Natural causes instead of unnatural

@fmf said
I believeve we can only speculate about supernatural things, yes, that's right. You can use the words "recognise" and "identify" if you want to, but doing so does not alter the reality that the perceiving and the asserting you do - or that I do - is entirely speculative and subjective.

I believe you are right about yourself, you can do no more than speculate about it.

@kellyjay said
I believe you are right about yourself, you can do no more than speculate about it.

My analysis applies to you too. I don't see you as a thinker. I don't see you as a student of the human condition. You are just a propagandist. Far too often, your "analysis" doesn't withstand scrutiny ~ hence all your deceitful and furtive interpersonal behaviour on this forum. So, yeah, your speculations and aspirations about supernatural things are not objective ~ your faith-based assertions notwithstanding.

@fmf said
My analysis applies to you too. I don't see you as a thinker. I don't see you as a student of the human condition. You are just a propagandist. Far too often, your "analysis" doesn't withstand scrutiny ~ hence all your deceitful and furtive interpersonal behaviour on this forum. So, yeah, your speculations and aspirations about supernatural things are not objective ~ your faith-based assertions notwithstanding.

Yes, you can talk about your limitations, and in your mind, no know can know what
you don't, because you are the measure of things.

@kellyjay said
Yes, you can talk about your limitations, and in your mind, no know can know what
you don't, because you are the measure of things.

When I am talking about objectivity and subjectivity, I am talking about the English language and what words mean. I am not talking about the limitations of my mind or yours.

If you think that your faith and superstition, being SO strong, that they somehow create objectivity, then I think you are foolish and simply consumed by your ideology.

Your suggestion that your "mind" can turn your God figure into an "absolute truth" for everybody is just silly stuff. It's no less silly than Dasa was about his religious faith.

@divegeester said
Don’t dodge…

Was the reason that you decided to believe in God due you observing the world and cosmos around you and thinking “l think all this was created by a God” ?

Politely bumped for KellyJay.

@divegeester said
Politely bumped for KellyJay.

repost:
"No reply to you is appreciated, no, the observing of the world and cosmos didn't
get me thinking about God, I told you about that and you lied to me when I did."

"no, the observing of the world and cosmos didn't
get me thinking about God, "

This is why you don't get answers to your questions, you bother reading them.

@fmf said
When I am talking about objectivity and subjectivity, I am talking about the English language and what words mean. I am not talking about the limitations of my mind or yours.

If you think that your faith and superstition, being SO strong, that they somehow create objectivity, then I think you are foolish and simply consumed by your ideology.

Your suggestion that your "min ...[text shortened]... ruth" for everybody is just silly stuff. It's no less silly than Dasa was about his religious faith.

Yes, and I'm still talking about you too, the limitations of your mind are yours. The
experiences you have gone through are yours too, a living hope isn't a matter of
academic knowledge, or religious rule-keeping.

@kellyjay said
no, the observing of the world and cosmos didn't
get me thinking about God

Apologies I missed it.

Well if it didn’t get you thinking about god, then creation itself isn’t evidence of there being a creator, is it?

@divegeester said
Apologies I missed it.

Well if it didn’t get you thinking about god, then creation itself isn’t evidence of there being a creator, is it?

It is evidence, the thing about evidence is it needs to be examined. In a trial both sides bring in their evidence and both sides examine everything it becomes part of the trial. We can ignore what ever we want and focus on meaningless trivia as if it holds the keys of the universe. When we claim we know or don’t know something that becomes evidence about us, God looks at our hearts and we will give an answer for our claims.

He is Truth personified so this judgment will not be a discussion, it will be exposing the secrets of men.

@kellyjay said
Yes, and I'm still talking about you too, the limitations of your mind are yours.

I don't have any "limitations of the mind" when it comes to understanding what is objective and what is subjective. Apparently you do.

@kellyjay said
The
experiences you have gone through are yours too, a living hope isn't a matter of
academic knowledge, or religious rule-keeping.

You can but speculate and have personal opinions about the things your religious doctrines have you believing in.

@kellyjay said
The
experiences you have gone through are yours too, a living hope isn't a matter of
academic knowledge, or religious rule-keeping.

Ah yes, you return to projecting your petty strawman drivel about "religious rule-keeping" onto me, which requires you to pretend that you never read anything I posted about my experience of faith in Jesus.

Having "a living hope" in a supernatural being was something firmly in the realm of subjectivity - it was for me and it is for you - regardless of how REAL it affected my life and affects yours.

My faith and what I perceived to be my relationship with Jesus was like a transcendental experience and it permeated every pore of my life and so it affected me in very vivid and real ways.

But I am not going to act the fool - like you are - and claim that that experience was fuelled in any way by objectivity.

It was spiritual. It was faith-based. It was emotional. It was psychological. It was life-changing. It was consequential. But it was NOT "objective".

When you try your small-minded and insecure riff about "academic knowledge, or religious rule-keeping", what do you think you are achieving?

Oh no, you're NOT reaching through your computer screen and trying to change the history of my life AGAIN, are you, just because my personal testimony and experiential knowledge are inconvenient to you? Say it ain't so, KellyJay.

@kellyjay said
Do you acknowledge DNA, that there is information driving life’s processes? You think nothing about it being in life and that it directs life’s cellular functions?

I assumed you did that you didn’t think it was magical but if it is natural. It had to start somewhere in time, so information’s origin as it entered life’s processes do you call that natural or unnatural?

...[text shortened]... boils down to mind or mindlessness? Can both give us the universe and life as we see and experience?

Yes, we all know about DNA, I don't understand your second sentence.

I've said before that everything in nature, by its' very nature, is natural, and therefore cannot be unnatural. Your attempting to play with words like this is pointless, so let's introduce a new word. When we introduce the idea of a creator entity, we move into the realms of the supernatural, (that's the new word) which cannot by definition exist in reality, but only in the realms of belief and imagination.

You believe in a young earth mainly because you deny all of the evidence which tells us very clearly that the earth is in fact very old, and the truth about that for you is that you can't allow yourself to believe anything else, because that would mean that your 'scriptures' were talking a load of old nonsense, which they are, of course. The timing of events in proper sequence is there for all to see in the fossil record, and what it 'boils down to' is the fact that you can't accept the idea that your own particular inherited god doesn't exist, and this despite all of the contradiction, irrationality and unreality of your beliefs. As I've said before, life has gone on quite well without your imagined god for a great deal longer than you think the earth is old.

@kellyjay said
It is evidence, the thing about evidence is it needs to be examined. In a trial both sides bring in their evidence and both sides examine everything it becomes part of the trial. We can ignore what ever we want and focus on meaningless trivia as if it holds the keys of the universe. When we claim we know or don’t know something that becomes evidence about us, God looks at ou ...[text shortened]... Truth personified so this judgment will not be a discussion, it will be exposing the secrets of men.

- Well as “evidence” it clearly wasn’t compelling enough to turn your head to seeking a creator.

- this isn’t a “trial” which is good in a way, as the evidence you have to support your OP isn’t compelling enough to turn even your head towards seeking a creator.

- no one is “ignoring” anything.

- what “meaningless trivia” are you referring to?

- you claim that you “know” that non Christians will be burnt alive for eternity by your version of Jesus … what does that “evidence about you” say about you?

- “god looks at our hearts” what does this even mean in the context of what we are discussing in this thread?

@fmf said
I don't have any "limitations of the mind" when it comes to understanding what is objective and what is subjective. Apparently you do.

You only know what you know and believe what you believe, your experiences all center around you. You believe you grasp everything by your life? That’s pretty self-centered!