Religion III

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're equivocating! The issue is not just a spark but a FIRE. The spark must catch something to set it ablaze. Lightning striking a boulder is not going to set the rock on fire. Nor will lightning that strikes a single tree that somehow survived a previous forest fire set a ablaze other dead, burnt out trees to start another forest fire.

By the way, does nature use the fuel injection method to start a forest fire with lightning?

Didn't understand a word I said did you? #3744 strikes again.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're right about religion explaining nothing. But that doesn't preclude God from explaining things to the world.

Oh yes it does. If God explained things to the world that would be evidence that he exists. But there is no such evidence.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Good, then you agree that God, who transcends the universe, is eternal.

No. I just told you, one can not determine bupkis about what transcends one's bupkis. Note: Almost all of your bumbling posts are chock full of bupkis

Originally Posted by bumbling_car

And by the way your own condemn you on how you interpret scripture. The only way to understand any given passage (a part) is in its three-fold context (the whole), i.e. the immediate context, the intermediate context (the book in which the passage is found) and the macro context (the entire bible.

So tell us what is the context, if there is a loving and compassionate context of your god murdering children and communing infanticide, wiping out, at the drop of a miracle .......

1 Samuel 15:3 King James Version (KJV)

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

And.....

Exodus 12:29 King James Version (KJV)

29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto he firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

Revenge? Does your version of god practice revenge??

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"However using a brick to define the wall is a leap of faith".

I'm making a simple observation pertaining to the common sense experience of the world with regard to a proposed fallacy. I admit I'm not sure where you are leaping to in this statement. But it's comforting to know you reject scientific reductionism. "However, using a particle to define man is a leap of faith".

"Sorry, one cannot "deduce" a prime mover nor it's composition".

"Sorry, 'I' cannot deduce a prime mover nor it's composition".

I have mentioned that I do not divide the world into natural and supernatural.
I do no not reject "scientific reductionism" since ALL "stuff" in existence is of the same "stuff".

I look at as Tathata, which means "suchness" or "thusness," in Buddhism to mean "reality," or the way things really are. The closest example materially speaking, is both matter and energy are both forms of the same underlying oneness. A few hundred years ago we might have refereed to magnetic fields as supernatural.

Energy is a much "finer" form.

Our grasp if "stuff" is the crux of our problem.
Many eastern schools of thought stress tuning the instruments of perception enabling a clearer set of impressions to filter in and guide our usual hasty conclusions.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No. I just told you, one can not determine bupkis about what transcends one's bupkis. Note: Almost all of your bumbling posts are chock full of bupkis

(emphasis mine)

How do you know what one cannot determine? In your previous post said that God can't be known. How do you know this? What do YOU know about God to tell anyone else what can't be determined or known?

So tell us what is the context, if there is a loving and compassionate context of your god murdering children and communing infanticide, wiping out, at the drop of a miracle .......

The fall of mankind and God's plan of redemption for many sinners, out of his eternal love and compassion for them, as revealed progressively throughout scripture.

[And.....




Revenge? Does your version of god practice revenge??

[/quote]

God will avenge all the wrong that has been done to the poor, the widows, the orphans, etc. Yes! He will exact perfect, righteous judgment upon all the unrepentant wicked.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Not_reading_car

How do you know what one cannot determine? In your previous post said that God can't be known. How do you know this? What do YOU know about God to tell anyone else what can't be determined or known?

Bunky, can not determine means can not be known.

The remainder of your post is despicable, deplorable and totally absurd.
You practice misogyny for a living. I guess that's why you never told us your day job.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Equivocation! The truth value of the hypothesis is not changed by testing it.

This is true even in the Schrödinger's cat experiment because in that experiment the observer becomes part of the experiment and thus influences the result.

"The truth value is not changed...", but the potential to be true or false in the mind of the physicist changes (is "actualized") according to the results. Or, the confirmation for the physicist 1) was dependent upon the results 2) was contingent upon the results 3) was in potency until the results. I was only attempting to assist you with a term I have seen in other forums regarding the modernization of "potential".

Same with Schrödinger's cat. The cat is potentially, indeterminately alive or dead, until observation actualizes the determinate state...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...111/nbfr.12036

I surrender the topic.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

God will avenge all the wrong that has been done to the poor, the widows, the orphans, etc. Yes! He will exact perfect, righteous judgment upon all the unrepentant wicked.

Did you just tell us your despicable murdering god will, "avenge", confirming my revenge hypothesis,...... orphans..????.....

Is he going to kill himself?.... If so,, I suggest you join up and perhaps lead the way.

You f**k**g heartless S.O.B.

And you think I have problems interpreting the bible?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Bunky, can not determine means can not be known.

The above is gibberish. Try to write coherently if that is even possible for you.

Also, you did say God can't be known. How do you know this? What do YOU know about God to tell anyone he can't be known?

The remainder of your post is despicable, deplorable and totally absurd.
You practice misogyny for a living. I guess that's why you never told us your day job.

I gave you the context of the bible, which in one phrase is redemptive history. It's God's plan for redeeming and forgiving all those who repent of their sins and trust in His Son for the eternal salvation of their souls.

[hcap]

Let me know when you and your god are going to avenge the children and infants he murders

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Did you just tell us your despicable murdering god will, "avenge", confirming my revenge hypothesis,...... orphans..????.....

Is he going to kill himself?.... If so,, I suggest you join up and perhaps lead the way.

You f**k**g heartless S.O.B.

And you think I have problems interpreting the bible?

You don't know how to read. God back and read my post. I said He will avenge ALL the WRONG done to orphans, widows, the poor, etc.

You're shot. Hang it up, already.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Killer_car

I said He will avenge ALL the WRONG done to orphans, widows, the poor, etc

.
Bunky, the bible is jammed full of details of all the parents who your god "avenged" for one reason or another, mostly sinning, or not bowing down enough, producing hundreds of generations of orphans and widows. Call up Bishop Ussher and ask him to tabulate the overwhelming suffering and death toll.

He/she or it, sure has his "work" cut out.
The parents, the children, the infants and suckling, and let's not forget them farm animals...
So when will your bloodthirsty deity commit suicide? Avenging all them widows and orphans?
.................................................. .................................................. ..............
Have I told you I categorically reject your ugly, despicable, deplorable, misogynistic spastic interpretations?

Obviously the interpreter is the one wearing the incredibly hateful tinted myopic glasses.

Through a glass very, very, very darkly

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

.
Bunky, the bible is jammed full of details of all the parents who your god "avenged" for one reason or another, mostly sinning, or not bowing down enough, producing hundreds of generations of orphans and widows. Call up Bishop Ussher and ask him to tabulate the overwhelming suffering and death toll.

He/she or it, sure has his "work" cut out.
The parents, the children, the infants and suckling, and let's not forget them farm animals...
So when will your bloodthirsty deity commit suicide? Avenging all them widows and orphans?
.................................................. .................................................. ..............
Have I told you I categorically reject your ugly, despicable, deplorable, misogynistic spastic interpretations?

Obviously the interpreter is the one wearing the incredibly hateful tinted myopic glasses.

Through a glass very, very, very darkly

The bible is also "jammed full of details" on all manner of subjects in which you have no interest in knowing. Context really does count.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The bible is also "jammed full of details" on all manner of subjects in which you have no interest in knowing. Context really does count.

Over the last 17 or so years you have failerd miserbly presenting any sense interpreting the bible. Cotext is not enough without knowing allegorical, metaphorical and the symbolic, buried under tons of distortion and ARROGANT assumptions of Biblical infallibility.

Also helps knowing other religions, history, science, and when your factual pontificates fall flat on your ass.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

But to determine that each brick in the wall is made of stone you must examine each brick, i.e., you must examine the entire wall. Ergo, the fallacy of composition does not apply because you have not examined a part but the whole.

According to Newton's Third Law "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction." Thus there is no "Prime Mover." Rather each moved/changed thing has a complementary equal but opposite mover whose action is instantaneous (quantum entanglement).

"But to determine that each brick in the wall"...I've seen similar propositions as mine in other forums, but without investigating I'll concede a point that I'm not very interested in. I noticed Aquinas mentioned within the context of the fallacy by someone. He didn't argue to the whole universe. For any singular observation of act/potency, essence/existence, etc., that was enough for him to establish his deductions.

"According to Newton's Third Law"...It is a philosophical choice, and not one necessitated by modern science, to elevate micro-level reality to the position of exhausting all descriptions. Physics abstracts mathematical descriptions from common sense, experiential macroscopic reality. For many of us, that doesn't exhaust reality. Was it Einstein? "The moon is still there when I look away".

Metaphysics describes what must be possible for any science to be done at all. I'm not given to handing over macroscopic reality, when a scientist must utilize his senses at the macroscopic level in order to describe micro-level interactions. That would be an epistemological contradiction. Does one deny change (If scientists change their mind, is change part of reality?) Time? Sequential events? Causation? Does someone with the moniker "Actor" deny that there is "act" in reality?

Metaphysics is not directly affected by whatever modern science may describe at micro-levels." It is not always realized how exceedingly abstract is the information that theoretical physics has to give. It lays down certain fundamental equations which enable it to deal with the logical structure of events, while leaving it completely unknown what is the intrinsic character of the events that have the structure"--Bertrand Russell.