You unsupported assertion is false: It can be denied and I do.
Why would you deny it, if not out of some desire to transcend my assertion?
You unsupported assertion is false: It can be denied and I do.
NO. I just like facts that have supporting evidence and tend to speak out against myths and others that do not. - Old habit from teaching physics, I guess.Why would you deny it, if not out of some desire to transcend my assertion?
More unsupported nonsensical nonsense.... Someone without a conviction in transcendence could not ask "Why bother?"
They would see no problem and be content with how things already are.
Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god.
So in my personal opinion anyone who belives in god is ignorant. (Don't take that the wrong way)
Try harder.I try to present my evidence
That's what Isaac Newton did. When he finally hit a problem he could not solve, he copped out and said "god must have did it". The old argument from ignorance, I can't understand it therefore god did it. Of course someone else came along later and figured it out, no god needed.I believe in God and I have a rational mind.
I wish for the day a mathemitician comes out of the laborotory and says "I have the answer... it's God!" I believe this is what science is the pursuit of.
Yes, no need for Thor now. As I explained in post 410 part of which was:That's what Isaac Newton did. When he finally hit a problem he could not solve, he copped out and said "god must have did it". The old argument from ignorance, I can't understand it therefore god did it. Of course someone else came along later and figured it out, no god needed.
Remainder of post 410 spoke of the multitude of specialized Gods more primitive societies had. They knew their gods could be evil - carry off and rape, fight each other and destroy men, etc. We are too brain washed by centuries of "God is Good" propaganda to be realistic.... Although the scientific method has provided an understanding of many mysteries of the past*, there still exist significant things we don't understand so, just as our distant ancestors did, we eventully give up trying and assign cause. Now days this for many tends to be "it is God's will" that the baby was born without feet, that I got cancer, that my son died in a car crash, etc. (The good God works in mysterious ways. Idea that God might be evil is too scary to consider.)
In an earlier era, there were in most societies many gods each with areas of responsibility, and needing some offerings to prevent mishaps:
The drought was because the god of rain was angry.
The flood was because the river god was angry. ...
--------------
* Lightning is no longer thought to be caused by an angry (or drunk) Thor. etc.
The instinct of “I want more” is quiet self evident, but none exists for “transcendence.” The churches, etc. teach that as part of their self preservation efforts.
Such is my lot, apparently.
Always the groom, never the bride*.
Or whatever the phrase is.
* And I had a lovely dress picked out ready.
Please define transcendence. Normally, it means going beyond material limitations. Thus "I want more" could be understood as wanting life after death, but the objects of desire of the rich who "want more" are quite material (A larger yacht, fancier car, trophy wife, etc.) and the objects of the poor who want more are things like a dry place to sleep when it rains, a hot meal once a day (without needing to sit thru the Salvation Army's lectures and group prayers first, etc.)The instinct of "I want more" is the instinct of transcendence.
Please define transcendence. Normally, it means going beyond material limitations.
Thus "I want more" could be understood as wanting life after death, but the objects of desire of the rich who "want more" are quite material (A larger yacht, fancier car, trophy wife, etc.)
How can these very common desires for "more" material things be considered to be examples of transcending the material limitations?
Again, tell the definition of transcendence that you are using when it differs drastically from the common understanding of the term.
Why? I see no definition of transcendence given. It you did, just re-post it and tell what post it was in.Please reread my post.
Always a bride's maid never a bride.
And I agree with Geoff!
Picky!Always a bride's maid never a bride.
Pfft, it's not a popularity contest!And I agree with Geoff!