God and Energy (The nature of a 'Creator')

by GateKeeper , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 12:03 (4418 days ago) @ dhw

GATEKEEPER: I am not a theist. We just don't know enough for that stance yet. For me, the truth lies in between theist and atheist. I choose to state both have parts of it right. Instead of "they are wrong". > > Then as David has pointed out, you are an agnostic. Welcome to my fence. However, while I would certainly not say anyone is wrong, I would hesitate to state both have parts of it right. The best I could do would be to say I think some arguments seem more likely than others. > > GATEKEEPER: I use rom's monist and the pluralist view to state that we are part of a larger life form. And every new discovery gets it one step closer to fact. If space itself is a "thing". well then ... It must be alive because we are. > I am not really a good "if-then" guy. When the "if's" have no constraints it confuses me. > > Despite not being a good "if-then" guy, you write: "If space itself is a "thing", well then....It must be alive because we are." In looking for ultimate truths, we can't help being "if-then" guys, because whatever we come up with can only be some kind of hypothesis. I don't think the one I'm developing in my discussion with David will be any more confusing than your own! >>-This is right on all accounts. When I say "I am not good at ..." that doesn't mean I can't. And I said "if space is something ...". "space" being measured by NASA is a very stable constraint. It limits the starting "if".-When I say "right", "proof", and "fact" they are used in the context of 'more/less likely" too.-Yes, my stance is confusing. Like a child going through his/her room looking for a particular set of socks. I use "child" because that is how I see humans when we try and describe "god". I have a 7yr old. Ask her to describe me. Then ask my brother. They both are right .