< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Nature to Nature’s Fullest Extent

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1861
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
30 July 2019 06:15
 

Did we ever get a concise explanation of how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature? I don’t recall seeing one, but I may have missed it.

Anyway, this all just seems to be semantic masturbation. Like I said before, bbearen has constructed a God argument that could never be defeated (or even challenged) because it can’t even be well defined. And any questions about it are deflected with accusations of “atheistic faith”, or caveats that he is not here to proselytize. This is the game.

Ron  

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
30 July 2019 06:26
 
Garret - 29 July 2019 09:53 PM

I don’t know what this means.

It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  193
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
30 July 2019 08:28
 
MrRon - 30 July 2019 06:15 AM

Did we ever get a concise explanation of how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature? I don’t recall seeing one, but I may have missed it.

Anyway, this all just seems to be semantic masturbation. Like I said before, bbearen has constructed a God argument that could never be defeated (or even challenged) because it can’t even be well defined. And any questions about it are deflected with accusations of “atheistic faith”, or caveats that he is not here to proselytize. This is the game.

Ron

Owl guy has a carrot dangling from a fishing pole he’s holding while riding in a Segway.  He doesn’t want you to get a good look at it, and you can’t touch it.  But he’ll remind you that it’s there and that there’s something magical about it.  Don’t wear yourself out.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
30 July 2019 10:43
 
MrRon - 30 July 2019 06:15 AM

Did we ever get a concise explanation of how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature? I don’t recall seeing one, but I may have missed it.

Anyway, this all just seems to be semantic masturbation. Like I said before, bbearen has constructed a God argument that could never be defeated (or even challenged) because it can’t even be well defined. And any questions about it are deflected with accusations of “atheistic faith”, or caveats that he is not here to proselytize. This is the game.

Faith is belief without proof, by definition indefensible.  In order to discuss my faith, one cannot use as example the faith of someone else; we’re no longer discussing my faith.  I stay centered on my faith, while you do a Will Rogers rope dance discussing the faith of others.  You can’t let go of your end of the rope, else your dance falls apart.  In order to discuss my faith, you must let go of the concept of a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is not the god in whom I believe.

Deconstruct “supernatural” to your heart’s content, but you’re not discussing my faith in that deconstruction.  It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.  I said in an earlier post in this thread that Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions in need of answers.  Jefe replied, “I don’t think humanity will ever run out of questions.”  My reply was that I’m not referring to the questions of humanity; nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions.  It simply is.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
30 July 2019 10:46
 
DEGENERATEON - 30 July 2019 08:28 AM

But he’ll remind you that it’s there and that there’s something magical about it.

I’ve never used that term nor even hinted at it.  Nothing supernatural, nothing magical.  Nothing beyond nature, to nature’s fullest extent.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8633
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
30 July 2019 11:21
 
bbearren - 30 July 2019 10:43 AM

I said in an earlier post in this thread that Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions in need of answers.  Jefe replied, “I don’t think humanity will ever run out of questions.”  My reply was that I’m not referring to the questions of humanity; nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions.  It simply is.

Humanity is part of nature (to nature’s fullest extent) and humanity has questions.  A Zen aphorism suggests it is like, ‘an eye trying to see itself’.

(Since there is nothing that isn’t nature, there is no separate reflecting surface for nature to see itself in.)

“Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”  God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” -  Exodus 3:13-14

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
30 July 2019 12:22
 
unsmoked - 30 July 2019 11:21 AM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 10:43 AM

I said in an earlier post in this thread that Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions in need of answers.  Jefe replied, “I don’t think humanity will ever run out of questions.”  My reply was that I’m not referring to the questions of humanity; nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions.  It simply is.

Humanity is part of nature (to nature’s fullest extent) and humanity has questions.  A Zen aphorism suggests it is like, ‘an eye trying to see itself’.

(Since there is nothing that isn’t nature, there is no separate reflecting surface for nature to see itself in.)

And yet the interference/entanglement of quantum fields produces human and other living things that can see each other.  That humans have questions is indisputable; that nature to nature’s fullest extent contains all the answers is also indisputable.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1807
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
30 July 2019 12:50
 
bbearren - 30 July 2019 10:43 AM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 06:15 AM

Did we ever get a concise explanation of how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature? I don’t recall seeing one, but I may have missed it.

Anyway, this all just seems to be semantic masturbation. Like I said before, bbearen has constructed a God argument that could never be defeated (or even challenged) because it can’t even be well defined. And any questions about it are deflected with accusations of “atheistic faith”, or caveats that he is not here to proselytize. This is the game.

Faith is belief without proof, by definition indefensible.  In order to discuss my faith, one cannot use as example the faith of someone else; we’re no longer discussing my faith.  I stay centered on my faith, while you do a Will Rogers rope dance discussing the faith of others.  You can’t let go of your end of the rope, else your dance falls apart.  In order to discuss my faith, you must let go of the concept of a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is not the god in whom I believe.

Deconstruct “supernatural” to your heart’s content, but you’re not discussing my faith in that deconstruction.  It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.  I said in an earlier post in this thread that Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions in need of answers.  Jefe replied, “I don’t think humanity will ever run out of questions.”  My reply was that I’m not referring to the questions of humanity; nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions.  It simply is.

Bb, are you unable to verbally express what you know or believe (take your choice) about God? Obviously, not everything is verbally explainable unless you’re a verbal savant of sorts.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1861
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
30 July 2019 13:41
 
bbearren - 30 July 2019 10:43 AM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 06:15 AM

Did we ever get a concise explanation of how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature? I don’t recall seeing one, but I may have missed it.

Anyway, this all just seems to be semantic masturbation. Like I said before, bbearen has constructed a God argument that could never be defeated (or even challenged) because it can’t even be well defined. And any questions about it are deflected with accusations of “atheistic faith”, or caveats that he is not here to proselytize. This is the game.

Faith is belief without proof, by definition indefensible.  In order to discuss my faith, one cannot use as example the faith of someone else; we’re no longer discussing my faith.  I stay centered on my faith, while you do a Will Rogers rope dance discussing the faith of others.  You can’t let go of your end of the rope, else your dance falls apart.  In order to discuss my faith, you must let go of the concept of a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is not the god in whom I believe.

Deconstruct “supernatural” to your heart’s content, but you’re not discussing my faith in that deconstruction.  It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.  I said in an earlier post in this thread that Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions in need of answers.  Jefe replied, “I don’t think humanity will ever run out of questions.”  My reply was that I’m not referring to the questions of humanity; nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions.  It simply is.

You still haven’t explained how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature. What does the “fullest extent” part of nature entail that is lacking in just “nature”? 

Given that you recognize that faith is proof without evidence, then why would you want to believe something that can’t be proven, and could very well be wrong? Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest to refrain from making unverifiable claims in the first place?

Ron

 

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
30 July 2019 15:07
 
bbearren - 30 July 2019 06:26 AM
Garret - 29 July 2019 09:53 PM

I don’t know what this means.

It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.

You’re just repeating it.  I’m asking you to explain it to me, because the sentence doesn’t make sense to me.  I don’t understand it.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
30 July 2019 15:54
 
MrRon - 30 July 2019 01:41 PM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 10:43 AM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 06:15 AM

Did we ever get a concise explanation of how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature? I don’t recall seeing one, but I may have missed it.

Anyway, this all just seems to be semantic masturbation. Like I said before, bbearen has constructed a God argument that could never be defeated (or even challenged) because it can’t even be well defined. And any questions about it are deflected with accusations of “atheistic faith”, or caveats that he is not here to proselytize. This is the game.

Faith is belief without proof, by definition indefensible.  In order to discuss my faith, one cannot use as example the faith of someone else; we’re no longer discussing my faith.  I stay centered on my faith, while you do a Will Rogers rope dance discussing the faith of others.  You can’t let go of your end of the rope, else your dance falls apart.  In order to discuss my faith, you must let go of the concept of a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is not the god in whom I believe.

Deconstruct “supernatural” to your heart’s content, but you’re not discussing my faith in that deconstruction.  It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.  I said in an earlier post in this thread that Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions in need of answers.  Jefe replied, “I don’t think humanity will ever run out of questions.”  My reply was that I’m not referring to the questions of humanity; nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions.  It simply is.

You still haven’t explained how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature. What does the “fullest extent” part of nature entail that is lacking in just “nature”?

That humans have questions is indisputable; that nature to nature’s fullest extent contains all the answers is also indisputable.

Given that you recognize that faith is proof without evidence, then why would you want to believe something that can’t be proven, and could very well be wrong?

I’ve expounded on that a number of times in other threads.  And there’s this; not particularly germane, but amusing (at least for me), none the less.

Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest to refrain from making unverifiable claims in the first place?

I’ve never considered myself an intellectual, nor am I making any claim other than that I have a faith which embraces every tidbit of scientific discovery, invokes no magically supernatural grantor of wishes, seeks no converts.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
30 July 2019 16:16
 
nonverbal - 30 July 2019 12:50 PM

Bb, are you unable to verbally express what you know or believe (take your choice) about God? Obviously, not everything is verbally explainable unless you’re a verbal savant of sorts.

Not at all.  There is a quite an extent that I can and have expressed/explained to close friends and family.  Why won’t I do that here, one might ask?  I have not always been a believer.  For the first 40 or so years of my life, I was agnostic/atheistic.  I have used every argument against belief in God as I’ve read in these forums, as well as some others that I haven’t seen here.

I’ve already heard all the arguments, and they’re not going to have any effect on my faith.  Why read through them again?  A lot of folks here have a problem with “dust and ashes”; some even seem to take offense.  However, not a day goes by that I don’t fully embrace that foundational concept of who/what I am, dust and ashes and the confluence of genetics and experience.  If folks can’t get past that, the road to further explication is blocked.  If folks think that they are exchanging posts with a persona, the road is blocked.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
30 July 2019 16:25
 
Garret - 30 July 2019 03:07 PM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 06:26 AM
Garret - 29 July 2019 09:53 PM

I don’t know what this means.

It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.

You’re just repeating it.  I’m asking you to explain it to me, because the sentence doesn’t make sense to me.  I don’t understand it.

Then you don’t understand it; you seem to be trying to squeeze “supernatural” into it somehow.  Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no unanswered questions; nothing is supernatural, nothing is magical.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1861
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
30 July 2019 17:04
 
bbearren - 30 July 2019 03:54 PM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 01:41 PM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 10:43 AM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 06:15 AM

Did we ever get a concise explanation of how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature? I don’t recall seeing one, but I may have missed it.

Anyway, this all just seems to be semantic masturbation. Like I said before, bbearen has constructed a God argument that could never be defeated (or even challenged) because it can’t even be well defined. And any questions about it are deflected with accusations of “atheistic faith”, or caveats that he is not here to proselytize. This is the game.

Faith is belief without proof, by definition indefensible.  In order to discuss my faith, one cannot use as example the faith of someone else; we’re no longer discussing my faith.  I stay centered on my faith, while you do a Will Rogers rope dance discussing the faith of others.  You can’t let go of your end of the rope, else your dance falls apart.  In order to discuss my faith, you must let go of the concept of a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is not the god in whom I believe.

Deconstruct “supernatural” to your heart’s content, but you’re not discussing my faith in that deconstruction.  It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.  I said in an earlier post in this thread that Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions in need of answers.  Jefe replied, “I don’t think humanity will ever run out of questions.”  My reply was that I’m not referring to the questions of humanity; nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions.  It simply is.

You still haven’t explained how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature. What does the “fullest extent” part of nature entail that is lacking in just “nature”?

That humans have questions is indisputable; that nature to nature’s fullest extent contains all the answers is also indisputable.

No. Just because you assert that your deepity is indisputable does not mean that it is. Or that it even makes sense. Anyway, does plain old “nature” contain all the answers? Or is it just “nature to nature’s fullest extent” that contains all the answers?

Given that you recognize that faith is proof without evidence, then why would you want to believe something that can’t be proven, and could very well be wrong?

I’ve expounded on that a number of times in other threads.  And there’s this; not particularly germane, but amusing (at least for me), none the less.

Not sure what that edited video clip has to do with this discussion. Besides, you do know that Dawkins is an atheist, right? Anyway, here is that full unedited debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5bPI92-5o

Starting at around the 33 minute mark you can continue watching where your clip conveniently ended. Dawkins goes on to explain himself further, and that additional context is important.

Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest to refrain from making unverifiable claims in the first place?

I’ve never considered myself an intellectual, nor am I making any claim other than that I have a faith which embraces every tidbit of scientific discovery, invokes no magically supernatural grantor of wishes, seeks no converts.

Being an intellectual is separate from the concept of intellectual honesty. I have to believe you’re smart enough to know what I was talking about here. So to me your response seems like a dodge.

If your faith embraces every tidbit of scientific discovery, then where is the scientific support for this God that is “nature to nature’s fullest extent”?

Ron

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
30 July 2019 18:38
 
MrRon - 30 July 2019 05:04 PM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 03:54 PM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 01:41 PM

You still haven’t explained how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature. What does the “fullest extent” part of nature entail that is lacking in just “nature”?

That humans have questions is indisputable; that nature to nature’s fullest extent contains all the answers is also indisputable.

No. Just because you assert that your deepity is indisputable does not mean that it is. Or that it even makes sense. Anyway, does plain old “nature” contain all the answers? Or is it just “nature to nature’s fullest extent” that contains all the answers?

“deepity”?  At any rate, did you not ask me what I mean by nature to nature’s fullest extent?  I answered.  Bear in mind that we are talking about my faith, not yours.

Given that you recognize that faith is proof without evidence, then why would you want to believe something that can’t be proven, and could very well be wrong?

I’ve expounded on that a number of times in other threads.  And there’s this; not particularly germane, but amusing (at least for me), none the less.

Not sure what that edited video clip has to do with this discussion.

“... not particularly germane, but amusing (at least for me), none the less.”

Besides, you do know that Dawkins is an atheist, right?

Indeed I do, and I have watched the complete, unedited version from which that clip was taken, quite some time ago.  That’s how I knew how to phrase my search for the clip.

Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest to refrain from making unverifiable claims in the first place?

I’ve never considered myself an intellectual, nor am I making any claim other than that I have a faith which embraces every tidbit of scientific discovery, invokes no magically supernatural grantor of wishes, seeks no converts.

Being an intellectual is separate from the concept of intellectual honesty. I have to believe you’re smart enough to know what I was talking about here. So to me your response seems like a dodge.

I’m not making any claim, other than the claim that I have faith.  It is a singular, personal claim, involving no one other than me.  As I have stated many, many times, I am not proselytizing, not seeking converts.  I’m only making a personal statement.

If your faith embraces every tidbit of scientific discovery, then where is the scientific support for this God that is “nature to nature’s fullest extent”?

There is none.  I’m discussing my faith, belief not based on proof.

[ Edited: 30 July 2019 18:42 by bbearren]
 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›