Y'all cool? Other matters are starting to be more pressing.Originally Posted by Subteigh
Y'all cool? Other matters are starting to be more pressing.
There is still time to repent. Concern yourself not with things of substance.
So we're agreed; jung is dead.
Managed to inspect enough crosses to find the original timbers, just waiting on the nails; hammer's kinda rusty.
Ah! I JUST told my husband excitedly, "The right people are arguing here! Yea!" because this doesn't stress you out I am sure. But I will join after dinner (braised and broiled lamb loins, rubbed with thyme/garlic/s&p and salad and for Dh, a baked potato) and after Downton Abbey. I really like how this thread is moving along, minus lectures, in addressable points, plus I am not alone, so yes I will follow it and join in later.
[I'm Catholic too! We're in the same big boat (see below). I was happy to worship with Protestant Christians of various divisions my whole life but I joined the Tiber Swim Team in 2000 - and its for good!]
JohnBoscosVision2.jpg
Vision of St. John Bosco
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
merely hearsay, who is going to walk around it.
Yes, well a herd of mosquitoes would have been great! (as long as they too went into the water).
But I contemplated this, and the pigs is much better.
A link to said passage: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...20&version=NIV (Choose your translation version and/or language)
Jesus had a reason for this pig-death because everything Jesus did had a reason, a reason formed from perfect wisdom, with everything, in all-good, considered. "The grass will withers, the flowers will fade, but the Word of the Lord endures forever." And so this story will be remembered to the end of time. Jesus does not tell us in his Word for the reasons for doing things the way He did here, as He sometimes does for some of his actions. But we can use our minds to think, and I will speculate. Reasonable speculation takes into into account context in scripture, in time and culture, and all Jesus' other words and actions, and more. I'll do some of that anyway.
The people certainly would have highly valued their pigs, and would have been NOT happy to lose them. The 2000-head herd of swine loss meant inconvenience and all the serious loss to the many townspeople, and certainly the loss hit some even harder who were not well off and really, really needed their pig. A loss not soon forgot. A tragedy, and of tragedies people long ruminate, "Why did this happen?"
The demons wanted to go in the pigs and Jesus certainly could have said no. The demons had no good in mind with this request, perhaps hoping to destroy people as possessed pigs. But Jesus chose it for only good.
I think Jesus could not have picked a more unique way and hardly a more memorable one for the townspeople to never forget He was there and to ensure they remember Him. How long would they have remembered the healed man? As miraculous and special as the healing was, we tend to forget even such things. Although the possessed man's presence in/near the town must have been a terror, his circle of previously-terrorized people could only be so big. But a much greater portion of the town (which, maybe we could assume was more 2000 people?) would have all either lost their pig or known someone who had a pig that was lost in this event, and you can be sure it would be some years before they ever had another Annual Town-wide Pig Roast.
Yes. The shock of this astounding event - 2000 pigs flying en masses into the water to drown - is something this town would never forget. And they needed to remember that the God of Heaven, the Savior of the World, was in their town, and did a miracle there. They would soon in time begin to hear more stories of the Savior, and now they would have keenly listening hearts and minds, very curious to know all about this Man, and Who he was. They would hear of his Death and Resurrection, so mysterious, and the reality the He had come to town and he had done a miracle there, in their own town, would become something they would cherish. And generation after generation after generation in this town would know and identify with this amazing pig story of their town, this story that was particularly HUGE because of the astounding pig-plunge (and their great grandpa lost a pig that day). And the healed man would always be connected to it, as would Jesus. Three amazing elements tied together into one truly amazing story that really happened.
My husband points out these were Gentiles - Jews don't do pigs. They were close enough to know plenty about their Jewish neighbors, and they certainly knew they were despised by them and considered as unclean people by them, because of their pigs alone, but also other things. They probably did not like the arrogant Jews who had nothing but disdain for them, influencing them to have little interest in their alleged promised Messiah.
The man no-longer-possessed followed Jesus, and asked to go with Him, and Jesus often (usually?) said yes to this, but Jesus instead had a mission for him, "Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” Jesus assigned a powerful witness in this town, one witness (and supporters to back up his story). And what a story. As a witness alone he could have soon been ignored when everyone got used to the fact that this guy was okay now, and the 20 minutes of fame would be over, and people would turn to get on with their own lives. But the fantastical pig story invaded their lives, making it unforgettable. Everyone, every single person in town would want to know the WHOLE story of the lost pigs, an amazing story, because every part of it together made one stunning story. The lost pigs, horrible -, but personal, because everyone lost one or at least knew someone who lost one. The witness - they could meet him in real life, there in town, and this man was in love with Jesus who was all good and all mercy and his heart would never forget and he would always tell this story, gladly, again and again to all who would listen, as long as he lived. And his witness of love would leave an imprint on their hearts, and those touched would find a longing growing in their hearts to know more. And when news stories of this Lord Jesus trickled into town, they would listen, and think, and share what they knew with others who wanted to know, too. In time the town would grow in longing to know more of this Jesus who had once visited their town, and graced their town with a miracle. And their thirst to know would pave the way for the Apostles, who would come to teach these ready-hearts of Jesus and the Good News and His Church, that was not just for the Jews, but for all of mankind.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Oh, dear, Jeremy, I spent time on what turned out to be a lecture, rather than the nice reasonably short back-and-forths I was going to jump into here, that looked inviting. And the next two days are full of activity, and after Tuesday night I am gone for Lent. I am glad you contributed here. Thank you.I will read it between things I do the next two days. I also promised Jackal I'd read carefully what he wrote so that's a priority.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Space could be infinite as could time and dimensions.. You have no means to argue that they are as bounded as you are attempting to suggest."God" is a term that is a placeholder. Terms, words, thoughts, concepts, dimensions, time, space, etc. are all bounded things.
A god cannot be a Universal Set of all Sets unless you are suggesting Existence itself is GOD, and at that point you are essentially stating that everyone and everything is GOD.. The concept becomes moot., especially when it is Existence itself to which contains all things..."God" is a placeholder for that which is boundless, and, thus, contains all these things and more.
That is not what "I am" means.. And Yahweh is much closer related to the Sanskrit word Yahveh, meaning ‘ever flowing’This is why "I am," "Yahweh," "Tetragrammaton," and "God" exist, because what they are placeholders for has no bounds to allow it to ever be known
This especially in the earliest renditions of the name to which includes YHW among the Shasu..* http://www.oldict.com/yahvat/
yahvat 2[ yahv’at ] mf ( [ ‘atI ] ) n. ever-flowing ( waters ) cf. RV.
Related words: yahvaYahveYahveh
.
Related Yahva:
http://www.oldict.com/yahva/
2[ yahv’a ] mf ( [ ‘I ] ) n. restless , swift , active ( applied to
Agni , Indra and Soma ) cf. RV.
—> continually moving or flowing ( applied to the waters ) cf. ib. (
= [ mahat ] cf. Sāy. )
I would disagree to such an argument and say that would be Incorrect, and the only thing we can suggest as such would be Existence itself (Synomynous with the term "Universe" / "Reality" and by definition).., and even then it is impossible for existence, or anything in and of Existence to be beyond Existence (Out side of existence) and exist.. I will simply present Set Theory, and the Definition of "Universe" used here to demonstrate this point:. as it is infinite, all-inclusive, and all-exclusive in ways that it is beyond all things.
Furthermore, the argument that "God" created "Everything" is nonsensical, and one cannot create Existence so he or she can exist,, or that which one's self requires to exist.. The very fact that A god would need to be in and of Existence like everything else automatically invalidates that argument entirely. People that deposit those arguments are making self-refuting arguments to which are inherently wrong by the consequence of their very premises. Furthermore, that would make any concept of GOD bounded...., and therefore cannot ever be "boundless".. Just the fact I am my own individual self will automatically present boundaries and invalidate the argument of Yahweh being "boundless"..
The closest anything can get to that is Existence itself.. , and even then it is bound to require itself. Now I remember an argument that claimed their god was not bound to time, and then I remember asking them ; "Does your God Exist now? How about now?... Quickly that argument collapsed into meaningless drivel ... Further still, a conscious state of being is in itself subject to being temporal , and cannot exist without the inertia and processing of information, especially of the sensory nature.. In fact, the conscious state is most likely comprised entirely of sensory information continuously being processed into a conscious frame of reference. Sort of like how the image on my computer screen is.. It is therefore temporal, and must require an Existential time frame of reference to ever exist at all. No time in physics is the state of no inertia..., and that would mean no inertia or processing of information what-so-ever.. Further still, and for one to argue a god outside of time would be the same thing as saying "God doesn't exist now, nor had it or will it ever" for the same reason that claiming he is beyond existence would be the same thing as saying he is not in or of existence.."God" is placeholder for has no bounds.
Theists far to often rest their arguments on self-refutations that are inherently and literally impossible.
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-08-2016 at 05:45 AM.
It would be a fair assumption to say "Things exist" as by definition nothing cannot exist as it has no capacity to exist.. To put that in plain terms....; "If nothing existed, not even nothing would exist"... This is a direct example of a self-refuting concept..., and that literally means non-existence never had ever existed. Hence Existence logically would have always existed, especially when it would be literally impossible to create existence or literally come from "Nothing".. It is far more coherent to say "Existence is a self-generating system from itself for which all things derive from" .. Furthermore, "nothing" cannot be a material substance value of something when it doesn't exist.. That literally means incorporeal and immaterial beliefs are literally fantasy..., arguing otherwise is trying to argue things of nothing can magically somehow exist..
So lets go over the definitions of these words here:
Yes I would assume things Exist and that all things are made of exactly what existence itself is made of... And thus far all things appear to be made of Energy.... Even the vacuum of space! There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I even summarized based on what we know to the best of our current knowledge in the following summary:
nonexistence:
Quote
non·ex·is·tence (nng-zstns)
n.
1. The condition of not existing.
2. Something that does not exist.
The Definition of Nothingness:
Quote
Quote:
nothingness[ˈnʌθɪŋnɪs]n
1. the state or condition of being nothing; nonexistence, non-existent
2. The condition or quality of being nothing; nonexistence.
The definition of the word nothing:
Quote
Quote:
noth·ing (nthng)
Quote
pron.
1. No thing; not anything: Non-existent thing
n.
1. Something that has no existence.
2. Something that has no quantitative value; zero: Non-existence
3. That has no substance or substantial importance; a nonentity: non-existence
As we can see nothing and non-existence are synonymous.. And as you will see under number 3 under the definition of nothing above, it's that has "No substance".. To some the idea of god is important to them, so they consider the idea more than nothing, however if the object of this idea is to exist, it can not be made of nothing when understanding the above definition. Even the idea itself, like the words on this screen, cannot be made of nothing. Energy and information are two sides of the same coin.. And number 3 here is noted under the definition "immaterial" .. thus claiming the existence of immaterial beings is equal to claiming the existence of non-entities as defined below:
Quote
non·en·ti·ty (nn-nt-t)
n.pl.non·en·ti·ties
1. A person regarded as being of no importance or significance.
2. Nonexistence.
3. Something that does not exist or that exists only in the imagination.
To which is synomynous with the term Unreal:
Quote
un·re·al
[uhn-ree-uhl, -reel] Show IPA
adjective
1.
not real or actual.
2. imaginary; fanciful; illusory; delusory; fantastic.
3.lacking in truth; not genuine; false; artificial: unreal propaganda serving as news.
So far not very convincing for me to even consider the concept of immateriality to which is nothing more than trying to make nothing worth more than nothing at all... So let's define some more terms for you so we can actually understand what's being said in proper context in contrast to "nothing, non-existence ect..":
Reality:
Quote
re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.
Thus in contrast let's move on to the term "existence":
Quote
ex·is·tence (g-zstns)
n.
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
3.
a. The totality of all that exists
b. A thing that exists; an entity.
4. A mode or manner of existing
5. Specific presence; occurrence
Synonyms: existence, actuality, being, real, and reality.
As we can see here, Existence is the totality of everything, but how does materiality and immateriality play in this? Well, lets define some key points here:
1. Insubstantiality - lacking substance or reality
2. Immaterial - lacking substance or reality
3. Material - Having substance or reality
Thus let's get our hands dirty here and dig deeper with the definitions noted:
im·ma·te·ri·al·i·ty (m-tîr-l-t)
n. pl. im·ma·te·ri·al·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being immaterial; lacking substance
2. Something immaterial; of no importance or value; lacking substance
It's not a word that means just lack of energy or matter as we know it, it's a world that which is the total lack of substance or importance. It is the opposite of reality.. And to put beings as immaterial objects is actually a mind wipe, and that is what religions actually need you to believe...., that is to actually somehow believe a nothing being exists based on "faith", and an emotional indoctrinated attachment to some idea or concept of a "nothing GOD" to which they know has no real substantial or material value greater than nothing at all. They are selling you absolutely nothing.., or at best an absurdity:
Immaterial:
Quote
immaterial (ˌɪməˈtɪərɪəl)
— adj
1. of no real importance; inconsequential
2. Not formed of matter or substance.
Here when you tell me a god is immaterial, I will say then your god is of no importance, not anything, or made of anything at all. It's nothing to which is the lack of substance or importance. Here the definition notes the lack of matter, but is more specific to the true meaning of the word of "no substance".. That's any substance what-so-ever. And that brings us to conclude that an immaterial deity is :
Insubstantial:
Quote
in·sub·stan·tial (nsb-stnshl)
adj.
1. Lacking substance or reality. See Synonyms: immaterial.
Synonymous with:
Quote
unreality [ˌʌnrɪˈælɪtɪ]
n
1. the quality or state of being unreal, fanciful, or impractical
2. something that is unreal
In contrast to, drum roll please..... :
Materiality:
Quote
ma·te·ri·al·i·ty (m-tîr-l-t)
n. pl. ma·te·ri·al·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being material.
2. Physical substance, or having substance
3. The quality of being relevant or significant.
See Synonyms: substantial, substantiality
Quote
sub·stan·tial (sb-stnshl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or having substance; material.
2. True or real; not imaginary.
3. Solidly built; strong.
4. Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast.
5. Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent
6. Possessing wealth or propert
And we may also toss in the word solid for fun:
Quote
sol·id (sld)
adj. sol·id·er, sol·id·est
1.
a. Of definite shape and volume; not liquid or gaseous.
b. Firm or compact in substance.
2. Not hollowed out: a solid block of wood.
3. Being the same substance or color throughout: solid gold.
4. Mathematics Of or relating to three-dimensional geometric figures or bodies.
5. Having no gaps or breaks; continuous: a solid line of people.
6. Of good quality and substance: a solid foundation.
7. Substantial; of substance or of great importance.
8. Sound; reliable: solid facts.
9. Financially sound.
10. Upstanding and dependable: a solid citizen.
11. Written without a hyphen or space. For example, the word software is a solid compound.
12. Printing Having no leads between the lines.
13. Acting together; unanimous: a solid voting bloc.
E = Existence = Energy = information = force = cause = emergent properties = you, me, the stars, and everything else.
E = Existence
E = Everything
E = Everywhere
E = Energy / information
E = Emergence or Emerging properties
E = MC^2
E = Evolution
E = Everyone
E = Me to
And if you like, the concept of E = easy to understand without having to go into Everything E can do, or how E does Everything it can do. E is thus the only Established and Empirically supported truth we have thus far. E Enables us to do the things we do, and be who we are. And without E there is nothing, no Existence, no me, no you, not anything. And well, it's good to know that E exists simply because nothing can't. It's good to know that E can neither be created nor destroyed. This means we will Exist in some form or another regardless of what happens after death.
E Explains itself and is self-Explanatory, and there can be no Explanation without E
It's simply "E"
And nowhere in any of that do we even need to consider the concept of GOD in any definition, shape, or form.. This very fact that we don't is all we really need to understand how irrelevant any such concept is.. Hence, Existence doesn't require GOD to exist, it would be GOD that would require Existence to exist.. Therefore I ask any theist here to answer the question; "What is God without Existence?"
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-08-2016 at 05:30 AM.
Sorry this took me so long to respond, ragnar, whom I see is another ILI.
And I have to make this quick, and Tuesday midnight starts Lent and I am offline for all of Lent. So, I am answering but I can't keep up the conversation but other people can. Also on Sundays I might read a bit, though not write.
Anyway, I wondered about another way of looking at the plane path but your link there does not seem right. Obviously its distorted too. If you look at a globe, sure enough, the actual route on a globe, Japan to LA, puts Alaska ridiculously out of the way just like you'd expect. If you don't have a globe at home you can find a spinning earth model on youtube. Check it out.
[I have not looked into much more of FET since I started this thread but I will have a little bit time for more exploring over Lent].
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Anyone with a string and globe can invalidate that argument.. I seriously shouldn't have to repeat basic math for you to understand how ridiculous your argument is.. I don't think you grasp what a globe is to understand how hilarious your argument is.. It literally puts Alaska Closer than LA.. Taiwan to Anchorage Alaska is 4823.254 miles (roughly).. Tiawan to LA is 6938.092 miles (roughly).. That's essentially 2,000 miles further..., and even if they took a shallow northern route, it still would have been a shorter distance to Anchorage Alaska.. So even if the plane were doing 600 MPH the entire flight, it would be 11 hours 33 minutes to LA compared to 8 hours and 2 minutes to Anchorage Alaska.. However, trans pacific flights don't go 600 mph., and the citation you posted from cites an article with a typo as it is a 9 hour journey @535mph and not a 19 hour journey @253mph to Anchorage Alaska. Furthermore, if they had flown at 253 MPH to LA, it would have taken them 27 hours and 25 minutes. For them to get to LA in 19 hours they would have to have flown at about 365 MPH should we accept their typo, and at 365 MPH it would have taken them 13 hours and 12 minutes to get to Alaska.. Under no circumstance other than lying about their route could you possibly argue that it would have taken them longer to get to Anchorage Alaska.. Basically the crank video you cited argued that they essentially flew along the equator and took an extremely shallow route. Worse still, even in that case it still would be a shorter distance to Anchorage Alaska than to LA if they had turned 1/3rd of the way across the ocean. You let us know when your source can provide actual flight data..Sorry this took me so long to respond, ragnar, whom I see is another ILI.
Anyway, I wondered about another way of looking at the plane path but your link there does not seem right. Obviously its distorted too. If you look at a globe, sure enough, the actual route on a globe, Japan to LA, puts Alaska ridiculously out of the way just like you'd expect. If you don't have a globe at home you can find a spinning earth model on youtube. Check it out.
[I have not looked into much more of FET since I started this thread but I will have a little bit time for more exploring over Lent].
Now the Current time in Alaska is 11:03 pm, and 4:03pm in Taiwan.. That is a 7 hour difference.. According to sources, the flight left Tiawan at 11:50 pm and arrived in Anchorage Alaska at 9:06 am Taipei time (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2015/10/12/448127/Taiwanese-woman.htm).. That would have been a 9 hour flight.. The source "Daily Mail" had a typo, (19 hour journey vs 9 hour journey) .. Well, 535Mph flight speed would be of course 9 hours to which essentially rules out the claim in your posted video entirely. And we know of no known flights that take 19 hours to get to Alaska or 27 hours to get to LA from Taiwan . So do tell us what flight speed do you think they were traveling at vs distance in actual miles? I would love to see your data..
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-08-2016 at 07:36 AM.
@TheJackal
Reason
Pride
God
/spins top
None of which validates or substantiates it as anything more than a title and concept of opinion to the point of being moot. A theist can list all the reasons with all the pride they want in regards to their belief in their God, but that is yet inherently meaningless.. Religion can make people ignore the entirety of reality no matter how much reality contradicts their beliefs.., but those beliefs will never have any actual meaning in the real world .. Reality neither needs or requires them what-so-ever..., and as being humbled by our spec of dust we call Earth in a vast cosmos, we know how insignificant we really are.. It is that insignificance that scares them so greatly, so they invent gods to comfort themselves and to use to control the masses. Ignorance becomes woeful with pride., and that is the spinning top ... They don't care about facts or reality, and they will commit to dishonesty, fallacies, and confirmation bias to uphold a belief they know is unsubstantial. They use words like "Truth" like cheap trash while asserting to know things they don't... The game of Carl Sagan dragon often drug through self-refuting concepts ... When you (hypothetical "you") pride yourself in willful ignorance and dishonesty, there really isn't anything left honorable or respectable .. Just the sheer amount the lack of intellectual integrity displayed under this thread is more than astounding.. However, and at the end of the day, the concept of god is moot and meaningless..., Existence itself demonstrates that directly as pointed out..
They lie to much to ever truly believe in what they are preaching.. Where is the reason and pride in that?
I then again ask the question:
"What is God without Existence?"
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-09-2016 at 12:10 AM.
Seems like you forgot Q4.
Come back. So that we may walk together as young men once more.
There is no question 4... Though I should make one
Q4: The Pantheist God is Existence..., so why worship that which everything must be bound to require and be subservient to?
Although the questions do nothing more than make a point giving that Eliza Thomason or other theists would never actually address them and respond, I generally present these questions and arguments just to see their reaction giving that Pantheism is as high on the totem pole you can get, or the furthest the goal post can be moved in any general or logical sense.. There is a reason why I find these arguments entertaining, especially when the debated concept is essentially meaningless to begin with. They have no real hope to compete with Existence itself in this matter, especially when they are begging to need it to support their dishonest bronze age religious beliefs that evolved from the animism and anthropomorphism of the natural world.. They won't pose any real argument here, but they will preach onward hope to garnish relevancy they do not actually have in the grand scheme of things , just the use of ad populum fallacies among others here is all anyone really needs to know. They or their religion can't survive without such dishonesty.
Not until I get to spin the topCome back. So that we may walk together as young men once more.
@TheJackal, I am tired of the things you say to and of me in this thread. Let me tell you that I am a sincere person; its one of the more noticeable things about me. And I try very hard to be totally honest in what I say. There are reasons I was formed this way from a young age, and continued on that path. I can tell you its one of the reasons I write what many might call too-long posts, to make sure I am clear, honest, and not misunderstood.
This is me, and if you don't believe it, we really should make no more attempt at communicating since I know the person you think you are talking to is not me. The sock puppet and many other labels you slap on me to say I possess underhanded methods, its just not there for me. This is another one of the really annoying things about your posts in this thread, beside the things I already said.
@Subteigh, in the herd of swine story you finally asked me one one-track, single question so I was really glad to answer it. Like i said, I spent much time thinking about it as writing it, and then discussed it my husband and got much feedback, and then went back and rewrote it. It probably needed another rewrite to tighten it up but I wanted to get my response in before I go off-line tomorrow night.
I have been thinking, "If Subteigh can ask me one-question posts, either about ONE thing I believe or ONE thing he believes, I could actually communicate with him." But another problem I have with our communicating is not getting feedback for what I say. Its like we are using the thread to say our things alternately, but not communicate, and that really seems like a waste of time. So, just letting you know, I am awaiting honest feedback for my answer to you. It does not have to be long; I have no expectation on that account. But I would like it to reveal your reaction to it.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Well, perhaps you should learn how to be honest if you don't want to hear the criticism ...
Lying and using fallacy arguments is not being "sincere"Let me tell you that I am a sincere person;
No, no you don't.. You literally use commonly known fallacy arguments, and then use them over again..And I try very hard to be totally honest in what I say.
I have addressed many of your "Long posts" on a point by point basis in good will and in reasonable criticism. You have not afforded any such respect in return.There are reasons I was formed this way from a young age, and continued on that path. I can tell you its one of the reasons I write what many might call too-long posts, to make sure I am clear, honest, and not misunderstood.
Communication would be a lot better if you actually engaged in honest discourse..This is me, and if you don't believe it, we really should make no more attempt at communicating since I know the person you think you are talking to is not me.
The way you address Job came off as a sock-puppet... When you see blatant cheer-leading , especially when the account appears new, there is ample reason to say "I suspect there may be a sock-puppet".. More often than not, it is .. However, I never said you were a sock-puppet.., I never officially branded you that label.. But lets be honest, you will never address any of my posts, statements, points, arguments, or questions on a point by point basis.. You are skilled in the art of question dodging (I know I was), and I know why this is.. I used to do exactly what you are doing and had done here throughout this debate.., I used to be a Christian who argued and used the same dishonest debate tactics.., especially when I knew I didn't have a chance in defending my indefensible positions, beliefs, assertions , and arguments. I even used to try and convince myself that God's genocide was righteously justified like a father teaching his children a lesson.. At some point I stopped defending such sociopathic atrocities... At some point I stopped lying and being a crank .. I knew the stuff I was saying was bull shit, and I know you do as well.. You can't seriously sit there and think you are going to pass this over on someone who's been an evangelical Christian for over 30 years.. Oh, and I used to use the same excuses you are using now to avoid having to ever address an argument, post, question, comment, statement, evidence, or anything I knew I couldn't manipulate my way around, or defend. You won't honestly engage me..., I know for a fact you won't.. I also new before we ever got deeper than 3 posts that you wouldn't..The sock puppet and many other labels you slap on me to say I possess underhanded methods, its just not there for me. This is another one of the really annoying things about your posts in this thread, beside the things I already said.
And I quote your own Ironic statement:
The arrogance it must take to make this statement while doing exactly what it is to which you are complaining about here.. You have afforded nobody here this sort of respect to which you demand of others in a debate.. Clearly you present yourself so arrogant to believe that people must answer your questions and give you feedback on a point by point basis while believing you shouldn't be expected to do the same.. This is classic debate tactics used by Christians in such debates.., basically you really aren't interested in any meaningful discourse what-so-ever. I tell you what, you let us know when you can engage in an actual discussion in where you afford your opponent the respect of addressing them on a point by point basis.But another problem I have with our communicating is not getting feedback for what I say. Its like we are using the thread to say our things alternately, but not communicate, and that really seems like a waste of time. So, just letting you know, I am awaiting honest feedback for my answer to you.
http://nogodzone.blogspot.com/2006/1...actics-of.html
You should perhaps read that before continuing here, and a quick abstract of what you have essentially been doing this entire time:
That is you in a nut shell throughout this entire discussion.., and to have any meaningful discussion and communication means honestly addressing people on a point to point basis without resorting to a broad range of fallacy arguments. But I am pretty sure you already know this.So they will trot out one fallacious argument after another until their opponent wearies from the constant discussion that accomplishes nothing. He can debunk the first 10 arguments or claims only to find his opponent now ignoring those previous claims for 10 new ones. And it will go on and on. At some point the rationalist has to conclude that they are wasting their time and drops the issue. The fundamentalist then crows that they won a victory.
Hi Jackal I said I would respond to this post, so I am doing it now. I thought it merited attention since you say it is what you believe/where you are coming from. I will respond to as much as I can best as I can.
I respect that intention, to battle crank things.
Yes, its an important part of communication. You lose your audience without civility. If something is woeful, you need to find a carefully-treaded way to say it. Also, important, is find out where your interlocutor stands on the woeful issue. Because as soon as you make false assumptions about who you are talking to, they begin to close the door. (Some slam it and then that's that).
No. This assumption is completely off-base. You need to completely rethink.
My initial post WAS curiosity. Thats all. I looked at an implausible thing and was amazed there is some plausibility to it.
You saw the implausible thing as woeful. Okay. But you need to tread carefully when you say so. And very important, you needed to find out where I stand with it. I tried to say, but you were saying so many other things.
I just want to understand it in my own way. I definitely do not want to see it through your way of seeing things because as I later explained (and could see from your first posts) your approach to understanding things is completely different from mine.
One way I learn a new thing is step back from it and do completely different things, and on their own, in their own time, insights come. Stepping away matters to me in the process of understanding, during which time I make connections to many diverse things past and present.
FET is not of any pressing importance to me and I don't want to learn about it through your method. Notice, I did not put a post here that said, ""I'm scared of this crazy FET. Help! Someone tell me why its its wrong!" Nope. I said, this is interesting and I am having fun learning about it. So your response kind of makes you a killjoy, huh?
If FET is untrue I will discover it in my own time through my process of seeing it through the FE theorist's eyes. I want to fully listen and understand the POV and not cut them before I really grasp their entire point..
But instead, you came here like, "I have to set you straight!" And when I didn't straighten up you called me names and said I was dishonest!
What if I did that to you? What if you said, "This atheist philosopher is really interesting and I am enjoying learning what he believes." And I broke in and said, "I have to set you straight!" and when you didn't listen I called you names and said you are dishonest!
But I didn't do that, did I? Because you didn't say, ""I'm scared of these athesist ideas! Help! Someone explain to me why they are wrong!" If you had said that, I would have been right there explaining to you why I think they are wrong. I would have been happy to serve you that way. But you don't want it. I have to assume you don't care to know what i think there since you have made no hint you want me to explain what I think instead.
Its not like you can't say why YOU think FET is obviously wrong. Of course, express yourself. Just saying, it would have been better to seek to know my level of interest, and say "I have a lot I could tell you to convince you its wrong, if you want." And you could make some of your points, or even all of them, regardless of my response, because other people are here and will like to hear what you say on it. But don't just address it to me and then get mad at me and call me names for not following your explanations and for not buying buying a weather balloon to conduct my own experiments.
If FET is untrue, I am confident I will discover it in my own time through my process of seeing it through the FE theorist's eyes. I want to fully listen and understand the POV and not cut them before I really grasp their entire point. Once I grasp the point, and sit back and contemplate it, inconsistencies and problems begin to come into focus, and the ones that seem bigger or glaring to me are the ones I seek answers to first. That's my own approach. It works in education, too. Self-discovery of concepts is conducive to deeper understanding. I like the saying, "Education is not the filling of a bucket but the lighting of a fire." Yes. But, here in this thread, with you, it seems like you are chasing me trying to fill my bucket up with clean, fresh water. But I was trying to light a fire in it.
I am fine with friendly advice and I appreciate what I know are good intentions. But perhaps because its written words lacking facial expressions and voice tone that makes you misread me. It one of the problems of written communication.
You are right, I desire to know more, but I have a different way of going about learning it. And you are invested in this topic, and I am not.
Shades of grey! What kind of a person do you think I am?!
[kidding]
Alan Watts does make it seem beautiful in these lovely videos. To a point. I will explain. Anyway I appreciate that he is a person who appreciates beauty. I do believe, in a sense, that beauty is truth. Please don't ask me to explain that, since I can't, though I would be interested in seeing a like-minded philosopher take a shot at it. But when someone shows an appreciation of beauty, even after listening to him and seeing we are SO FAR apart on some KEY things, I see a kinship in that, and a respect for the appreciation of beautiful.
Art that is particularly not-beautiful hurts my eyes.
LOL. We differ. I respect your difference.
Okay, first of all I could not listen to them all; when I added the minutes of the videos and realized I needed to add more minutes to respond, it was too much. And please know I am really stretching myself. I am staying up way late when I have a full active day requiring my close attention tomorrow, which is the last day I can type here as I have been explaining, and I thought I better do this tonight. Since I said I would. And I am an ethical type, and an E1; that probably explains that.
So I watched one 12 minute and one four minute one.
This is the passed one.
Okay, i watched this. Wow. First of all I thought I was listening into Alan Watts. But, apparently NOT, as I discovered when I researched Watts. Instead its a voice actor with a wonderful voice, a beautiful tone and most sophisticated English-accented diction. Because Alan Watts died in 1973. So this is an actor, right?
Also, I found I learned a lot more about where you come from by reading up on Watts in Wikkipedia and here in this article (which appealed to my sensibilities), than in the videos.
But the video was nice because the actor has, as I said, this wonderful voice. Its the sort of thing you want to listen to when you want to fall asleep pleasantly, and you want to empty your mind and absorb in your subconscious the philosophy and teachings of the speaker. I found it very relaxing. Til he started his pleasantly-spoken religious slams and I had a deja vous experience of listening to television commercials of doctor-prescribed pharmaceutical drugs, the ones with the beautiful scenery, the sweet music, the loving attractive healthy couples, or cute kids, or cute quirky cartoons where they are reciting how you might have a stroke, go blind, get paralyzed, lose your liver or die if you take this drug, and you are fine, and you might even inquire of your doctor if you need this, because you are all relaxed and positive by these lovely images and music....
[Okay I have this issue where i DO NOT WANT anyone to tell me what I should think of a thing, an idea, or a person. I want to come to my own conclusion! Don't tell me the conclusion before I have evaluated for myself!]
The videos uses the fine voice actor and the photo-realistic computer generated glamorous compelling beautiful art work of the planet earth and the infinite universe. Those supposed photos from space, that are not really photos at all but artwork, are accepted as photos by most people and it makes us proud to and makes our hear sing to see "photos" of our earth, our beautiful blue marble in space. Its a heart-tugger (especially if you think they are real photos). Also featured in the video are photos of the moonwalk. If you are not a disbeliever in the moon walk, then the moon walk also is a heart tugger. (also voice-over of one of the alleged moon-walkers is on there). All those things always made my heart sing. I have Buzz Aldrin's autograph from after hearing him speak, and I always thought it a pretty darn special thing. Before, when I was a proud moon-walk believer.
Anyway, the video was almost religious! In fact, it really truly has a deeply religious tone, and I have seen that in your writing and have said as much - that you have a religious zeal. And why not? Alan Watts, obviously important to you, is referred to as an Evangelist. Of philosophia perennis. So, yes, I see this religious zeal in you. I am not criticizing it. I think Jeremy pointed it out, too. I am zealous myself.
Of particular interest to me was realizing why I had such a sweet religious feeling listening to the video. Looped and relooped and relooped, in the background throughout, is a beautiful Christian CHOIR [credit:"unnamed, unknown choir" Hmm...] singing glorious hymns of praise and worship to the One Lord God, Creator of Heaven and earth.
missed this.
okay, I watched/listened to this too. A presentation much in the same style as the first. "A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down". Comes to mind. Not complaining! This is a good teaching philosophy.
Yes, an age-old philosophy, revived now, sort of an "I am God" thing, in a sense. More nuanced, perhaps. Reminds me of why i decided not to be Buddhist, long ago. There are many philosophies and religious perspectives out there. I am so at home and in love with the Catholic perspective that is so rich and deep and wide. Not small like you think. I was reading a recent mystic talking to St.Peter in Heaven who said something about there being no divisions between religions in Heaven. This was not explained, but I thought it was interesting.
I am glad for you. I too, see my view of the world now as far, far grander than I ever imagined as a child or an adult. And yes there is SO MUCH to see in those moments you mentioned. I agree.
Oh. I am sorry.
Aw. I am curious though, is anyone worth your praise or getting on your knees for?
Wait, no, you live by the beach??
I did not say you are lost. I do feel comfortable saying that your view of Christianity is limited by your past experience and perception as a child. And that it is WAY WAY bigger than you are pigeonholing it to.
From the way you describe it, I would not accept it either!
Can't get through life without damage. We all have damage.
Jesus healed a great deal of my damage, I want to say though, just because its a reality of my life. (Not saying he made me perfect. Far from it.)
Sounds nice. Please let me correct you on the sun rise. The sun does not actually rise. It is still, and we are racing around it as we spin at 1000 miles an hour. That is what appears to be the sun rising. Its really us spinning.
I learned that in school so I know its true.
Yes.
I wouldn't either. But that's not the Christian God.
I need an icon of me with my head down and my hands over it. Where is that icon?
I believe it. God is real, and He loves you. This is what I truly believe.
No, God wants you to get off your butt and do it for Him.
He wants you to help the people in Sudan. Sports fans, well, I cannot relate to that one.
No, I don't push that. Its in my signature just because its what I believe. I am not begging you to accept what I say. I am just saying what I believe. I am not expecting you to say, "Oh, yeah. I'll believe what you believe now.
So sorry I cannot read it. Running out of computer time.
Okay. Well, comment as you wish but I do not know that I will be able to comment back though some Sundays in Lent I might skim-read quick but not write. Tomorrow is full and if I get free time it might be for a nap, to make up for this...
Peace be with you, Jackal.
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 02-10-2016 at 03:38 AM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Q4: Is it logical to ask such questions?There is no question 4
Q4: The Pantheist God is Existence..., so why worship that which everything must be bound to require and be subservient to?
Although the questions do nothing more than make a point giving that Eliza Thomason or other theists would never actually address them and respond, I generally present these questions and arguments just to see their reaction giving that Pantheism is as high on the totem pole you can get, or the furthest the goal post can be moved in any general or logical sense.. There is a reason why I find these arguments entertaining, especially when the debated concept is essentially meaningless to begin with. They have no real hope to compete with Existence itself in this matter, especially when they are begging to need it to support their dishonest bronze age religious beliefs that evolved from the animism and anthropomorphism of the natural world.. They won't pose any real argument here, but they will preach onward hope to garnish relevancy they do not actually have in the grand scheme of things , just the use of ad populum fallacies among others here is all anyone really needs to know. They or their religion can't survive without such dishonesty.
Not until I get to spin the top
A4: No, because each question contains an infinitely repeating amount of the same question by including the term "God."
Yes it is... It is completely logical
No it doesn't contain an infinitely repeating amount of the same question by including the term god.. They are questions in which focus on logic of deduction.., and in this case addressing the furthest you can logically move the God goal post conceptually or logically. There is no infinite repeat here other than your ability to woefully ignore having to actually answer the questions directly.. Simply put, and to be more concise, you can't move the goal post any further than Existence itself, and you can't get any higher on the totem pole than Existence itself..., and at that point to concept of God in general becomes irrelevant, meaningless, pointless, and moot. It doesn't matter what definition you use , or what your idea of god is..., it is essentially meaningless. There is no more damning question of how illogical the concept of god is, or how much of a delusion of Narcissistic Grandeur the concept really is than the question "What is God without Existence?"..A4: No, because each question contains an infinitely repeating amount of the same question by including the term "God."
Just about every single theist I have ever had this discussion with had refused to directly answer that question..., and it's because they know it literally invalidates their belief and grandiose idea of "God".. It is literally Ironic in this way in how Existence itself can collapse every and all concepts of god into being utterly meaningless concepts.. Existence doesn't require single damn one of them to Exist, and nor is Existence at all subject to any of them. They are all delusions of grandeur..., and that even includes the Pantheistic concept. There is no infinite repeat here, this is logical deduction.. So you have two options when regarding Existence..... :
A. Existence is GOD and therefore everything and everyone is GOD, thus making the concept entirely moot
B, Existence is not God, and therefore there are no Gods at all.
Take your pick. There is only Existence and what existence is and is doing...
Incorrect. Existence is the opposite of non-existence, and both are contained within God.
You cannot question the existence of God without altering the definition of God, because to do so has the question within itself into infinity: What is... What is... What is... What is... What is...
Only pride allows one to question the unquestionable by adherence to the belief one may conceive that which by definition is the inconceivable.
I haven't been uncivil.Yes, its an important part of communication. You lose your audience without civility.
There is nothing wrong with either being blunt or directIf something is woeful, you need to find a carefully-treaded way to say it.
I very much doubt I have made any false assumptions here.Also, important, is find out where your interlocutor stands on the woeful issue. Because as soon as you make false assumptions about who you are talking to, they begin to close the door. (Some slam it and then that's that).
incorrect, you even wen so far as to vote up an entire post based entirely on intellectually dishonest fallacy arguments regarding Atheists... You further made the Charge about evolution discussed earlier among others. That is pandering to crank... I hardly at all made a false assumption, and nor am I anywhere near "off-base".. I can if you like post the screenshots and quotes.., but I don't think that is necessary.No. This assumption is completely off-base. You need to completely rethink.
The argument here isn't what was referred to as to pandering to crank.. That developed as the discussion progressed.My initial post WAS curiosity. Thats all. I looked at an implausible thing and was amazed there is some plausibility to it.
That's because I know it is.You saw the implausible thing as woeful.
Again, if I have to directly quote you and post screenshots, this discussion will not go well for you.Okay. But you need to tread carefully when you say so. And very important, you needed to find out where I stand with it. I tried to say, but you were saying so many other things.
This likes saying "I don't want to see facts as facts".. My understanding of these issues discussed is more on the academic side, and you seem to want to pander to more of the fantasy side because it's easier for you to understand. Yeah, thinking is hard, and so is having a real understanding of the subjects we are discussing here. You don't want to see the vanishing point in the academic context to which entirely invalidates your belief and Idea of it concerning the sinking ship..., well reality isn't going to bend to what you want to believe just because you find it easier to understand even though it is entirely and absolutely wrong.. I can't help you with that, and that is why you are not the target audience when I address the fallacies you have pandered to here.I definitely do not want to see it through your way of seeing things because as I later explained (and could see from your first posts) your approach to understanding things is completely different from mine.
Personally, I think you need to get more of an academic education on these subjects, and I say that because I can tell that your understanding of them is pretty rudimentary. I don't mean that as an insult because we have all been there, and we are all ignorant in some subject or another.. Ignorance is fixable, woeful however is not. If you reject contradicting knowledge to what you want to belief, you are therefore operating on confirmation bias for the sake of holding on to a belief, idea, concept, or position.One way I learn a new thing is step back from it and do completely different things, and on their own, in their own time, insights come. Stepping away matters to me in the process of understanding, during which time I make connections to many diverse things past and present.
You can learn about it through whatever method you like.., but my method is one that is critical and demands empirical establishment there of.. My method is the most honest method , and the most direct method.. You don't like my method because it doesn't accept anything on faith, or on pure assertion backed by appeals to ignorance and other fallacy arguments. I cut the bull shit, and I stick to that which has some sense of intellectual integrity.. You can feel free however to believe whatever nonsense you like if that is easier for you..., like I said earlier, you appear to be trying to take the short cut.FET is not of any pressing importance to me and I don't want to learn about it through your method.
I don't have a problem being a kill joy to what is crank""I'm scared of this crazy FET. Help! Someone tell me why its its wrong!" Nope. I said, this is interesting and I am having fun learning about it. So your response kind of makes you a killjoy, huh?
You are going to go nowhere fast.... I had done that for more than a year... They are crank..., and if you want to drink their sour milk, you can feel free to do so.If FET is untrue I will discover it in my own time through my process of seeing it through the FE theorist's eyes. I want to fully listen and understand the POV and not cut them before I really grasp their entire point..
I didn't start suggesting you were dishonest until you had become dishonest.. My initial post didn't even address you specifically, it addressed the video and the author there of.. I didn't come here to "set you straight", I came here to refute what you cited.. Setting you straight was never a goal or aim, it was a natural progression from the evolution of the discussion. This especially when you started making comments from the position of ignorance (of not knowing what you were actually talking about). I respected that you admitted early on that you didn't know enough about the subject to make a response or comment..., I even tried to help you without even having to explain the math.. However, you progressed further into argument from ignorance. :/ Thus I leave it up to the common observer to determine what to consider..But instead, you came here like, "I have to set you straight!" And when I didn't straighten up you called me names and said I was dishonest!
People don't ask you questions , or ask you challenging questions to your position because they don't care what you think... There is a reason why questions are asked..., and often the tough questions are indeed ignored because of the fear of them invalidating their positions or beliefs.. However, and even if they do invalidate them, it doesn't stop you from having them.. Btw, there are no "atheist ideas", atheism is only a rejection of the claim that a god exists. Without definitive evidence and definition there of, there is no reason to seriously consider the claim. You don't buy any unlabeled bottle of snake oil someone tries to sell you because they tell you it's a magical cure all do you? Of course not, you would demand substantiation of that claim that doesn't simply rest on "Because I said so". If people can't even define "god" and establish it as fact, it remains undefinable and therefore unsubstantiated . That question "What is god without existence", was asked of me by a Pantheist.. That question alone dropped me out of Christianity and into Pantheism.. However I ended up questioning even the logic of Pantheism, hence the 2 other Questions when one considers Existence itself as god.. And in doing so, I found that the concept of god is nothing more than a concept and title of pure opinion and is essentially meaningless when answering those 2 other questions.. This isn't a simple rejection of the Existence of a deity, it is deductive logic on the general concept regardless of definition.. Sorry, but deductively, Existence remains the answer, cause, essence, purpose, origin, and totality of all that exists by definition.. You can reject that, but I highly doubt you could explain or have any of those things without Existence. This is why the likes of Alan Watts were so brilliant.., they had already figured it out while science has remained the primary tool to trying to understand it all.""I'm scared of these athesist ideas! Help! Someone explain to me why they are wrong!" If you had said that, I would have been right there explaining to you why I think they are wrong. I would have been happy to serve you that way. But you don't want it. I have to assume you don't care to know what i think there since you have made no hint you want me to explain what I think instead.
Already did that..., with facts. That is all I need to do. I don't need to explain myself to you, I only need present the facts..Its not like you can't say why YOU think FET is obviously wrong. Of course, express yourself.
I had already done that, and I never called you a name here.. The worst thing I reffered to you as would be "Ignorant", and that wasn't name calling, it was stating your position on the subject.. You can feel free to look up the definition of that term.., it is not derogatory."I have a lot I could tell you to convince you its wrong, if you want." And you could make some of your points, or even all of them, regardless of my response, because other people are here and will like to hear what you say on it. But don't just address it to me and then get mad at me and call me names for not following your explanations and for not buying buying a weather balloon to conduct my own experiments.
This was a fair assessment in regards to your knowledge on either the main subject at hand, or even your knowledge concerning the Bible... I provided you , out of my own time, information to help you... If you want to ignore it because you think it's rude, arrogant, or insulting to you or your beliefs, then your ignorance becomes woeful, and your position becomes intellectually lazy.. I have challenged you, but I have yet to call you a name. Though I may have called some of your arguments crank..adjective1.lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned:an ignorant man.
2.lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact:
ignorantofquantumphysics.
Then why are you here asking for our input and then complaining about it when you get it?If FET is untrue, I am confident I will discover it in my own time through my process of seeing it through the FE theorist's eyes.
That's the internet for you...I am fine with friendly advice and I appreciate what I know are good intentions. But perhaps because its written words lacking facial expressions and voice tone that makes you misread me. It one of the problems of written communication.I tend to be direct, but directness is never intended to insult even when it directly challenges you. I cut to the point as they say.
It is up to you how you learn, and up to you if you want to consider what I have to say.. I am at least being honest with you..You are right, I desire to know more, but I have a different way of going about learning it. And you are invested in this topic, and I am not.
Don't worry, there is more than 50 shades of greyShades of grey! What kind of a person do you think I am?!
[kidding]
It is beautiful.. However the point of the videos is not how it makes it seem, it is the points being made in the videos.., the actual context.. The video "The Real You" is the Universe (Existence) addressing itself in a lecture.. To give you an Idea, we aren't separate from existence, we are literally of existence itself..., all of us.. This is regardless of the relativity of the individual, belief, position, issue, or ideas ect.. Existence is a Universal Set of All sets.., it is every belief, religion, concept, idea, thought, individual, person, place, or thing.. When we speak with each other, we are literally Existence itself talking to itself from two relative individuals of itself.. The key point and reason I cited those videos on the Issue are noted in the quoted abstracts below :Alan Watts does make it seem beautiful in these lovely videos. To a point. I will explain. Anyway I appreciate that he is a person who appreciates beauty. I do believe, in a sense, that beauty is truth. Please don't ask me to explain that, since I can't, though I would be interested in seeing a like-minded philosopher take a shot at it. But when someone shows an appreciation of beauty, even after listening to him and seeing we are SO FAR apart on some KEY things, I see a kinship in that, and a respect for the appreciation of beautiful.
It’s like the universe screams in your face, “Do you know what I am? How grand I am? How old I am? Can you even comprehend what I am? What are you, compared to me?” And when you know enough science, you can just smile up at the universe and reply, “Dude, I am you.”
-- philhellenes
That is the enlightenment that so many people are entirely unaware of.. It is not just simply beautiful, it's a fact.. And we are not just products of Existential causality, we are literal participants there of causality as is everything else is. There is no god in this context, there is however Existence and what existence is and is doing itself.. When I speak, it speaks, when I argue with another person, it is arguing with itself from two relative perspectives of itself.So then, when you’re in the way of waking up, and finding out who you really are, what you do is what the whole universe is doing a the place you call here and now. You are something that the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is something that the whole ocean is doing… The real you is not a puppet which life pushes around; the real, deep down you is the whole universe.
- Alan Watts
Existence is relative..., hence the nature of consciousness there of.. The relativity of Existence doesn't make it less beautiful, it makes it diverse and more beautiful.. You could say Existence is every eye of every beholder, and paints its own picture upon its own canvas while yet being its own critic.. It's not perfect, but if you look further, you will eventually find beauty there.Art that is particularly not-beautiful hurts my eyes.
That's ok, I summarized them above in two simple quotes.Okay, first of all I could not listen to them all;
You can find some of those in transcript if you likeSo I watched one 12 minute and one four minute one.
http://consciouslifenews.com/alan-wa...l-you/1136202/
No, I believe it was an edited recording of Allan Watt's Lecture. You can actually download his lectures here (https://drive.google.com/folderview?...eU9XU3c&ddrp=1)Okay, i watched this. Wow. First of all I thought I was listening into Alan Watts. But, apparently NOT, as I discovered when I researched Watts. Instead its a voice actor with a wonderful voice, a beautiful tone and most sophisticated English-accented diction. Because Alan Watts died in 1973. So this is an actor, right?
Alan Watts did, like me, come from having been rooted in Christianity... However, Alan became increasingly more Pantheistic...., and I dare say he died a Pantheist with Buddhist philosophical ideals.. And though I consider him a great philosopher of his time, I have come to pass on Pantheism along with all other conceptual ideas of "god". I agree with the Pantheists that Existence is the origin, cause, essence, purpose, meaning, and totality of all that exists..., I just disagree in referring to it as "God" due problem of its definition since that would make everyone and everything "God".. It collapses and becomes moot... However much of his philosophies I share...., not all, but much of them. I am a humanist, a realist, but I am not a mystic..Also, I found I learned a lot more about where you come from by reading up on Watts in Wikkipedia and here in this article (which appealed to my sensibilities), than in the videos.
Religion has been the bane of humanity.., right next to greed and the hunger for power.. Religious theologies like Christianity are dominion theologies, they seek power, control, and influence over everyone and everything... His slams on religion are not unwarranted, anyone with a history book would know why..But the video was nice because the actor has, as I said, this wonderful voice. Its the sort of thing you want to listen to when you want to fall asleep pleasantly, and you want to empty your mind and absorb in your subconscious the philosophy and teachings of the speaker. I found it very relaxing. Til he started his pleasantly-spoken religious slams and I had a deja vous experience of listening to television commercials of doctor-prescribed pharmaceutical drugs, the ones with the beautiful scenery, the sweet music, the loving attractive healthy couples, or cute kids, or cute quirky cartoons where they are reciting how you might have a stroke, go blind, get paralyzed, lose your liver or die if you take this drug, and you are fine, and you might even inquire of your doctor if you need this, because you are all relaxed and positive by these lovely images and music....
You came here and asked about it, don't complain about getting an answer.[Okay I have this issue where i DO NOT WANT anyone to tell me what I should think of a thing, an idea, or a person. I want to come to my own conclusion! Don't tell me the conclusion before I have evaluated for myself!]
No, photos of galaxies etc are not artwork, the colors you see are to highlight details you could not see with naked eye.. Such as that which is beyond the visual spectrum of light, or such things to mark temperature ranges etc.. Go to NASA's website, and they explain these things to you.. But here you are, pandering to crank.. Why am I not surprised..The videos uses the fine voice actor and the photo-realistic computer generated glamorous compelling beautiful art work of the planet earth and the infinite universe. Those supposed photos from space, that are not really photos at all but artwork, are accepted as photos by most people and it makes us proud to and makes our hear sing to see "photos" of our earth, our beautiful blue marble in space. Its a heart-tugger (especially if you think they are real photos). Also featured in the video are photos of the moonwalk. If you are not a disbeliever in the moon walk, then the moon walk also is a heart tugger. (also voice-over of one of the alleged moon-walkers is on there). All those things always made my heart sing. I have Buzz Aldrin's autograph from after hearing him speak, and I always thought it a pretty darn special thing. Before, when I was a proud moon-walk believer.
From a Pantheist perspective yes.., but the points they made are as fact as they come.. And they aren't based on faith alone, they have empirical support and a body of actual evidence to support them. Religious is to believe on faith alone, and in woeful ignorance of anything contradictory. You can't say the same for Phill, but you could say that with some of the stuff not cited here from Alan Watts.Anyway, the video was almost religious! In fact, it really truly has a deeply religious tone, and I have seen that in your writing and have said as much - that you have a religious zeal. And why not? Alan Watts, obviously important to you, is referred to as an Evangelist. Of philosophia perennis. So, yes, I see this religious zeal in you. I am not criticizing it. I think Jeremy pointed it out, too. I am zealous myself.
It wasn't a mix message, it was making a point... You don't have to deny that you came from the stars just because you believe in a god.., and even then it is all one thing.... See the quotes above, or feel free to get yourself a dictionary and look up the definition of "Existence".. And btw, those would be the Hymns of EL.. as are the Pslams. You really seem to like to ignore the context of what is being said...., there is no mixed message there..Of particular interest to me was realizing why I had such a sweet religious feeling listening to the video. Looped and relooped and relooped, in the background throughout, is a beautiful Christian CHOIR [credit:"unnamed, unknown choir" Hmm
Again, Alan watt's lecture is based on the Universe lecturing itself. In Pantheism , the Universe (Existence) is god..., and that would by definition make everyone and everything god.. God is often defined as the origin and answer to everything of causality.. Well, everything is a literal part of causality, and even the conscious existing state is a product of causality (the inertia and processing of sensory information).. Even a rock is a part of causality and can directly on its own , impact outcomes ... Alan watts isn't just talking to you, he's talking to Existence itself as an entity to which it is by definition.., an entity of the totality of everything.. He is telling Existence that it is GOD.., and since you are of existence, and existence is "you" as it is he, he rightfully infers "you" as "god".. To me, and although he is much correct, I reject the concept of god because at this point it is rather moot. Especially when there is no creator of existence, that would be impossible as one would require it to exist and do anything in the first place. Therefore, there is no creator, there is only Existence and what Existence is and is doing as a self-generating system from itself to which even the conscious mind is a product dependent on it.. There is no god.., there is only existence.Yes, an age-old philosophy, revived now, sort of an "I am God" thing, in a sense. More nuanced, perhaps.
No.. Worshiping is nonsensical..., especially when it is demanded. I can praise someone for their deeds , but I won't praise or worship them like a god, or bow to them as such.. Context is important there, I don't pander to Narcissists.Aw. I am curious though, is anyone worth your praise or getting on your knees for?
In Boston yes.. I can do that in Minnesota too, we have 10,000 lakesWait, no, you live by the beach??
Hardly, I know Christian theology and history very well.. I know it is crank, and I can tell you that most in the academic arena know it is. My experience with Christianity has been over 30 years...., hardly that of just my time as a child.I did not say you are lost. I do feel comfortable saying that your view of Christianity is limited by your past experience and perception as a child. And that it is WAY WAY bigger than you are pigeonholing it to.
Actually it is by doctrine, you are just unwilling to admit it is. The very fact that you in other threads appeal to his death and sacrifice as a tool to try and convert is by definition guilt tripping and trying to make them feel responsible for it as if they owe him and should therefore worship him or be damned. I wrote the following article on brainwashing concerning the Christian religion as I used to advertise for several churches across the states.. I can tell you this, you really have no idea what goes on behind the closed doors. I have a lot more experience than you think I do:
http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_...oralitys-movie
Abstract:
An example of a pamphlet that I had done for a Church in Minnesota, Chicago, and Mississippi:You can also reference such books as:
This pamphlet had a very large capital "D" that was on fire to represent "Damnation". The background on this front page was all black to represent the darkness of Damnation, how alone you will be, and to emphasize the D that was on fire! The fire represented the everlasting fiery torment in hell. And just under the enormous damning D, there were glowing words in white that said "Today is your Day of Decision!"
Now when we opened the pamphlet, we could see a nice pleasant background, a background with clouds and rays of light shining though a nice blue sky.. And printed on this background were a bunch of fake "testimonials" that were prefabricated. In fact I was told to use an Adobe photo suite to get pictures of happy people to use! Which was a common thing to do because their target audience would probably never question it. The testimonials targeted specific groups of people they know are vulnerable, impressionable, or easily manipulated into the ideology. Like troubled kids, people down on their luck, or anyone in a recent tragedy. That was the pamphlet, one of many I've done.
The key things to look for:
1) seeding tool ( casting shadows of doubt, lying, spewing false information, dogmatic attacking those that disbelieve, creating pressure to make one more vulnerable to submission)
2) The Fear TOOL (Gods wrath? hell? damnation?)
3) The Carrot: (Salvation?. redemption?. Love?)
4) No way out question ( repent now and save your soul! Today is the day of decision) This question comes usually after the above 3 tools because it's purpose is to make you feel like you have to take the carrot and submit your lives to the ideology!
* Brainwashing: The science of Thought ControlSame concept applies through the usage of family as a tool. Often seen in cases of parent alienation:So before anyone replies here, do know that those who understand information theory, are usually the ones that are very good at manipulating people. But keep in mind, not every religious person or congregation chooses to practice like this, and this is not a generalization of all religions or practices. And to add, just because someone believes in a GOD does not make them brainwashed.. There is a difference of freely believing and someone that was brainwashed into believing. Even if they try to use brainwashing techniques on you to get you to believe as they do. And this doesn't just apply to theists.The purpose of this is to expose what brainwashing is, how it works, and to educate us all on how to recognize it. This can be applied to TV adds, politics, family problems ect ect..
* Mind Control 101: How to influence the thoughts and actions of others without them knowing or caring
* Combating Cult Mind Control
* Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control
That is just one example of many...
And yet those who believeth not will be cast into the lake of fire.. Thus damning anyone who doesn't get on their knees and worship Jesus as their savior from his Father's wrath.. It is there, you just don't want to look at it and admit it is there. You have already accepted it.From the way you describe it, I would not accept it either!
Not that kind of damage.. I was abused as a child by the church, and what they tried to do me is was much worse.. This isn't a simple little damage to the ego if someone told you that they didn't want to date you anymore.. You really have no clue how corrupt Christianity is ideologically.. And like that lady who told you that she would rather slit her wrists than click on your links, I totally understand what she meant by that..Can't get through life without damage. We all have damage.
Jesus never came down and healed you at all... You are making an assumption through assertion of something you can't even empirically prove to yourself.. You are convincing yourself of this... This isn't to say your involvement in your religion hasn't had any beneficial impact on your life, it's just saying you are attributing your belief in Jesus as Jesus himself as if you can't tell the difference between your belief and the supposed object of your belief.. You are essentially making assertions of belief, not statements of fact. Now you let me know when Jesus cures cancer and comes down and actually heals the sick and makes the starving a sandwich.. It would be smug of you to think you were more important than those far worse off than you are... This is why I shake my head when I see a fan thank Jesus for their team's winnings while the starving die of hunger in some other country.. Like you they believe Jesus or GOD gave them that helping hand... :Jesus healed a great deal of my damage, I want to say though, just because its a reality of my life. (Not saying he made me perfect. Far from it.)
<font size="2">https://youtu.be/RMXoPhgTkuY
Jesus isn't healing you anymore than he's healing those kids... Though your congregation and religious view of your religion could have helped you..., religion isn't devoid of having helped people...., but it is almost always with a string attached. Some of the most sickening examples of strings attached is when missionaries go to Africa and use food as a conversions tool as they setup and try to impose their religion on to the indigenous populations. Atheists and agnostics don't do that, they have no strings attached to their charity... We don't go there to use food to convert them to Atheism or agnosticism, we go there because we actually give a shit and feed them because we care. We don't go around slipping pamphlets as tips for waitresses that insult them while demanding that they convert to Christianity either.. Just on my blog alone, I get about 10 emails a week with insults and death threats from Christians with scolding lectures of my damnation.. Usually in this method giving that I don't approve their comments on the blog itself .. I could literally sit here all day and post those screenshots... But with all that said, the intolerance is in the scripture itself, and therefore I could never even accept it based on doctrine alone.. And if I were to ever have met Jesus, I would tell him "You don't get to tell me that I must hate my family and love you more than them..., and I don't care who you think you are.." ... I would basically have told him to piss off. Thus as said before, I don't pander to Narcissists with delusions of self Grandeur.
Correct, but the Sun is not actually still.. The Sun not only wobbles on it's Axis, and it orbits the central bulge of our Galaxy every 250 million years. The Galaxy itself is also moving and heading on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy.That is what appears to be the sun rising. Its really us spinning.
Or you can do it yourself:I learned that in school so I know its true.
https://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/mo...owMonarch.html
Actually it is...:I wouldn't either. But that's not the Christian God.
There are many more examples if you need.Exodus 34:13-14
13"But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim 14-- for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--
The Greatest Commandment
Deuteronomy 6:14-15
…14"You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, 15for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth.
Exodus 20:5
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am ajealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
Deuteronomy 4:24
For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealousGod.
Joshuah 24:19
But Joshua said to the people, “You are not able to serve the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins.
Nahum 1:2
[ God's Wrath Against Nineveh ] The Lord is a jealousand avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.
If you need an Icon to what you quoted me on, see above ^I need an icon of me with my head down and my hands over it. Where is that icon?
Just because you can "believe" it won't make your assertion that he's real factual.. Again you seem unable to tell the difference between a belief and the supposed object there of.. Your belief is on faith, not on any substantiated knowledge.. Furthermore, I refer you back to that the concept of god is at best only a title and concept of opinion and nothing more..I believe it. God is real, and He loves you. This is what I truly believe.
That's funny, I do... Are you telling me that your god is to damn lazy and morally inept to do it? You are making excuses to justify the immoral nature of your God's character. What asshole creates life, then makes it murder itself to reproduce and survive through consumption, and then expects us to take care of his mess for him? You have to be mentally inept, or sociopathic to even consider doing something like that in the first place.. No offense, but your idea of god belongs in a mental asylum.. It shouldn't be our responsibility to fix his ineptitude.. You don't willing watch your children starve to death while expecting the others to feed them for you do you? Let me guess, you don't blame the parents, you blame the children for starving to death.. Do you seriously even listen to yourself when making these arguments? You praise and worship a Narcacistic psycho / sociopath. Feel free to watch the video above..., because if I were GOD, starvation would not be a thing or exist...PERIOD!.. I have much more sympathy and moral fortitude than the fictitious psychopath you worship.No, God wants you to get off your butt and do it for Him.
Tell that to the children who die of starvation every day.. You're not even a funny joke at this point. This is a direct example of cognitive dissonanceHe wants you to help the people in Sudan. Sports fans, well, I cannot relate to that one.
Liar..No, I don't push that. Its in my signature just because its what I believe. I am not begging you to accept what I say. I am just saying what I believe. I am not expecting you to say, "Oh, yeah. I'll believe what you believe now.
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-11-2016 at 09:50 AM.
That is an incoherent mess.. You just tried to say GOD is outside of Existence... There is no outside of Existence... and you clearly do not know the definition of "Existence"... If you are not in and of Existence, you do not exist..PERIOD!. Hence, you have to be in existence to have existence silly rabbit. Your comment is as incoherent as the 4 corner time cube.. You also don't seem to understand the definition of "non-existence" as you can't contain what doesn't exist by definition.. And yes I can question the Existence of "God" without altering the definition... I just did. And you don't and can't have a god without Existence even in the context you tried to imply
reality re·al·i·ty (rē-āl'ĭ-tē)
n
- The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
If you are not "In" and "of" Reality.. you don't exist and are at best a figment of the imagination, or a tossed salad of words ... You cannot contain something you cannot be outside of. Existence is the Container of all things while also being that of all things.. Sorry kiddo, you can't create that either as one cannot create that which one's self requires to exist.. There is no such thing as a boundless god, it is a fallacy ... But hey, an atheist will have no problem accepting your argument that your god is not in existence
Incorrect, you only need the ability to question.. And if something is inconceivable you can't define what it is you are arguing for, and that makes it a matter of irrelevance and nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. None of which you could have without existence either....by definition.Only pride allows one to question the unquestionable by adherence to the belief one may conceive that which by definition is the inconceivable.
Perhaps you can try again without a self-refuting argument as I not need to consider self-refuting concepts and arguments as they are wrong by the consequences of their premises..
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-10-2016 at 11:12 AM.
Looks like you're incapable of not changing the definition of God.That is an incoherent mess.. You just tried to say GOD is outside of Existence... There is no outside of Existence... and you clearly do not know the definition of "Existence"... If you are not in and of Existence, you do not exist..PERIOD!. Hence, you have to be in existence to have existence silly rabbit. Your comment is as incoherent as the 4 corner time cube.. You also don't seem to understand the definition of "non-existence" as you can't contain what doesn't exist by definition.. And yes I can question the Existence of "God" without altering the definition... I just did. And you don't and can't have a god without Existence even in the context you tried to imply
reality re·al·i·ty (rē-āl'ĭ-tē)
n
- The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
If you are not "In" and "of" Reality.. you don't exist and are at best a figment of the imagination, or a tossed salad of words ... You cannot contain something you cannot be outside of. Existence is the Container of all things while also being that of all things.. Sorry kiddo, you can't create that either as one cannot create that which one's self requires to exist.. There is no such thing as a boundless god, it is a fallacy ... But hey, an atheist will have no problem accepting your argument that your god is not in existence
Incorrect, you only need the ability to question.. And if something is inconceivable you can't define what it is you are arguing for, and that makes it a matter of irrelevance and nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. None of which you could have without existence either....by definition.
Perhaps you can try again without a self-refuting argument as I not need to consider self-refuting concepts and arguments as they are wrong by the consequences of their premises..
Looks like you are incapable of changing the definition of the Universal Set " Existence" (the origin, container, essence, and totality of all that exists) ... This is literally how laughable your argument is as I didn't need to "Change your definition", the one you provided is a self-refutation, and isn't even really an actual definition vs a self-refuting claim.. Like I said, I need not consider self-refuting concepts that are wrong or impossible by the consequences of their premises.
Atheists have no problem with your definition that God is not in or of existence (within and of the set of all that exists)..
I changed it!Existence is the opposite of non-existence, and both are not contained within God.
That's still all God. You're not making any sort of valid argument.Looks like you are incapable of changing the definition of the Universal Set " Existence" (the origin, container, essence, and totality of all that exists) ... This is literally how laughable your argument is as I didn't need to "Change your definition", the one you provided is a self-refutation, and isn't even really an actual definition vs a self-refuting claim.. Like I said, I need not consider self-refuting concepts that are wrong or impossible by the consequences of their premises.
Atheists have no problem with your definition that God is not in or of existence (within and of the set of all that exists)..
I changed it!
No it isn't..
Yeah, it is. Whole page is. You're just proving the existence of God, not the other way around lol.No it isn't..
Oh you think you are a clever troll.. You have to love dishonest debate tactics to avoid answering a question in accordance to its intended context... you are using the special pleading fallacy with a negative proof or circular reasoning fallacy.. Either that, or you are attempting in futility to use "Existence" is god against me while ignoring the question asked.. So yeah, if Existence is god, everything including the whole page would be god..., and therefore meaningless and moot. Existence doesn't require any such name, title, or concept to exist..It is an irrelevant concept.. But that isn't your definition, you cannot claim anything here as "GOD" when your definition declares your god is not of existence and outside of existence. The burden of proof to your claim that god exists outside of existence is on you, and the use of everything in and of existence is not proof of your claim, nor is my citing them proof of your claim. You are using a negative proof fallacy in conjunction with a self-refuting concept.. You of course won't address anything here under their proper definitions or contexts, you will continue to troll with one informal fallacy after another.
Thus I ask again "What is God without Existence?"
Prove itYeah, it is.
Prove itWhole page is.
Prove itYou're just proving the existence of God, not the other way around lol.
Dishonest debate tactics? You're the one that keeps trying to change definitions lol
I already proved it. What you've failed to do is logically disprove it.
I haven't changed any definitions other than for the purpose of responding to your claim that I couldn't, under challenge, change the vague definition of "god" you had provided . I never once dishonestly changed a definition, but you're dishonestly setting this discussion up for the purpose of trolling..
Sorry, your assertion doesn't constitute as "proof".. , especially in regards to a GOD you claim exists outside of Existence, this to which is a self-refuting claim.. Your Carl Sagan Dragon cannot be established as true because you say so. Even if you are trying to be clever in saying Existence is god to which contains everything that exists, there is no proof that it is "god" when that would yet still entirely be a title and concept of opinion to which has no real world relevancy beyond the holder of the opinion in an ocean of equally un-established opinions on the subject. This Especially when you haven't even listed universally agreeable criteria for an agreeable definition of "god", or especially if sentient beings did not exist to hold or have any such definitions, titles, or opinions.. My arguments address definitions rather than changing them.., but you already knew this. Existence itself is the furthest you can move the goal post without going into self-refuting concepts, and even at that point it becomes meaningless and moot.. At no point do I or anyone need consider the concept, name, or title of "God" what-so-ever.. I only need consider the Term Existence, and it's definition.. Worse still These terms along with their definitions can completely not exist at all, and it wouldn't make any difference to Existence what-so-ever. It in reality has no real tangible meaning..I already proved it
"What is God without Existence?" A: Non-existent, irrelevant, and meaningless
That is the only answer to that question.. There isn't anything that speaks more of the irrelevancy the concept, title, or opinion than that simple question. Even existence is subject to require itself to exist, and is therefore not boundless either.., and it can't literally create itself either, it can only change shape, form, meaning, function, or purpose from what already exists of itself. Hence literal creation is not even possible, and most definitions of a personal god rely on the criteria that "God created everything"... Well, you can't take nothing, this to which doesn't exist, and make something out of it. All new emergent forms, states, or things come from preexisting forms, states, or things.. Even consciousness is a product of preexisting non-conscious processes and information as it is essentially processed sensory information and stored sensory information, this including any such information regarding its own existence, into a single frame of reference known as the conscious state. On that principle alone we can rule out any sentient being as "god" in accordance to the noted criteria.
What you've failed to do is logically disprove it.
Negative Proof fallacy.
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-11-2016 at 07:21 PM.
The vast monolith of Christianity is not something best addressed with a single question about one ridiculous story involving Jesus. It is best addressed by focussing on how it is fundamentally valid or invalid, whether empirically or ethically. This has nothing to do with personality. I know that the supernatural has absolutely nothing empirical to back it up, I know that so-called Christian ethics cannot be demonstrated to be humane.
The demons asked to be sent into the pigs. Considering his opposition to the demons, the last thing he should do is grant them their request.Yes, well a herd of mosquitoes would have been great! (as long as they too went into the water
But I contemplated this, and the pigs is much better.
A link to said passage: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...20&version=NIV (Choose your translation version and/or language)
Jesus had a reason for this pig-death because everything Jesus did had a reason, a reason formed from perfect wisdom, with everything, in all-good, considered. "The grass will withers, the flowers will fade, but the Word of the Lord endures forever." And so this story will be remembered to the end of time. Jesus does not tell us in his Word for the reasons for doing things the way He did here, as He sometimes does for some of his actions. But we can use our minds to think, and I will speculate. Reasonable speculation takes into into account context in scripture, in time and culture, and all Jesus' other words and actions, and more. I'll do some of that anyway.
The people certainly would have highly valued their pigs, and would have been NOT happy to lose them. The 2000-head herd of swine loss meant inconvenience and all the serious loss to the many townspeople, and certainly the loss hit some even harder who were not well off and really, really needed their pig. A loss not soon forgot. A tragedy, and of tragedies people long ruminate, "Why did this happen?"
The demons wanted to go in the pigs and Jesus certainly could have said no. The demons had no good in mind with this request, perhaps hoping to destroy people as possessed pigs. But Jesus chose it for only good.
I think Jesus could not have picked a more unique way and hardly a more memorable one for the townspeople to never forget He was there and to ensure they remember Him. How long would they have remembered the healed man? As miraculous and special as the healing was, we tend to forget even such things. Although the possessed man's presence in/near the town must have been a terror, his circle of previously-terrorized people could only be so big. But a much greater portion of the town (which, maybe we could assume was more 2000 people?) would have all either lost their pig or known someone who had a pig that was lost in this event, and you can be sure it would be some years before they ever had another Annual Town-wide Pig Roast.
Yes. The shock of this astounding event - 2000 pigs flying en masses into the water to drown - is something this town would never forget. And they needed to remember that the God of Heaven, the Savior of the World, was in their town, and did a miracle there. They would soon in time begin to hear more stories of the Savior, and now they would have keenly listening hearts and minds, very curious to know all about this Man, and Who he was. They would hear of his Death and Resurrection, so mysterious, and the reality the He had come to town and he had done a miracle there, in their own town, would become something they would cherish. And generation after generation after generation in this town would know and identify with this amazing pig story of their town, this story that was particularly HUGE because of the astounding pig-plunge (and their great grandpa lost a pig that day). And the healed man would always be connected to it, as would Jesus. Three amazing elements tied together into one truly amazing story that really happened.
My husband points out these were Gentiles - Jews don't do pigs. They were close enough to know plenty about their Jewish neighbors, and they certainly knew they were despised by them and considered as unclean people by them, because of their pigs alone, but also other things. They probably did not like the arrogant Jews who had nothing but disdain for them, influencing them to have little interest in their alleged promised Messiah.
The man no-longer-possessed followed Jesus, and asked to go with Him, and Jesus often (usually?) said yes to this, but Jesus instead had a mission for him, "Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” Jesus assigned a powerful witness in this town, one witness (and supporters to back up his story). And what a story. As a witness alone he could have soon been ignored when everyone got used to the fact that this guy was okay now, and the 20 minutes of fame would be over, and people would turn to get on with their own lives. But the fantastical pig story invaded their lives, making it unforgettable. Everyone, every single person in town would want to know the WHOLE story of the lost pigs, an amazing story, because every part of it together made one stunning story. The lost pigs, horrible -, but personal, because everyone lost one or at least knew someone who lost one. The witness - they could meet him in real life, there in town, and this man was in love with Jesus who was all good and all mercy and his heart would never forget and he would always tell this story, gladly, again and again to all who would listen, as long as he lived. And his witness of love would leave an imprint on their hearts, and those touched would find a longing growing in their hearts to know more. And when news stories of this Lord Jesus trickled into town, they would listen, and think, and share what they knew with others who wanted to know, too. In time the town would grow in longing to know more of this Jesus who had once visited their town, and graced their town with a miracle. And their thirst to know would pave the way for the Apostles, who would come to teach these ready-hearts of Jesus and the Good News and His Church, that was not just for the Jews, but for all of mankind.
The whole point of a miracle is that it goes against the laws of nature. If it is observed, it is by definition not a miracle. It doesn't matter if ten thousand people "witnessed" the alleged event: demons do not exist, and cannot be proven to exist. There is no reason to believe the story whatsoever.
Tens of thousands of people near Fátima, Portugal on the 13th October 1917, in the days of photography and cinematography, allegedly saw the Sun dance about the sky, in a supposed miracle. Nevermind that hundreds of millions of people around the world did not witness the Earth being thrown out of the Solar System, and that astronomers did not notice any deviation in the orbits of the bodies in the Solar System. The "miracle" did not occur. It was a fabrication. Miracles are inherently impossible.
Well, at least now you're admitting that you're fallacious.
Existence=God
Non-existence=God
Outside of existence=God
Inside existence=God
Relevance=God
Irrelevance=God
Your logic=Poor
Ah, so you agree that God doesn't exist.
Noun: God (plural Gods):
1. An impersonal and universal spiritual presence or force.
2. creator of the universe (as in deism).
3. The (personification of the) laws of nature.
Proper noun: God (usually uncountable, plural Gods):
1. The single deity of various monotheistic religions.
2. The single male deity of various bitheistic or duotheistic religions.
Does and doesn't. Is and isn't.
God is round.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
You're getting desperate..
And so you agree that your god doesn't exist without existence as noted by the question and answer given above.. Congratulations, your god doesn't exist.Existence=God = Existence as the totality of all that exists = everyone and everything is then thus god = moot , meaningless, and pointless as a concept or title while having no proof that it is "God".
Non-existence=God : No argument was ever made that non-existence was god.. , and even if we were to argue that, giving non-existence doesn't exist, it would be non-existent, pointless and irrelevant.
Outside of existence=God: This is your claim, one you have not proven to which suggests your god is not in and or of existence.. Well, this concept isn't even possible, and it's a self-refuting concept and therefore irrelevant and meaningless. It is thus dismissed Inside existence=God : Not my claim, but if it is your claim,,,: Prove it
Relevance=God : Not my claim, but if it is your claim,,,:Prove it
Irrelevance=God : Not my claim, but if it is your claim,,,: Prove it
Your logic=Poor: You're projecting here that your logic is poor along with your poor use of fallacy arguments such as this post of yours to which amounts to that of a straw-man fallacy.
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-12-2016 at 05:03 AM.
Perhaps squares instead as squares are better than rounds.. I like the game of opinion on concepts of opinion..., it gets pretty meaningless as I gather this being your point
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-12-2016 at 04:56 AM.
Posting Permissions
