Of course I’m not Socrates but he liked to argue all day.
Well the problem with language and positions arises when you have a problem with me calling “god” while allowing yourself to call something “beautiful”.
This is a bit of a contradiction with your reductionist explanations of existence.
I don’t have a problem with you calling something god. You have a giant chip on your shoulder. You asked me to describe my epistemology and I did. You’ve since tried every possible way to prove me wrong.
I didn’t invent any of this science, but I can make sense of it. What’s your goal? If you change my mind, there millions of others like me, and some of them DID invent the science!
The goal is to have a discussion where we can understand reasoning and thought processes of how people think and if they’re being consistent with it.
For example as a result of our discussions, I am half way reading through that reincarnation case and it has changed my mind. I will give you a proper response in the other topic though.
Have you seen this classic? I know the two gentleman have had their personal lives exposed, but their science is good. You’ve asked a couple times about the origin of this physical universe. This is the best answer I know.
I will also check this out as soon as time permits.
Thank you.
We had some snow here today, so I just stayed in and did some baking. I probably won’t sit on the forum all day on the future
I work from home and I have a fairly busy schedule with house chores, work and exercise.
But I do work from home so I have a tab open here most of the day which I check in-between my other activities.
Past midnight in France, more than time to go to bed !!!
My day was given to rest and recovery, from COVID,and a nice walking tour.
Incidentally, the Easter Monday is a banking day in France.
Happy eastern to all Catholics, Protestants and others out there.
Hopefully you will have an easy journey with covid and be healed completely and ready for the next adventure.
Thanks Eli1.
Back to work on my essay " Roman republic ans small war 509-201 BC " MII essay.
I’m sorry I started to watch this but then I saw Richard Dawkins.
I’d rather talk to a mental patient than him.
He also likes to avoid debating with William Lane Craig.
If David Attenborough was narrating I’d watch that all day long.
In an early post, you said, “would like to avoid tired old debates about scriptures”. But you’ve done nothing but the same old, same old. First cause has roots in medieval Islamic philosophy, Fine tuning is more recent but it’s getting old, Historical Jesus is over 100 years old, more if you count the searches for original manuscripts. Now, you judge Richard based on some bad tweets he’s made, and because he doesn’t debate Craig? Craig is the old debates, just dressed up in a suit.
What is that you meant? What do you want to avoid?
What does Richard add to tired old debates?
Besides anger?
So, you want to avoid anger?
Does he get angry in the 2 minute introduction to Lawrence?
Does Lawrence get angry?
He started his talk with “angry questions from Christians”.
I’m like “yep this guy has a huge chip on his shoulders “
That’s what I said before. You want to dismiss the anger coming from people who share the beliefs that you do. And that’s not just anger, that’s complete control over governments and forced religion on others. This was happening at official levels in modern democracies in my lifetime. You don’t want to talk about that.
But a guy gets hate mail, and responds by calmly explaining how we can get a universe without a god, and suddenly that’s “baggage”.
I would be fine with putting aside all that history, but you also dismiss the science. You call that “old debates”. They are old debates, and every one that I know of, religion lost. Religion has been tamed. Religion has adjusted to the modern world where they accept that other religions must be allowed to exist on their own street. If it would just take the next step and stop arguing with science, and just run the soup kitchens, just give comfort to the dying, but leave the children alone until they are old enough to understand what the teachings mean, then I’d fine.
I should add, if you look at how Dawkins got started, he was a science educator. He had a very popular curriculum for young people. Then the creationists started harassing him. He responded. With science.
This is now a politics convo but here’s a simple question for you:
When you want plumbing done in your house who do you call? A plumber or a doctor?
A plumber I assume.
So when I want to hear a “scientist” talk about science I don’t want to hear tired old debates of history or his personal harassment and victimhood.
Spare me the crap and get to the point.
That’s what I said. If believers would just act on what they believe, then the last 30 years of fundamentalists vs science would be very different. But even though you say that’s what you want, you came right of the gate telling me that I can’t talk about beauty, because that’s “inconsistent”. Spare me. I’m not sure what you think about my foundations for morality, but I know what William Lane Craig says.
That’s probably because you’ve never been challenged before how your reasoning would affect you when you apply it literally.
But when I apply Prayers literally I am Consistent with my reasoning and position.
Makes sense?