Is There Life Elsewhere in the Universe? Is There a God?

[rabinovich]

Perhaps finals has really worn me out, but what is the point of this may I ask?

Ohhhhh. the point is I was answering to "what did you expect me to answer".
I expect either a dialog or something, not just side remarks to my post like "I meant metaphysical epistemology of transcedent hyperbolizations"

[Anonymouse]

Ohhhhh. the point is I was answering to "what did you expect me to answer".
I expect either a dialog or something, not just side remarks to my post like "I meant metaphysical epistemology of transcedent hyperbolizations"

If you expect a dialogue perhaps you should be less vague in what it is you are trying to get across. Your second post was actually clear.

[rabinovich]

As a history major I will tell you that history is never considered "undisputed" and to claim so is childish. History is always disputed, and is always being revised because it is a process and is based on what Foucault observed as discourses based power relations of who does the speaking, who is spoken to and what is allowed to be spoken. I don't see what your point with this is unless you want to clarify without being vague.

Anonymouse, I find it close to impossible to debate with you. No offense, please, I will stop here. You don't see my point - fine. It is CLEARLY stated in my posts, in bold.

[winoman]

The issue is not which God is correct, but rather the notion of a God or diety. .

Irrelevant - its essentially the same. There are infinite versions (explanations) for reality/universe/mulitverse in which there is no god/gods/dieties in any sense that we percieve them or have ever thought of such...so much is unknown - to make conclusions is to stake a a position that is inherently incorrect. To just say - I do not know - nor will I likley ever really know - is the most logical position to take. I might go further and claim - there is no such diety/dieties and such - only considering the many possibilities otherwise and the seeming lack of a need for such (and realising that any explanation we might have for such is in all - great - likelyhood - inherently wrong).

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse, I find it close to impossible to debate with you. No offense, please, I will stop here. You don't see my point - fine. It is CLEARLY stated in my posts, in bold.

Has it ever occured to you that maybe it was confused and you should restate as opposed to throw a fuss?

[Anonymouse]

Irrelevant - its essentially the same. There are infinite versions (explanations) for reality/universe/mulitverse in which there is no god/gods/dieties in any sense that we percieve them or have ever thought of such...so much is unknown - to make conclusions is to stake a a position that is inherently incorrect. To just say - I do not know - nor will I likley ever really know - is the most logical position to take. I might go further and claim - there is no such diety/dieties and such - only considering the many possibilities otherwise and the seeming lack of a need for such (and realising that any explanation we might have for such is in all - great - likelyhood - inherently wrong).

You are very much confusing the point I was making which is, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or gods or whichever. There is a course offered in my school called Imperfect Rationality. You ought to take it.

[ArmoBarbi]

He doesn't go to your school.

[Anonymouse]

He doesn't go to your school.

I was being rhetorical.

[winoman]

Beliefs or phenomena that are associated with not being explained by science therefore are not negated because they do not meet scientific criteria. The idea that a belief is absurd because it cannot be validated by science is itself an assumption on the range of absurdity, and we don't call that science, it's called scientism.

Perhaps but these supposed beliefs and theoretical phenomenon that are not explainable by science may either be due to lack of proper sensory aparatus or understanding (that one day can be surmounted) or they plain and simple are abberations or false perceptions in the first place. I don't happen to believe in spiritual existance outside any physical/chemical phenomenon and I can't see any reason to believe in such nor can you (aparetly) prove to me that such is the case - so in my mind I find such highly doubtful - and for your part you have no menchanism to properly convey the truth of such - so where does that leave us? We can believe in unprovable things - but these seemingly cannot be recreated or properly percieved - etc etc - thus speculation - that perhaps may be interesting to contemplate - has very little real bearing upon reality as we know and experience it. And still this is no basis for doubting what we can percieve and understand through science (including Evolution)....

There is no such thing as Scientism that I am at all aware of - can it found in the dictionary?

[ArmoBarbi]

I was being rhetorical.

Wow, me too!