WACO - The Netflix Series...WOW

[TexHill]

Did the supposed "delivery driver" ever come forward and testify or was that a made up accusation to give the ATF an excuse for the raid?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/waco-te...s-deliveryman/

[TomMcC]

So either we actually exist or we don't. Lacking evidence to the contrary I accept we actually exist.
Either we can accurately perceive things or we can't. Lacking evidence to the contrary I accept that we can accurately perceive things even if our perception is very human centric. This means we can't see some things like radio waves even though they have been there all along and in general our understanding is limited by the processing capacity of our brain and the limits of our technology.

So I generally accept what is in front of me and what can be supported by evidence. I'm willing to entertain what is likely because the evidence strongly suggests it's there even if we can't see it or prove it. Kind of like how the math suggested black holes should exist but it was about a half century before we got anything like observable evidence.

And I accept that if there is one thing history has taught us as a constant, it's that a lot of times when we speculate...we are often wrong no matter how much we want to be right. For example Percival Lowell drew maps of Mars based upon his observations that included an intricate canal network that all but proved intelligent life existed or once existed on Mars. We now know that is not the case.

I also accept there are things we will probably never know. For example IF (and the math strongly suggests there was) there was a beginning to the universe and if all of space (which eventually included matter) began from a singularity I don't think it will be possible to find out what happened prior to that event because there was no space or time so no observations could be possible regardless of how advanced our technology may become in 100 years, 1,000 years or a million years (assuming we are still here).

And while we have some idea how life came to be, the origin of life itself...the first life form on Earth will probably remain unknown to us. How did it form from "nothing" regardless of the presence of amino acids and other necessary ingredients. For all we know that original life form stopped existing millions of years ago and things like single cell organisms aren't famous for leaving a fossil record for us to find. And if life on Earth was cosmically seeded from someplace else, then we still have the same problem of where did that come from then.

So I think we know what we know, we have some good guesses about what might be and I think there are some things we simply will never know regardless of how advanced we become. And if the evidence changes I'm willing to adjust previously held beliefs. For example, a steady state universe without a beginning seems a lot more palatable to me. I could accept that it's just always been here and we have no idea why. But observations in spectral doppler show an expanding universe and that suggests a beginning and a starting point, which to me is a lot more complicated that "It's just always been here and we don't know why."

Hope that answers your question.

So, I see you're a combination of a materialist and empiricist...Sound about right? Not going off your sig line, but if I remember correctly, you're agnostic on things concerning deity. Do believe in the possibility of the supernatural?

[SteyrAUG]

So, I see you're a combination of a materialist and empiricist...Sound about right? Not going off your sig line, but if I remember correctly, you're agnostic on things concerning deity. Do believe in the possibility of the supernatural?

Sounds close enough. And yeah until there is compelling evidence either way I'm stuck at agnosticism.

Regarding the supernatural, no I don't really think it exists because if it exists it is natural but we simply don't understand it. In my view if there actually was an omnipotent deity such as the one described in Judaism, it would still be a natural entity because it "exists."

Supernatural is simply a label we apply to things we can't comprehend. But if they actually exist they doesn't become supernatural simply because we don't understand the nature of things.

So really the problem is this...where did everything "first" come from? A "creator being" really doesn't answer that question, it simply relocates the question and the new question becomes "where did the creator being come from? And if a "creator being" can be eternal than so can the origins of the universe but that still doesn't explain how things came to be in the first place. It is actually a little simpler without a sentient creator but that still doesn't mean we have any idea where it all began or how.

And I suspect we will never know. And again this is assuming we are actually perceiving the universe as it exists more or less in it's totality and we don't even know if that is for certain. Big as the viewable universe is...it might actually be a lot bigger.

[TomMcC]

Sounds close enough. And yeah until there is compelling evidence either way I'm stuck at agnosticism.

Regarding the supernatural, no I don't really think it exists because if it exists it is natural but we simply don't understand it. In my view if there actually was an omnipotent deity such as the one described in Judaism, it would still be a natural entity because it "exists."

Supernatural is simply a label we apply to things we can't comprehend. But if they actually exist they doesn't become supernatural simply because we don't understand the nature of things.

So really the problem is this...where did everything "first" come from? A "creator being" really doesn't answer that question, it simply relocates the question and the new question becomes "where did the creator being come from? And if a "creator being" can be eternal than so can the origins of the universe but that still doesn't explain how things came to be in the first place. It is actually a little simpler without a sentient creator but that still doesn't mean we have any idea where it all began or how.

And I suspect we will never know. And again this is assuming we are actually perceiving the universe as it exists more or less in it's totality and we don't even know if that is for certain. Big as the viewable universe is...it might actually be a lot bigger.

I think your definition of supernaturalism ultimately negates it's meaning by rolling it into nature as we understand it. Your view seems closer to panentheism as compared to Christian theism, where God is infinitely transcendent.

As for "first causes", we would appeal to God's own self revelation, that He is THE life, or put another way, He is the eternal life. There is no time that constrains His existence. Sometimes when I think about His eternity the part that is most difficult to take hold of is His eternity past, eternity forward is a much easier concept for me to grasp. Eternity past though would look something like this...go back 10 X 10 to the 10 trillionth power and God was there still un-created. He says "I am, that I am" denoting self existence. I just say that in whatever realm that God exists in, and realm isn't even correct, He is and cannot be constrained at all.

As for something like empiricism I would consider it self refuting. It's an abstract non-material concept that can not be perceive by the senses and empiricism postulates that all knowledge comes through our senses. I would also hold that senses are ultimately unreliable as concerns the gaining of knowledge. Seeing is not believing. I would also ask whether materialism can account for non material things like logic. Does logic exist apart from the human mind or does it have an independent existence? But then I don't believe the human mind is material or could have risen from "stuff". I believe logic exists apart from the human mind, it derives from the mind of God, it's how He thinks.

So if in your agnosticism, if this god does really exist, do you think he could and might be willing to actually reveal himself to men?

[SteyrAUG]

I think your definition of supernaturalism ultimately negates it's meaning by rolling it into nature as we understand it. Your view seems closer to panentheism as compared to Christian theism, where God is infinitely transcendent.

Yes, given my views there really isn't such a thing as the supernatural. To me if it "exists", it's "real" even if we cannot comprehend, understand or even recognize it's actual existence.

As for "first causes", we would appeal to God's own self revelation, that He is THE life, or put another way, He is the eternal life. There is no time that constrains His existence. Sometimes when I think about His eternity the part that is most difficult to take hold of is His eternity past, eternity forward is a much easier concept for me to grasp. Eternity past though would look something like this...go back 10 X 10 to the 10 trillionth power and God was there still un-created. He says "I am, that I am" denoting self existence. I just say that in whatever realm that God exists in, and realm isn't even correct, He is and cannot be constrained at all.

That's religion and not really my strong suit. To me if there actually is a grand creator of everything, all of mans descriptions of deities are pretty limiting. If there was a grand creator of everything, I'd be very, very surprised if we were a "special creation" rather than a byproduct after the fact. I do realize that goes against most of what you probably believe.

As for something like empiricism I would consider it self refuting. It's an abstract non-material concept that can not be perceive by the senses and empiricism postulates that all knowledge comes through our senses. I would also hold that senses are ultimately unreliable as concerns the gaining of knowledge. Seeing is not believing. I would also ask whether materialism can account for non material things like logic. Does logic exist apart from the human mind or does it have an independent existence? But then I don't believe the human mind is material or could have risen from "stuff". I believe logic exists apart from the human mind, it derives from the mind of God, it's how He thinks.

I actually think almost the exact opposite. If there is a creator, god or whatever we wish to call him...and he truly wants me to know and to be part of my life...that would be almost the easiest thing in the world. Dogs have done it, certainly if a dog can do it...a grand creator of everything could do it.

So if in your agnosticism, if this god does really exist, do you think he could and might be willing to actually reveal himself to men?

If the god of the Hebrew religion, which is what I assume we are discussing specifically...rather than an abstract notion of a grand creator (which is how I tend to view the possibility of a god) actually existed...one would think he'd be part of everyday existence and so much a part of reality that there wouldn't even be a question about it.

I'd personally be a little disappointed if I discovered that the "creator of everything" was a very humancentric deity with many of mans flaws, but I'd accept it just like I accept everything in nature even if I'm not thrilled about the nature of the world and the universe.

I'd be happy to learn that there is something after death and we aren't just another form of life that lives, forms attachments, contemplates the meaning of it all and then simply ceases to exist. At the same time I'd be pretty upset about the nature of the "grand plan" and all of it's huge injustices. It's a double edge sword, I'd probably fail to meet any "faith or reverence" criteria but it wouldn't matter to me, knowing that some of my loved ones went on to something better would be enough for me.

Also if there is a god and he revealed himself to me, I'd seriously be WTF and wonder why it didn't happen when I was 10 years old and could have used some more guidance.