Something that causes doubt

[Chistian-ity]

Can a God not simply enjoy creating galaxies? I know I would.

 

[Freddy]

Can a God not simply enjoy creating galaxies? I know I would.

I’m sure He has a great deal of fun doing it.

 

[Gorgias]

I think you’ve spent so much time arguing against the obvious that you have forgotten the original point. That there may well be an infinity of something beyond what we can know that is forever beyond our reach. So it is obviously not for us.

Meh. That sounds nice, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Are you married? Do you have a mom? Good.

I’ll never observe the depths of the love you and your spouse share, or that you and your mom share. But you know what? I know they exist. And that knowledge fills me with the joy of knowing that God fills our life with good things, even if I never personally experience them. And that’s edifying to me.

So… remain nonplussed, if you wish. Continue to assert that this knowledge means nothing. For a person who loves God, though? Our knowledge of God’s love in your life edifies us. I’m truly saddened that it doesn’t do the same for you.

 

[Chistian-ity]

Sounds like a dandy good time to me!

 

[BT3241]

Looking at that picture again I would have to say God came up short if earth is the only place with life.

 

[o_mlly]

That there may well be an infinity of something beyond what we can know that is forever beyond our reach. So it is obviously not for us.

Fred, do you now or can you ever know everything there is to know about [fill in whatever you’re about to eat or have ever eaten]? The answer is “No” so it’s obviously not for you so put it back. Nonsense on stilts.

 

[IWantGod]

Yeah…about as far as I could throw it.

What was in the Box - Seven

Warning: Crude language.

What’s in the box!
What’s in the boooxxx!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That there may well be an infinity of something beyond what we can know that is forever beyond our reach. So it is obviously not for us.

Fred, do you now or can you ever know everything there is to know about [fill in whatever you’re about to eat or have ever eaten]? The answer is “No” so it’s obviously not for you so put it back. Nonsense on stilts.

You don’t understand the point being made. If I have just eaten something (bacon and egg as it happens) then I know it existed. I know it was edible. I know it was for me (or at least suitable for me to eat). I don’t have to know everything about it. I am happy with those facts.

As far as what is outside the observable universe, we don’t know if anything actually exists (though we can propose that it does). We don’t know what form it takes (though we can have a guess). We don’t know how much of it there is. And we can’t access it so we definitely know it’s not for us.

I’ve repeated this quite a few times now. I don’t see what is difficult about it that makes it hard to grasp.

 

[Gorgias]

You don’t understand the point being made. If I have just eaten something (bacon and egg as it happens) then I know it existed. I know it was edible. I know it was for me

And I would assert that you don’t understand the point being made. If you don’t eat a breakfast at the restaurant down the street, you still can know that there are breakfasts being served there – even if you don’t eat them yourself.

Moreover, the knowledge can be for you, even if the particular consumption of the breakfast is not.

Sorry that this continues to fail to escape you.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You don’t understand the point being made. If I have just eaten something (bacon and egg as it happens) then I know it existed. I know it was edible. I know it was for me

And I would assert that you don’t understand the point being made. If you don’t eat a breakfast at the restaurant down the street, you still can know that there are breakfasts being served there – even if you don’t eat them yourself.

So I have knowledge of what is available somewhere, what it consists of, what I can do with it and how I can access it.

And you say that’s the same as not knowing what’s available, not knowing what it consists of, not knowing what I can do with it and not being able to access it.

I think we’re done.

 

[o_mlly]

As far as what is outside the observable universe, we don’t know if anything actually exists (though we can propose that it does). We don’t know what form it takes (though we can have a guess). We don’t know how much of it there is. And we can’t access it so we definitely know it’s not for us.

The logic above is baffling. From 3 “we don’t knows” you conclude a “we definitely know”?

Your argument acknowledges that there are things we know that we do not know but denies that there are things we do not know that we do not know. History has shown that the latter category moves up the chain of knowing to things we know that we know.

 

[Gorgias]

So I have knowledge of what is available somewhere, what it consists of, what I can do with it and how I can access it.

No – you have knowledge. Since you’re not there, you’re not observing it, so you certainly don’t know “what it consists of” or “what you can do with it.” If you were there, sure. You’re not. So you don’t. You just know that it’s there, even though you don’t experience it.

I think we’re done.

Oh, I’ve been done about 50 posts ago. I’m just playing along, hoping you come to realize the inconsistency in your argument. Have a wonderful Sunday!

The logic above is baffling. From 3 “we don’t knows” you conclude a “we definitely know”?

(Watch out, @o_mlly! If you keep making sense like that, you’ll be told “I think we’re done”…!!! )

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

As far as what is outside the observable universe, we don’t know if anything actually exists (though we can propose that it does). We don’t know what form it takes (though we can have a guess). We don’t know how much of it there is. And we can’t access it so we definitely know it’s not for us.

The logic above is baffling. From 3 “we don’t knows” you conclude a “we definitely know”?

Your argument acknowledges that there are things we know that we do not know but denies that there are things we do not know that we do not know. History has shown that the latter category moves up the chain of knowing to things we know that we know.

. . . . And (on the assumption that something is there) we can’t access it (‘it’ being the assumption that something is actually there) so we definitely know (on the assumption that something is there) it’s not for us (whatever we assume it to be).

Really, this is arguing for the sake of arguing. A simple ‘I understand what you are saying but I disagree with your conclusion’ would be a reasonable response. Or even ‘What’s it for? I have no idea’. . . .

 

[EndTimes]

Thus far, and in spite of raw speculations, we know of no other planet with Life.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Thus far, and in spite of raw speculations, we know of no other planet with Life.

Very true. Thus far, we live in the best of all possible worlds.

 

[Freddy]

Thus far, and in spite of raw speculations, we know of no other planet with Life.

That’s like examining a grain of sand and saying: ‘Nope, no signs of life yet in this galaxy’. Actually, that’s nowhere near close enough an analogy.

The furthest exoplanet is around 2,500 light years away. So we’ve examined a tiny fraction of a sphere with a radius of 2,500 ly. The diameter of the Milky Way is somewhere around 50,000 ly. So we have examined a tiny fraction of a sphere representing 0.125% of this galaxy.

When we’re done with checking out all of this one, we can start on the other 200 billion galaxies (which means we have done 0.00000000000006% so far). And that’s just the observable universe. The bits we can see.

Estimates fot the bits we can’t see, assuming it’s finite reach as high as 10^10^10^122 megaparsecs (so multiply that by 3.2 billion to get light years).

There are more zeroes there than there are protons in tbe observable universe.

Good luck with checking the maths…

 

[Gorgias]

There seem to be a few rules that some on this forum apply rigorously:

Deny any proposal.
Accept no proposition.
Take no backward steps.
Reject all suggestions.

Tedious repetition ensues.

Luke 4:23, brother.

 

[EndTimes]

Thus far, and in spite of raw speculations, we know of no other planet with Life.

That’s like examining a grain of sand and saying: ‘Nope, no signs of life yet in this galaxy’. Actually, that’s nowhere near close enough an analogy.

No.

You could type a Googolplex of words … and, Scientifically Speaking … it doesn’t change the Factoid that it is indeed Speculation - and not Fact, Freddie.

Not even those who are labeled ‘scientists’

• Know of any other Planet w/Life
  Than Earth…
  _

 

[thistle]

You seem easily baffled. But I guess you missed the clauses I put in parentheses. Shall I make it simpler to understand?

One of the rules of the forum is not to be rude or sarcastic to forum members.

 

[o_mlly]

You seem easily baffled. But I guess you missed the clauses I put in parentheses. Shall I make it simpler to understand?

And (on the assumption that something is there) we can’t access it (‘it’ being the assumption that something is actually there) so we definitely know (on the assumption that something is there) it’s not for us (whatever we assume it to be).

Really, this is arguing for the sake of arguing. A simple ‘I understand what you are saying but I disagree with your conclusion’ would be a reasonable response. Or even ‘What’s it for? I have no idea’.

There seem to be a few rules that some on this forum apply rigorously:

Deny any proposal.
Accept no proposition.
Take no backward steps.
Reject all suggestions.

Tedious repetition ensues

Fred, please look up the “First Law of Holes”.

The first law of holes is an adage which states that "if you find yourself in a hole , stop digging ". Digging a hole makes it deeper and therefore harder to get back out … used as a metaphor that when in an untenable position, it is best to stop carrying on and exacerbating the situation.