Panentheism

[Secular Sanity]

Did you imply that you had an academic background in a related field?  Yes...of course you did. 

Do you?  Probably not.

[Syne]

Did you imply that you had an academic background in a related field?  Yes...of course you did. 

Do you?  Probably not.

More sad lies.

Put up or shut up, troll. We all know you're the kind of troll who does save this sort of thing. So go ahead. Show us what you imagine says what you claim.

What? Afraid your confirmation bias got the better of you? O_o

[Syne]

As far as lessons in human behavior goes, I'll offer this as illustration:

Have you ever learned something that forced you to abandon something you were previously certain was true?

Yes.

When science admits that we can never know what happened at or previous to the Big Bang, what's the difference what you invoke to fill such a gap of eternal mystery? God of the gaps or science of the gaps....it's all fundamentally the same.

(The most essential part of trolling is convincing someone that you truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous.) 

It was nice meeting you, Syne.  Take care.  I'm out.

Notice how she telegraphs her intent to troll, and even hopes to distract from it with an expressed intent to disengage. This was on the second page of what is now a 4+ page thread...which she's remained engaged in...only to continue off-topic trolling. Non-sequitur accusations, especially without any support, tend to be the subconscious projection of exactly the behavior intended. Otherwise, the person would be capable of engaging the actual arguments made. Here, she just skips right over even a feigned argument, without so much as a straw man attempt to engage, and unwittingly tells us that she doesn't truly believe what she is saying.

It's only much later that she realizes she's been caught trolling and must then seek whatever means to justify it...including outright lies.

Next time I'll have some fun and see if predicting the behavior will allow her to avoid it.

[Secular Sanity]

Notice how she telegraphs her intent to troll, and even hopes to distract from it with an expressed intent to disengage. This was on the second page of what is now a 4+ page thread...which she's remained engaged in...only to continue off-topic trolling. Non-sequitur accusations, especially without any support, tend to be the subconscious projection of exactly the behavior intended. Otherwise, the person would be capable of engaging the actual arguments made. Here, she just skips right over even a feigned argument, without so much as a straw man attempt to engage, and unwittingly tells us that she doesn't truly believe what she is saying.

It's only much later that she realizes she's been caught trolling and must then seek whatever means to justify it...including outright lies.

Next time I'll have some fun and see if predicting the behavior will allow her to avoid it.

According to you, we’re not having an argument.  We’re just expressing our opinions.  The entire topic is pure speculation, right?

Is opinion argument? No. An argument has the intent to potentially persuade, which is why fallacies matter in arguments. Opinions are just expressions of belief.

And? When science admits that we can never know what happened at or previous to the Big Bang, what's the difference what you invoke to fill such a gap of eternal mystery? God of the gaps or science of the gaps....it's all fundamentally the same.

In terms of compelling evidence, it is speculation, but I do have access to things others seem completely unaware.

Of course I don't remember an insignificant discussion that happened who knows how long ago (years?). And no, why on earth would I save some nonsense from you? Unlike you, I'm not a troll that saves/bookmarks things so I can try to twist them to use against someone YEARS later.  

I’m not lying and I don’t save or bookmark everything.  I have a good memory.  It’s not abnormal.  It means that I paid attention.  I can remember conversations that I’ve had years ago with almost everyone.  Occasionally, there’s a misunderstanding, but most people are able to provide a perfectly plausible explanation.  Not you, though.  I know that you implied that you had a higher education in that field.  I even called you on in the PM.  I'm positive that you used the word 'academics' and in a way that relates to education and scholarship.  

It sounds like you don’t really give a rat’s ass about anything that I have to say.  

Do you still want my input or should we discontinue our interactions altogether?

[Syne]

Notice how she does her best to avoid the obvious pattern of off-topic trolling with a feigned attempt at engaging...only to go right back to her previous trolling.
I don't think she can help herself at this point. Bless her heart.

Notice how she telegraphs her intent to troll, and even hopes to distract from it with an expressed intent to disengage. This was on the second page of what is now a 4+ page thread...which she's remained engaged in...only to continue off-topic trolling. Non-sequitur accusations, especially without any support, tend to be the subconscious projection of exactly the behavior intended. Otherwise, the person would be capable of engaging the actual arguments made. Here, she just skips right over even a feigned argument, without so much as a straw man attempt to engage, and unwittingly tells us that she doesn't truly believe what she is saying.

It's only much later that she realizes she's been caught trolling and must then seek whatever means to justify it...including outright lies.

Next time I'll have some fun and see if predicting the behavior will allow her to avoid it.

According to you, we’re not having an argument.  We’re just expressing our opinions.  The entire topic is pure speculation, right?

In terms of compelling evidence, it is speculation, but I do have access to things others seem completely unaware.

Do you see that qualifier there? O_o
"Evidence" generally implies a materialist standard, of which I've freely admitted my beliefs on panentheism are not compelling. Beliefs have experience, reason, and logic as justification...not evidence. If they had justifying evidence they would be called facts or theory, instead of belief.

There's also a difference between having an argument/debate and just being engaged in the actual topic of the discussion at all.
Maybe you're just unaware that you can actually engage in a discussion about opinion? O_o

According to you, we’re not having an argument. We’re just expressing our opinions. The entire topic is pure speculation, right?

Is opinion argument? No. An argument has the intent to potentially persuade, which is why fallacies matter in arguments. Opinions are just expressions of belief.

So how does this being a discussion about opinion justify your off-topic trolling? O_o
Instead of discussing panentheism...or hell, even anything related to philosophy/religion....you've resorted to lies.

Of course I don't remember an insignificant discussion that happened who knows how long ago (years?). And no, why on earth would I save some nonsense from you? Unlike you, I'm not a troll that saves/bookmarks things so I can try to twist them to use against someone YEARS later.  

I’m not lying and I don’t save or bookmark everything.  I have a good memory.  It’s not abnormal.  It means that I paid attention.  I can remember conversations that I’ve had years ago with almost everyone.  Occasionally, there’s a misunderstanding, but most people are able to provide a perfectly plausible explanation.  Not you, though.  I know that you implied that you had a higher education in that field.  I even called you on in the PM.  I'm positive that you used the word 'academics' and in a way that relates to education and scholarship.  

LOL! Apparently you don't think anyone can educate themselves outside of "academics". That's sad.
What you erroneously inferred is your mistake, and a lie to claim I ever said or implied.

Your vaunted memory is apparently not all you seem to think it is.
And your earlier, "Did you save it?" is transparently a projection. Normal people do not even think to accuse others of things that are either not suggested by justifying behavior or outside of their own.

It sounds like you don’t really give a rat’s ass about anything that I have to say.  

Do you still want my input or should we discontinue our interactions altogether?

Anything you say about some obviously half-remembered discussion from years (?) ago that has zero to do with the topic of this thread? Yes, I couldn't care less about your trolling...or chip on your shoulder...or whatever you call it.

Now if you can manage to join the actual topic of this thread...hell, even tangentially....I'd be happy to interact. But interaction requires at least two parties interested in engaging the same general subject.


But I predict that you are incapable of that at this point. You're far too consumed with justifying your trolling to go back and answer some of the many questions you ignored (not wanting to interact?). Sadly, you also seem incapable of just refraining from posting to this thread.

[Syne]

Well, seems SS has refrained from posting to this thread....only to take the discussion about panentheism to an unrelated topic. Sad that she seems to think this fools anyone.

I guess it's just easier to disavow her trolling there.

[Secular Sanity]

The bible is not a text book of science. True or False?
Religion is supposed to answer the big questions that science can’t handle.  True or False?
Every religion has a different set of answers for these questions.  True or False?
There are certain nonnegotiable parts of the bible that have to be literally true?  True or False?
Most Christians believe in an afterlife?  True or False?
For two millennia Christians literally believed in the creation story of Adam and Eve?  True or False?
If the story of Adam and Eve is just a metaphor, did Jesus die for a metaphor?
Many theologians have a different answers as to why we can’t we see God?  True or False?

The invisible and nonexistent have a lot in common, eh?    

Christianity v. Panentheism

Dr. Francis Collins' organization has a forum.  You can work it out with them.  Convince all the Christians to drink your blended Jesus juice and then get back to me. I think you should all agree on the truth before you attempt to defend it or prove it, dontcha think?

The BioLogos Forum

The major difference between us is that you say that the universe is a part of God although God is also beyond the universe, while I say that God and the universe are separate entities. God knows, governs, and empowers the universe, but it is not a part of God.

If the universe were a part of God, I would be a part of God, because I am a part of the universe. I am not a part of God because God cannot die and I will die. God does not sin and I am a sinner, saved by grace. God does not make mistakes, and I make plenty of mistakes.

Therefore the universe and I are not a part of God. We are separate from God and imperfect, physical beings dependent on God, and God is not dependent on us. Case closed. Panentheism is not true.

[Syne]

Next time I'll have some fun and see if predicting the behavior will allow her to avoid it.

The bible is not a text book of science. True or False?
Religion is supposed to answer the big questions that science can’t handle.  True or False?
Every religion has a different set of answers for these questions.  True or False?
There are certain nonnegotiable parts of the bible that have to be literally true?  True or False?
Most Christians believe in an afterlife?  True or False?
For two millennia Christians literally believed in the creation story of Adam and Eve?  True or False?
If the story of Adam and Eve is just a metaphor, did Jesus die for a metaphor?
Many theologians have a different answers as to why we can’t we see God?  True or False?

The invisible and nonexistent have a lot in common, eh?    

Yeah, you don't get to play your little game of 20 question after you've steadfastly avoided the large majority of mine (and trolled to distract from the fact). You're just a sad little troll who jumped threads when you didn't want to address what was posted in the other. It's terribly transparent.

Christianity v. Panentheism

Dr. Francis Collins' organization has a forum.  You can work it out with them.  Convince all the Christians to drink your blended Jesus juice and then get back to me. I think you should all agree on the truth before you attempt to defend it or prove it, dontcha think?

The BioLogos Forum

The major difference between us is that you say that the universe is a part of God although God is also beyond the universe, while I say that God and the universe are separate entities. God knows, governs, and empowers the universe, but it is not a part of God.

If the universe were a part of God, I would be a part of God, because I am a part of the universe. I am not a part of God because God cannot die and I will die. God does not sin and I am a sinner, saved by grace. God does not make mistakes, and I make plenty of mistakes.

Therefore the universe and I are not a part of God. We are separate from God and imperfect, physical beings dependent on God, and God is not dependent on us. Case closed. Panentheism is not true.

Really? A forum post? And one from a guy I'm sure you don't agree with at all.

---

Why don't you start a new topic on panentheism? Maybe we can help you get over the hump.

I did think of starting a thread on panentheism, but your "get over the hump" just affirms that no one here is likely to actually learn anything from it. You'd just use it to lazily affirm your own existing biases. That's boring.

Called it.

[Secular Sanity]

You’ll have to do better than that if you want to hold my attention.

[Syne]

Actually, I changed my mind. This could be fun.

Clarify your questions, by answering mine, and I'll happily answers them.

The bible is not a text book of science. True or False?

Are you a blathering moron to ask such an obviously stupid question, or a troll trying to play gotcha with a question everyone already knows the answer to?

Religion is supposed to answer the big questions that science can’t handle.  True or False?

Why on earth would the purpose of religion have anything to do with science?

Every religion has a different set of answers for these questions.  True or False?

What questions?

There are certain nonnegotiable parts of the bible that have to be literally true?  True or False?

Like what?

Most Christians believe in an afterlife?  True or False?

Don't most religions believe in an afterlife?

For two millennia Christians literally believed in the creation story of Adam and Eve?  True or False?

What could that possible have to do with panentheism?

If the story of Adam and Eve is just a metaphor, did Jesus die for a metaphor?

What gave you the notion that Jesus died because of the Adam and Eve story?

Many theologians have a different answers as to why we can’t we see God?  True or False?

Are there theologians who think the metaphysical should be physically perceptible?

The invisible and nonexistent have a lot in common, eh?    

Does that make gravity nonexistent?

---

You’ll have to do better than that if you want to hold my attention.

Wait...you mean there's a chance you might just go away and quit trolling people...for good?

By all means, ignore the above and do so, posthaste.