Safe to say that much of what passes as definitive scientific truth today is wrong. — Pantagruel
I think by definition speculation is not authoritative, otherwise it becomes dogma?Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books. — praxis
but I’m no expert. — praxis
but I’m no expert.
— praxis
Exactly. Take a moment to reflect on what that actually means. — Bartricks
Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books.
— praxis
I think by definition speculation is not authoritative, otherwise it becomes dogma? — Pantagruel
You wouldn't know a good critical thinker from a bad one. — Bartricks
Take a moment to reflect on what that actually means. — Bartricks
This does not negate the fact that we can and do give our true self because we don't need to hide it.The problem must be that you don’t know yourself well enough, and that basically amounts to ignorance or the opposite of wisdom. — praxis
An expert in metaphysics would be one who knows about 'metaphysics' as a subject matter. — creativesoul
Nonetheless... experts can be wrong. — creativesoul
In philosophy, it seems quite readily evident to me - when it comes to my forte - than many are. — creativesoul
Bartricks has knowledge about the existence of God that he will not divulge since we are untrained in the intricacies of metaphysical analysis, and thus unworthy. But if we collectively plead with him, he might give us a glimpse of the Truth. — jgill
Unfortunately the term God invokes strong prejudices on both sides. So replace god with ? and I'd agree. The cosmic unknown maybe?Why is it so much better to explain an experience as hallucinations or wishful thinking than to accept it as an experience of God? If you’re a physicalist, then you would call it a hallucination. If you believe that consciousness is an essential part of existence, then you are probably more open to God — Noah Te Stroete
So replace god with ? — Pantagruel
As far as the ongoing pissing match, appeal to authority is generally a poor argument and can itself be a fallacy. Experts validate their credentials through the inherent strength of their actions or arguments, they don't rely on them for validation. — Pantagruel
Unfortunately the term God invokes strong prejudices on both sides. So replace god with ? and I'd agree. The cosmic unknown maybe? — Pantagruel
I omitted your option on purpose. Nothing is good enough to replace god. God does nothing. It has no purpose, no action, no visible effect on the universe. So if you took nothing, and put it in god's place, you'd get the same world, absolutely unchanged.You omitted my option. Surely no one would deny the role of the unknown in stimulating discovery. — Pantagruel
He's jerking your chain... — creativesoul
I omitted your option on purpose. Nothing is good enough to replace god. God does nothing. It has no purpose, no action, no visible effect on the universe. So if you took nothing, and put it in god's place, you'd get the same world, absolutely unchanged — god must be atheist
The "true" self is as used by you, praxis and by me, are not the same concepts. — god must be atheist
You equated "your true self" as "how you really are" — god must be atheist
I equate "your true self" more in a literary sense (not literally, but figuratively) to "do what your impulses dictate you to do without holding back". — god must be atheist
So replace god with ? — Pantagruel
1. A newt.
2. A two-headed snake.
3. Medusa.
4. Me. Me, me, me!!!!
5. Peter Goddard. (Not much adjustment in spelling is required.)
6. A piano.
7. Sticky glue.
8. Air.
9. Many people who believe in him.
10, Another god. — god must be atheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.