Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

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

It's you who doesn't understand. Can you start a campfire without first building a tinder nest? Didn't you learn anything in Boy Scouts 101?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

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.

Context is the primary element that determines how to interpret. You have never wanted to understand scripture. How many times have you squawked over the years whenever I have posted scriptures, telling me not to bother because you don't want to read them?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

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.

I'm fine with competing philosophies, be it yours or Udayana's...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya#...hat_God_exists

or Actor's...

https://www.iep.utm.edu/red-ism/

...as long as I'm not instructed to honor every philosophy but my own.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

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

He has explained things in scripture, but the world's own (beloved walking [spiritual] dead) are incapable of understanding spiritual truth. You have eyes to see, but do not see. And ears to hear, but you cannot hear. The world's heart is as hardened against God as was Pharaoh's.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

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?

This is your tired absurd Norman Geisler repartee, you dredge up when you run out of anything original of your own to say.

Norman was evidently unaware we may know our own limitations. Socrates warned about assuming we know more than we do. However knowing we can not see over the "wall" raises suspicions about our horizons and what is beyond.. Being aware of limitations sometimes causes one to search for glimpses of what is over the wall. Greener pastures? Even though Norman and you can not, some of us can see the walls around us.

Personally, the Indian analogy about 4 blind men coming across an elephant each only experiencing a leg, tusk or tail, and trying to describe the one creature connecting up the individual aspects raises more suspicions

We all experience somethings greater than ourselves. That's primarily why these religious threads exist.

Sometimes the awe of contemplating the wonders all around us, the starry sky, a J.S. Bach piece, a Gothic Cathedral, the smile on my child's face, the love of my dog or cat, the moment when I am truly and deeply silent, let me know enough to develop an informed inkling of more than can bed grasped at first and outright.

So screw you and Norman, and your artificial word games dressing up as logic.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

This is your tired absurd Norman Geisler repartee, you dredge up when you run out of anything original of your own to say.

Norman was evidently unaware we may know our own limitations. Socrates warned about assuming we know more than we do. However knowing we can not see over the "wall" raises suspicions about our horizons and what is beyond.. Being aware of limitations sometimes causes one to search for glimpses of what is over the wall. Greener pastures? Even though Norman and you can not, some of us can see the walls around us.

Personally, the Indian analogy about 4 blind men coming across an elephant each only experiencing a leg, tusk or tail, and trying to describe the one creature connecting up the individual aspects raises more suspicions

We all experience somethings greater than ourselves. That's primarily why these religious threads exist.

Sometimes the awe of contemplating the wonders all around us, the starry sky, a J.S. Bach piece, a Gothic Cathedral, the smile on my child's face, the love of my dog or cat, the moment when I am truly and deeply silent, let me know enough to develop an informed inkling of more than can bed grasped at first and outright.

So screw you and Norman, and your artificial word games dressing up as logic.

Obviously, Mr. Pot calling the Kettle Black, you don't know your own limitations on knowledge. To say that God can't be known or is unknowable logically presumes knowledge about what you so proudly claim is unknown or unknowable. So, please, don't be shy and bashful: Tell us what you know about the unknown or unknowable that motivates you to preach agnosticism to others. Of course, if you know exactly nothing, which is what you're telling others can only be known about God, then your sermonizing is vanity of vanities. Absolutely meaningless. Your stupid agnosticism, therefore, is self-refuting in either case!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

He has explained things in scripture, ...

Scripture proves nothing!

Originally Posted by boxcar

You have eyes to see, but do not see. And ears to hear, but you cannot hear.

Ad hominem! You have a brain. Use it to think.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Scripture proves nothing!

And scientism proves even less!

Ad hominem! You have a brain. Use it to think.

You should be last one around here exhorting anyone else to think! You obviously believe fire needs no fuel to burn! You flunked out of Boy Scouts 101, didn't you?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Obviously, Mr. Pot calling the Kettle Black, you don't know your own limitations on knowledge. To say that God can't be known or is unknowable logically presumes knowledge about what you so proudly claim is unknown or unknowable. So, please, don't be shy and bashful: Tell us what you know about the unknown or unknowable that motivates you to preach agnosticism to others. Of course, if you know exactly nothing, which is what you're telling others can only be known about God, then your sermonizing is vanity of vanities. Absolutely meaningless. Your stupid agnosticism, therefore, is self-refuting in either case!

More crapola pilled high and deep. You obviously could not follow knowing your own feeble-minded ignorance, although I spelled out quite clearly.

More word games galore. How many times can you say unknown, can't be known, and unknowable in five incomprehensible jumbled idiotic sentences, and still manage to make so little sense?

Hint:you need not know anything about "god" to wait for someone to demonstrate or prove it to you. You and Norman have the burden. And Norman passed a few years ago.

Now if you were to say "I boxcar, of the bottom feeding word game playing boxcars, have no idea what the hell I am talking about", you would have a solid

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

More crapola pilled high and deep. You obviously could not follow knowing your own feeble-minded ignorance, although I spelled out quite clearly.

More word games galore. How many times can you say unknown, can't be known, and unknowable in five incomprehensible jumbled idiotic sentences, and still manage to make so little sense?

Hint:you need not know anything about "god" to wait for someone to demonstrate or prove it to you. You and Norman have the burden. And Norman passed a few years ago.

Now if you were to say "I boxcar, of the bottom feeding word game playing boxcars, have no idea what the hell I am talking about", you would have a solid

The only thing you "spelled out quite clearly" and that emanated from the deep, dark depths your "feeble-minded" ignorance spouting the great virtues of the self-defeating philosophy of agnosticism.

We're sto;; waiting to hear from you what you think you know about the unknown and unknowable that motivates you to speak with such certitude and authority out of your prideful arrogance.

[hcap]

Hey bunky. If you told me you had aliens living in the room above your garage, would I have to know anything about your garage or aliens, to doubt it was so?

Would I have had to see at least one episode of "Alf" in order to have an opinion?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Hey bunky. If you told me you had aliens living in the room above your garage, would I have to know anything about your garage or aliens, to doubt it was so?

Would I have had to see at least one episode of "Alf" in order to have an opinion?

If you told me that aliens don't exist or if they do, they're unknown or unknowable, then you should be prepared to back up your bold assertion.

Since you very obviously have been speaking out of your deep, dark ignorance on spiritual matters, your agnosticism is truly meaningless. To doubt is one thing; but to assert with such arrogant certitude is quite another.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And scientism proves even less!

I missed the part where religion gave us vaccines, cures for diseases, mass communication, landing on the moon. Could you possibly be thinking of something else? Maybe flying airplanes into buildings was what you had in mind.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You obviously believe fire needs no fuel to burn!

Liar. I never said any such thing and you know it. But you think fire can burn in a vacuum.

Without looking it up (you should have learned it in high school science) can you tell us why dousing a fire with water tends to put it out?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Can you start a campfire without first building a tinder nest?

By "tinder nest" do you mean "kindling?"

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I missed the part where religion gave us vaccines, cures for diseases, mass communication, landing on the moon. Could you possibly be thinking of something else? Maybe flying airplanes into buildings was what you had in mind.

Non sequitur. What does any of the above that have to do with forensic science and the origins of the universe?

Liar. I never said any such thing and you know it. But you think fire can burn in a vacuum.

I never said that. The burden of proof is on you.

Without looking it up (you should have learned it in high school science) can you tell us why dousing a fire with water tends to put it out?

Non sequitur.

Now, if you never said any such thing about sparks, you're wrong about a forest fire not having an adequate cause (Spark + FUEL!). One can make gazillions of sparks until the cows come home and never produce a flame or a fire if those sparks don't have any fuel to latch unto. The cause of your hypothetical forest fire was in the spark AND the trees of the forest!