A snowflake doesn't have a soul, is not alive

There is a difference between factoids and wisdom however

"The self cannot stand in the Presence of God. God said to Moses, 'No one shall see me and live.' Where God is, I am not. Where I am, God is not. Therefore the 'I' cannot experience God, but God is experienced.. God is not an object to be experienced, and there is no experience. The two are one in experiencing. This is nonduality or oneness. Oneness with God is the open space of wakefulness where experience occurs. Even the word 'God' is problematic when talking about this. God is a word that describes a concept in the mind. I am actually speaking about a non-experience by the no-self of that to which the word 'God' points. Do you see how difficult it is to communicate this." Marshall Davis

If I said I believed in goblins and dragons, you'd laugh. But yet you'd accept aliens? What's the difference? Sounds like science wants to take the mystery out of life. I'm committed to mysticism

Thanks for the resources. And I recommend Aristotle on form and matter, a good start as well. Science and math serve philosophy, not the other way around. Organisms can't be pulled apart by abstractions



Reality is multidimensional and science/math is one dimensional. Philosophy transcends science and math. Science can never capture reality with mathematics. There is no true Truth in science

You guys are too blind to even admit I have valid arguments. I suppose I'm done here unless a new *argument* actually surfaces

It's not intelligent design because I'm not saying God did something from above. I'm far closer to Spinoza. Strange how his version of God you don't dislike

That is, we are still able to rely upon our theory that given enough trials, most every combination will occur. — Hanover

You can't erase the probability so that it is no longer improbable by uniting it with other probabilities. That can go on forever and then you have no science

It was popular in the early 20th century but has largely been discredited by modern evolutionary theory, which emphasizes the role of natural selection and random genetic variation in shaping the diversity of life. — Wayfarer

That's because evolution is a type of religion for people. Ironically, instead of seeing animals for what they are, people want to be their relatives. As I've discovered, life is about finding union with something spiritual and running after bones will not be a way of salvation as far as I can see. This involves the philosophical questions of continuity and discreteness, much of which is addressed by Aristotle. There is no end to how small evolutionists will the make distinctions and mutations throughout history. They end up in Zeno's paradox. It's the old ancient question of how many parts individuals are made up and how this relates to combinations and species



Not a single argument from you again. For every mutation, there is a first or firsts (several). So everytime a change in the species happens it happens with a handful of members at most, because it's random. So why did they survive every time there was a mutation and there was only a few that this happened too. Millions of small groups of mutants survived without extinction, all before they became a dominant group. Or is this too ineffable you?

You're choice



There is no evidence that everything that can happen will. It's not relevant. My first point was that evolution resulting in humans is greatly unlikely. You can't bring in other probabilities from "many Big Bangs" to rig evolution's probability. That's like someone seeing something random and saying to himself "well other random things happen out there so this is not random". Evolution denies what we see as reality in organisms. Everything is a blur and explained as a blur, although the mind can, philosophically, understand how species are unique and can't be combined in any combination whatsoever. The issue of mating I see is difficult for evolutionists

But you didn't answer my arguments

Ok

Why not address my arguments at least. We have a dog. What is the first member of its ancestor that is just like it such that our perception recognizes it as a dog.?Now that dog came from non-dog parents? That's not possible my friend. Who did it mate with? If you know how this works then explain it. This is all about philosophy and has nothing to do with how scientists see the world.

We debate from the point of philosophy and if philosophy finds evolution impossible then science is wrong

This is a philosophy forum.

So we have a cat. No first just like it?

You are trying to make it continuous, when individuals and organs, all that, are all discrete. If there is a cat then there was a first cat. Your theory is just a blur

Who does the first member of a species mate with?

Why did you go get a video (which I've seen) instead of doing the chore yourself? Lame

How does a species start to shape? How so you get from one group to another by step by step evolution, noting how each member can mate with the ones before and after it. I really would like to know. Dont just say "it was slow". That's a cop-out. Evolution may have happened, it's not very important anyway. What it tries to replace may be far more important

Evolution is discrete because there are individuals involved. It can't be continuous

The older the alleged evolutionary line is the less likely its real because it's just a greater amount of time the living beings didn't go extinct. If you understand this and the OP, state my argument in your own words before you try to answer it

The longer ago it goes the more unlikely it was

Kant struggled with his more Platonic side but cast doubt on things of the world and not being intuitively in touch with what only the mind can know, he thought of noumena as beyond categories of thought. For Aristotle, reason was the answer instead of faith. In his thought form and matter consists of a unity of substance and accidents (is prior logically to them) and accidents represent something of the substance. Not so with kant, where the appearance-accident-phenomena says nothing of what is beyond. It's like Kant is always looking over his shoulder wondering what reality could be. So he parted with Spinoza too in affirming practical will and belief

What about when, say, an alligator dies? It loses its reality and was killed by the past.

Abortion has been condemned repeatedly by Popes but they were never said basically "I defined this as a matter of faith" Pius IX defined that Mary was born without original sin and Pius XII defined that she rose to heaven at the end of her life. If you read these decrees, towards the end of them the Pope says he defines the dogma and that it is a matter of faith. When less solemnity is used, it is not sure whether infallibility is used and if it's not clear then how can it be part of dogma? There are all kinds of Catholics.

I've studied catholic dogmatics extensively. There are very few collegial or papal decrees that are certainly infallible. Church leaders have used ambiguous statements so often with regard to doctrine that the only things binding of Catholics are when a Council or Pope says something is now defined as a matter of faith and uses language that cannot be misinterpreted. Even abortion hasn't been infallibly defined as a sin

I believe in God because it is a beautiful idea. It's not about being saved from anxiety. It is very philosophical

Ok. I'm open to the idea of universalism (Origen) like Spong and I'd be happy if it's true. It makes more sense and gives more hope to life. Hell makes no sense to atheist and maybe it shouldnt make sense to them. If my mind is stuck in atheism im not less moral either. Religion can make good people do bad things and bad people do good things. Thats what the new atheists dont talk about. Religion has enormous reformative power. Lawrence Krauss however said he would rather not exist if God were real. I think it's important to see things from the other perspective. Have a good night

Can I ask if you find theism unpalatable? I think you implied you were a post modernist and subjectivist. Descartes and Liebniz believed in God, even if arguments they used were faulty. Kant believed in God too. I see God through Christian eyes during Christmas and Easter, Eastern eyes when I listen to sitar music, ect. I don't have to tell people about my experiences. Anyone can pick up belief in the most unusual ways

I haven't said I can prove religion true. Nondual awareness of unity with God is hard to understand for everyone so people look for proofs. We do need to separate bad spirituality from what is good and make distinctions. I don't think there is a way to tell if the world is becoming more godless. I know a lot of good religious people who are having huge families

Aren't you assuming it's rational to leave religion in the first place?

I've answered all your questions already. That's enough

Citation that religious fanaticism is on the rise? My guess in that about half the world's population is truly interested in religion, whole the rest is not

In what sense do you employ the word 'spiritual' he — universeness

Supernatural, above and beyond the universe, infinite. I don't believe in God because of arguments, but from experience. The stance I took in this discussion was that you were wrong to say faith is unreasonable. Something doesn't have to be proven to be reasonable. Your 2 specific arguments were refuted by me. God doesn't have to answer prayers specifically in order for the prayer to be efficacious and religious people disagree about specifics in religion but they are not atheist because they believe in the supernatural. So you were wrong in that. As for Tom, he said he was a pragmatist. Are you?

1) religious people believe that the world comes from a spiritual source. They all agree on that. Whether they agree or not on religious manifestations (religions) they are not atheists because they believe in the spiritual source. Obviously! So bad argument 1 answered

2) you say faith cannot accomplish a miracle. Well prayer is not perfect most of the time and if faith is not strong enough for a specific miracle God still grants more than what is asked for. You can't always see God's work Simple

Any other concerns?

Why the angry post. I answered all Tom's questions and refuted your Wiki argument. My position was just that religion is not unreasonable. I never said I was a Christian. You are either having a bad day or don't have a higher philosophical mindset and aren't interested in truth, like Tom, but in arguing.

You would judge it by the same way an atheist would use to assess character in someone or in a group. You can't get inside other people's thoughts and it's up to everyone to find the absolute on their own.

Well those people are obviously wrong. An atheist still has to use internal conscience to decide on moral issues just as religious people have to weigh issues of religion.

Spinoza appears to say humans lack will but he stills believes in the mind and might be a compatabilist. Anyhow, a mind can't exist without will and he was a passionately religious person. Do you see the face of God in nature? If not than you part with Spinoza

What's the difference between the Absolute and God? You are splitting hairs in order to avoid the other side of this question