Its acceptance of the fact that I don't know for sure but I think your 'ignorance' word is too emotive and it has nothing at all to do with belief in the sense of faith — universeness

The same word "ignorance" is used if theists are considered. It is said they use gods out of ignorance...

Its acceptance of the fact that I don't know for sure but I think your 'ignorance' word is too emotive and it has nothing at all to do with belief in the sense of faith. — universeness

Which doesn't do away with the fact that many worlds are introduced because they don't know. I.e., ignorance.

The same word "ignorance" is used if theists are considered. It is said they use gods out of ignorance.. — Hillary

A bit harsh towards the theist if you ask me. I would rather ask a theist about why they need the god posit. What role does it play in their day-to-day lives? and go from there. I would not merely call them ignorant unless I used the word in anger because they were evanhellicals or had seriously pissed me off.

A bit harsh towards the theist if you ask me. I would rather ask a theist about why they need the god posit. What role does it play in their day-to-day lives? — universeness

Yes, but that's because you are a welcome exception to the rule!

would not merely call them ignorant unless I used the word in anger because they were evanhellicals or had seriously pissed me off. — universeness

And rightly so!

Which doesn't do away with the fact that many worlds are introduced because they don't know. I.e., ignorance — Hillary

They absolutely don't know that's why they propose but it is emotive theism to suggest that such scientific proposals are put forward from a position of ignorance. Ignorance is a word with too many connotations to use in the context you use it.

They absolutely don't know that's why they propose but it is emotive theism to suggest that such scientific proposals are put forward from a position of ignorance. Ignorance is a word with too many connotations to use in the context you use it.
2m — universeness

It's not emotive theism but scientific knowledge that makes me reject it. What do gods have to do with it? If gods made many worlds, then so be it. But obviously they didn't. The MW are totally irrelevant and one world can explain it all. If you know its workings.

Yes, but that's because you are a welcome exception to the rule! — Hillary

I assume you have watched some of the atheist/theist debates between Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and De-Souza, William Lane Craig etc. They very rarely throw any kind of personal insults at each other and are respectful towards, but strongly disagree with, the viewpoints of their interlocutor.

They absolutely don't know that's why they propose — universeness

They do. To explain the universe (eternal inflation) and explanation of QM. Both are wrong. Eternal inflation in an infinite eternally inflating space is not what happens. Neither the branching in the MWI.

I assume you have watched some of the atheist/theist debates between Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and De-Souza, William Lane Craig etc. They very rarely throw any kind of personal insults at each other and are respectful towards, but strongly disagree with, the viewpoints of their interlocutor. — universeness

Of course they don't. They gotta stay civil. But meanwhile...

Harris is a self righteous guy. Dawkins too.

The future is going into the past.

In the past we had serf-like flavors of systems, and the future is headed into similar systems with the only difference being freedom.

Freedom is useless when you're pushed into the corner existentially.

It's not emotive theism but scientific knowledge that makes me reject it. — Hillary

And that seems to satisfy your rationale but you also accept that it absolutely does not satisfy many many others, including me, yes? Your arguments/proposals/posits/science points have not convinced me that your polytheistic posits are coherent. So we remain where we are.

And that seems to satisfy your rationale but you also accept that it absolutely does not satisfy many many others, including me, yes? — universeness

I don't force you to be satisfied by gods. For me they do give satisfaction. The final closure, so to speak.

Your arguments/proposals/posits/science points have not convinced me that your polytheistic posits are coherent — universeness

Coherent in what sense?

Harris is a self righteous guy. Dawkins too. — Hillary

In some ways yes, but no more so than De-Souza or William Lane Craig and probably most other 'public speakers,' in both camps.

Coherent in what sense? — Hillary

Makes no sense to me!

Makes no sense to me! — universeness

Ah! Look. That's something different than not coherent.

And that's exactly the rationale of Dawkins et. al. They don't understand why gods are needed.

I don't force you to be satisfied by gods. For me they do give satisfaction. The final closure, so to speak — Hillary

I know but I care about truth so I will push against those who I think do not speak or type it, including those who say what they say in all earnest. Truth as they see it, I disagree that they speak truth, I think they are wrong. I assume you do the same, although sometime I think you roleplay as many others do.
Some with far more nefarious intentions than you.

Ah! Look. That's something different than not cherent — Hillary

I use the term in line with something akin to the definition below:

" Incoherent means that something is difficult to understand because it’s not holding together. A lot of people use incoherent to mean unintelligible, which is a perfectly fine usage"

Incoherent means that something is difficult to understand because it’s not holding together. — universeness

"Difficult to understand". Can we ever understand the heavens and the gods in it? It's an eternal mystery. But partially we can understand by looking at the universe and life in it. Plato!

Can we ever understand the heavens and the gods in it? It's an eternal mystery. — Hillary

We have no need to, if, as I BELIEVE, they don't exist, so no mystery to solve!

Can we ever understand the heavens and the gods in it? It's an eternal mystery. But partially we can understand by looking at the universe and life in it. Plato! — Hillary

Here is another one:

We can't look directly into the Sun (God) but we can look at places which the sun (God) illuminates, giving us the real picture of reality.

as I BELIEVE, they don't exist — universeness

Shake my virtual hand brother Uni!

We can't look directly into the Sun (God) but we can look at places which the sun (God) illuminates, giving us the real picture of reality. — SpaceDweller

Great one! Reminds me of a Persian poet.

Rumi

We have no need to, if, as I BELIEVE, they don't exist, so no mystery to solve! — universeness

But no mystery gained either.

:up:

Shake my virtual hand brother Uni! — Hillary

Yep.virtual hand shake :up:

But no mystery gained either — Hillary

Why? if there are no gods then all mysteries currently belong to intelligent lifeforms.
I go back to, we don't need the supernatural as the natural is sooooooo super!

Why? if there are no gods then all mysteries currently belong to intelligent lifeforms.
I go back, we don't need the supernatural as the natural is sooooooo super! — universeness

Yes, I agree. The natural is super. And the gods give it mystery. Without the gods it's all explainable by science, except the fact it all exists in the first place.

except the fact it all exists in the first place. — Hillary

I am satisfied by the meaningless, mindless spark that no longer exists. That allows me to get rid of the whole god posit and all its flavors

Reminds me of The Culture. Excellent books if you like Sci-fi. The end of scarcity entails the end of capitalism. Want something? Download the specs and your atomic scale 3D printer will build it for you, including building an extra large atomic scale digital printer if you want something big like a spaceship.

He says, cutting across a deal of off topic axe-grinding.