridiculous Belief????? vs ?????Ridiculous to Believe?????

[_Some Schmo]

The opposite of a crutch of religious belief is the crutch of your belief about where you came from, and who you are, and where you are going... it hasn't anything to do with your phone technology being accurate.

One of the things I've honestly enjoyed in our conversations is your general ability to stay coherent. This last statement is an exception.

My "belief" about where I came from is a simple: "I came from my mother's womb." Are you about to dispute that?

As for everyone's ultimate ancestor, I don't pretend to know how it was made or where it came from. I've been trying to tell you that for a while now. And just because I don't know doesn't mean I'm tempted to fill it with "explanations" that comfort me (that's a crutch). I'm willing to continue to admit I don't know. It's not a crutch to admit what you don't know.

Now why are you conflating my points about self reliance with my comments about our common use of technology? I didn't. This doesn't bode well for your general understanding and reading comprehension. You're better than this (at least, you had been up to this point, I thought).

No, your conclusion is based on ignorance and incredulity. You don't know and can't imagine how it could have happened naturally; therefore, it can't have happened.

Fortunately, nature is not limited by your imagination.

So, what you're saying is science is based on what we can imagine, not what we observe and can demonstrate. Got it.

Why are you suddenly being obtuse? Please don't tell me this is what you've decided to resort to.

[_Hughes]

One of the things I've honestly enjoyed in our conversations is your general ability to stay coherent. This last statement is an exception.

My "belief" about where I came from is a simple: "I came from my mother's womb." Are you about to dispute that?

As for everyone's ultimate ancestor, I don't pretend to know how it was made or where it came from. I've been trying to tell you that for a while now. And just because I don't know doesn't mean I'm tempted to fill it with "explanations" that comfort me (that's a crutch). I'm willing to continue to admit I don't know. It's not a crutch to admit what you don't know.

Now why are you conflating my points about self reliance with my comments about our common use of technology? I didn't. This doesn't bode well for your general understanding and reading comprehension. You're better than this (at least, you had been up to this point, I thought).

Ok.. I think I got it.

I have a crutch, but you don't. You don't know if what I believe is correct or not (it's not a crutch to admit you don't know) but, you do know that not having a crutch (ie not knowing) is superior to knowing, or having a crutch. Did I get that right?

So, what you're saying is science is based on what we can imagine, not what we observe and can demonstrate. Got it.

Why are you suddenly being obtuse? Please don't tell me this is what you've decided to resort to.

Obtuse?

I demonstrated a logical pathway, that didn't violate scientific methods, whereby it's more logical that an intelligent source started all of life as we know it.

Your response is that I don't have enough imagination?

I don't know if you've realized that it's religious people who are accused of being a little over imaginative, not the opposite.

So, with your non-response, non-interaction with my statements, I'm attempting to be absurd to expose the absurd statement of yours.

[_Some Schmo]

Ok.. I think I got it.

I have a crutch, but you don't. You don't know if what I believe is correct or not (it's not a crutch to admit you don't know) but, you do know that not having a crutch (ie not knowing) is superior to knowing, or having a crutch. Did I get that right?

No. And at this point, I think you're not getting it right on purpose.

The problem is that you don't know either, but you can't seem to admit that. You'd rather pretend you do know (that's the crutch). I imagine you really do think you know, but it's intellectually dishonest to think you know something like that. The idea that you know when you couldn't possibly know is part of what makes your crutch sturdy.

Obtuse?

I demonstrated a logical pathway, that didn't violate scientific methods, whereby it's more logical that an intelligent source started all of life as we know it.

All you did is restate a (bad) hypothesis that's been around for ages.

Your response is that I don't have enough imagination?

I don't know if you've realized that it's religious people who are accused of being a little over imaginative, not the opposite.

I've never accused religious people of being overly imaginative and I'm not interested in toeing a party line.

I adamantly disagree that religious people are generally over imaginative. They seem extremely confined to the nonsense they've been fed (let's not confuse having an imagination with holding an imaginary idea someone's been taught). The only time they seem to use their imaginations is when they attempt apologetics for said nonsense.

So, with your non-response, non-interaction with my statements, I'm attempting to be absurd to expose the absurd statement of yours.

It's not absurd to state what you were doing, which was to argue from ignorance and incredulity.

[_Hughes]

No. And at this point, I think you're not getting it right on purpose.

The problem is that you don't know either, but you can't seem to admit that. You'd rather pretend you do know (that's the crutch). I imagine you really do think you know, but it's intellectually dishonest to think you know something like that. The idea that you know when you couldn't possibly know is part of what makes your crutch sturdy.

Ok. That's even more interesting...

You are saying that I have a make believe, non-real crutch, and this is something you know for a fact, yet you don't know if there's a God or not, because not knowing doesn't amount to having a crutch. Yet, you claim to know that I don't know. Actually, you go even further, you claim to know that I can't know.

Did I get that right yet?

It's not absurd to state what you were doing, which was to argue from ignorance and incredulity.

Since I didn't argue from ignorance or incredulity, your statement was absurd. I argued based on observational science.

Let's take your example.

Do you think it's logical or reasonable that an intelligent creator would create a being that cannot communicate with that creator?

[_Some Schmo]

No. And at this point, I think you're not getting it right on purpose.

The problem is that you don't know either, but you can't seem to admit that. You'd rather pretend you do know (that's the crutch). I imagine you really do think you know, but it's intellectually dishonest to think you know something like that. The idea that you know when you couldn't possibly know is part of what makes your crutch sturdy.

Ok. That's even more interesting...

You are saying that I have a make believe, non-real crutch, and this is something you know for a fact, yet you don't know if there's a God or not, because not knowing doesn't amount to having a crutch. Yet, you claim to know that I don't know. Actually, you go even further, you claim to know that I can't know.

Did I get that right yet?

*sigh*

OK, so you have no interest in honest communication. I wish you'd told me that several posts ago. It would have saved me some time.

It's not absurd to state what you were doing, which was to argue from ignorance and incredulity.

Since I didn't argue from ignorance or incredulity, your statement was absurd. I argued based on observational science.

If you say so.

Let's take your example.

Do you think it's logical or reasonable that an intelligent creator would create a being that cannot communicate with that creator?

Depends on what the creator wants out of her creation, doesn't it?

I made a pizza the other day, and at no point did I expect it to talk to me.

[_Hughes]

*sigh*

OK, so you have no interest in honest communication. I wish you'd told me that several posts ago. It would have saved me some time.

So you don't know for certain that I can't know, or you do? I'm still confused. I quoted you verbatim and you think I'm not interested in communication. I don't get that.

[_Some Schmo]

*sigh*

OK, so you have no interest in honest communication. I wish you'd told me that several posts ago. It would have saved me some time.

So you don't know for certain that I can't know, or you do? I'm still confused. I quoted you verbatim and you think I'm not interested in communication. I don't get that.

Do you know there's a god? If so, how do you know?

(I'm not looking for strong belief. I'm not looking for a statement of faith. I want to see you say "I know," in the same way you know you're reading and breathing right now).

[_Hughes]

So you don't know for certain that I can't know, or you do? I'm still confused. I quoted you verbatim and you think I'm not interested in communication. I don't get that.

Do you know there's a god? If so, how do you know?

(I'm not looking for strong belief. I'm not looking for a statement of faith. I want to see you say "I know," in the same way you know you're reading and breathing right now).

Yes. I know.

Knowledge based on experience. The same way I know my wife exists, even though she's 30 miles away at the moment. The same way I know my heart is beating.

How do I know? God created us to be able to communicate with him, via the spirit he's put inside us. This is primarily how he has set up our connection with him. I sense it. I feel it. I experience this connection everyday.

[_Buffalo]

Yes. I know.

Knowledge based on experience. The same way I know my wife exists, even though she's 30 miles away at the moment. The same way I know my heart is beating.

How do I know? God created us to be able to communicate with him, via the spirit he's put inside us. This is primarily how he has set up our connection with him. I sense it. I feel it. I experience this connection everyday.

When did you last meet god? Did you happen to snap any photos?

[_Some Schmo]

Yes. I know.

This cheapens the meaning of the verb to know.

Knowledge based on experience. The same way I know my wife exists, even though she's 30 miles away at the moment. The same way I know my heart is beating.

How do I know? God created us to be able to communicate with him, via the spirit he's put inside us. This is primarily how he has set up our connection with him. I sense it. I feel it. I experience this connection everyday.

So I assume you've never actually seen your wife, but just felt her spirit in you.

Why do you suppose your god happened to give you a spirit radio but not everyone else?

Is it at all possible that you're attributing to god a basic, natural feeling, or does it have to be this god you've assumed?