M
- Status
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Wasn’t it not you that said that all things must exist in time and space?Exactly. Aristotle is one of my favorite philosophers, still not recognized for some of his true understanding.
A
a_priori
Guest
The danger here is ascribing the categories derived from a time and space framework to this “other reality”. “Everything must occur” presupposes the linearity of time. “Zero time” implies the existence of a timescale only with a value of zero. “Instantly” also suggests a timescale. None of these words can appropriated to describe the “other reality” devoid of these things.
That’s just the point. God did not have a beginning. He “exists” outside of time. This is why words fall short in ultimately describing God’s nature and intentions. Is a preexisting Deity harder to conceptualize than a preexisting particle containing the constituents of our entire universe? Yes, I believe the best evidence suggests that time did not exist until the BB.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
It appears, as per another thread, that the CC prefers to maintain doubt and questioning. I am not of such a mind, but I must respect where I am and thus what I say. If I were to take on the unbelievers, without interruption from the believers, there would be no unbelievers. I can only speculate as to why the CC prefers such, but I am not their judge.
On the other hand, the CC has not declared, to my knowledge, that the universe began with the Big Bang. And thus, I feel free to point out how such a thought is necessarily anti-God and utterly irrational, even to the atheists actually.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Why can’t you just answer my “Questions” with clear and sufficient answers? Instead of going off into a tangent about how you could convert everybody into believers if people didn’t interupt.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
ALL of my response was in direct answer to your question.
Why can’t you simply accept it as such and move on?
W
wanstronian
Guest
Er, no it wasn’t. MoM asked three direct questions, none of which you have answered.
Because that would mean accepting bare assertions without evidence, which would be stupid.
Your smug allusions that you know better than everyone else, even going so far as to attack those that have the same fundamental beliefs as you, show you to be the worst kind of religious prig. Forgive my bluntness.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
You are now placing the error on my part. I now see that this discussion is going no where, as you are willing to pretend as if i don’t know what i am talking about. Fine. I thought that we were going to have an proper discussion. As i suspected from the outset, i was wrong.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
I answered his question with the response of “I am not allowed to answer those questions” and an explanation as to why. If I had not included the explanation, he would have had to just ask “why not” and I would have to explain it anyway.
You might want to consider that most people, including yourself it seems, who accuse others of some heartfelt mal-intent, are actually guilty of what they have perceived coming from the others. Your self-righteous, “smug” response is a typical example of your presumption leading you into your own wrong doing.
But such is the state. This thread is not about ME or why I do ANYthing, right or wrong. I offer explanation when asked. You have no need to focus on it or believe it. I do not defend what I profess that is off topic. Ignore them if you like.
You might want to consider that most people, including yourself it seems, who accuse others of some heartfelt mal-intent, are actually guilty of what they have perceived coming from the others. Your self-righteous, “smug” response is a typical example of your presumption leading you into your own wrong doing.
But such is the state. This thread is not about ME or why I do ANYthing, right or wrong. I offer explanation when asked. You have no need to focus on it or believe it. I do not defend what I profess that is off topic. Ignore them if you like.
A
Areopagite
Guest
Good man!:extrahappy:Exactly. Aristotle is one of my favorite philosophers, still not recognized for some of his true understanding.
Having relevance and having existence are two different things. Right?
My point was that angels can act in space but also choose to not act in space. So, are you saying that when they are not causing any affect in space, they don’t exist?
I agree the word “spirit” is a very flexible word, and it has been one of my quests to find the real definition of it. But the reality is that it probably has a least four distinct usages/definitions. One such definition is “a strong distilled liquor”
, but it can also be synonymous to “attitude,” or else to “that which gives life.” Your definition may also be another way it’s used. But I think it is often used to refer to any “immaterial, non-physical substance” (thoughts are accidents, not substances, because they cannot exist by themselves but must exist in something … particularly in beings with intellect).You said that God cannot be considered a spirit. But I certainly would disagree. Just think of all the terms like “the Spirit of God” and the “Holy Spirit” and whatnot. The association of “spirit” with “God” is so common that it gives testament to the fact that “spirit” has been used to symbolize immaterial, non-physical substances.
Um … I don’t think so. Doesn’t sound like I would say that … but maybe I was drunk off my rocker that day.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Not actually. Our minds and senses are very specifically formed to detect and deal with only the relevant. Even if there was some irrelevant existence somewhere, we could never detect it nor have any constructive thoughts concerning it. The fact that we imagine things, is merely a perturbation of our effort to analyze relevant existence.
To humans, and all creatures really, existence and relevance are identical other than one indicating more significance or priority.
To me, that is the technical truth of it. In ancient Greece, they would argue that principles don’t actually exist. The is an old Plato issue. But actually as long as a principle is being physically realized, the principle itself has physical actuality. Thus angels pop in and out of physical existence as they become used or not used. In the divine realm, they are always present at all times.
I think Strong’s concordance defines spirit as energy.
But I did NOT say that God is not spirit. As I just explained, the divine things become physical things when and only when they are manifest in the physical world. But when is God NOT manifest in the physical world? - Never.
God, the Father, I will tend to teach as being principle and not get into the spiritual explanation until the Son and the Holy Spirit come into the discussion. The Holy Spirit is obviously and most definitely always both spiritual and divine. The Son must become manifest, before that moment, He is merely divine.
Any of that make any sense?
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
I wasn’t talking about you. I only quoted you to give reference to the conversation. There is another quote directly under yours. This is who i was responding to.Um … I don’t think so. Doesn’t sound like I would say that … but maybe I was drunk off my rocker that day.
B
Betterave
Guest
Some of it! As I interpret: God is indeed not *outside *the world, *or *“outside” the world; God is at all times in the world and eternally *transcends *it.But I did NOT say that God is not spirit. As I just explained, the divine things become physical things when and only when they are manifest in the physical world. But when is God NOT manifest in the physical world? - Never.
God, the Father, I will tend to teach as being principle and not get into the spiritual explanation until the Son and the Holy Spirit come into the discussion. The Holy Spirit is obviously and most definitely always both spiritual and divine. The Son must become manifest, before that moment, He is merely divine.
Any of that make any sense?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Where did I say that?
W
wanstronian
Guest
Can you point me to the post where you said you “weren’t allowed?” I can’t find it…
Regardless, it gives you a great get-out clause, doesn’t it. “It just is the way I say, and I have proof although I’m not allowed to tell you what it is. So I’m right and you’re wrong, QED.”
I’m not accusing you of hearfelt mal-intent - I don’t know what your motivation is other than possibly wanting to be seen as more clever or insightful than everyone else.
I don’t remember ever saying, “I know that God doesn’t exist, but I’m just not allowed to give you the proof,” which is a direct antithesis of what you are doing. So you can make me out to be disingenuous if you like, but you are the one demonstrating such a characteristic. I’d be interested to hear what ‘wrong-doing’ you think I’m actually perpetrating. Other than refusing to just believe you because you said I should.
Okay, then please explain your answer to just one question. How do you “know truly beyond all rational questioning” that God exists?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
By thinking very carefully and being emotionally humble to Reality.
That means that I go out of my way to not presume. You might want to try it.
The evidential outcome is that you discover a great deal of truth often not presented by either side of many arguments. Most of the arguing is instigated by people using different definitions for the same words. A few know this and enjoy the arguing, but many do not realize they are being played.
Once you get the definitions straight for the keys words, you can then start putting the logic together and look carefully for possible flaws. When you have constructed a picture that is complete in that it truly covers the entire issue, leaving nothing out, and has complete consistency, void of any ambiguity, and additionally addresses a very relevant issue, then you know that you have what is called a “holy picture”.
By then testing that picture with others scrutinize every tiny detail seeking out any room for doubt concerning any logic or assertion (premise), you eventually resolve that not only can you not question it, but neither can anyone else it seems.
Of course, an idiot can doubt anything. The more of an idiot he is, the more he is free from rational thought and thus can doubt even more. He can even doubt that 1+1 really equals 2.
But to present such a picture to anyone requires that they have the patience to at least temporarily accept the definitions that the logic will be using, the patience to review the logic, the humility to accept that their prior favorite thoughts were in error, and most importantly the desire to really understand.
Online such people are extremely rare and such an endeavor requires actual long and detailed dialog involving asking step-by-step questions to ensure that step 1 and 2 are still understood before step 3 is jumped into. And when there are 40 steps involved so as to clear up ALL of the doubt, such a task is just not suited for a thread oriented forum.
In person, such a task is pretty easy.
W
wanstronian
Guest
But what’s your definition of reality? Unless it’s the reality observable by the Scientific Method, how can you be sure it’s the same ‘reality’ for everyone?
What presumptions do you think I am making? I think I do practice lack of presumption. Specifically applicable to this forum, I do not presume the existence of a supernatural deity. I remain open to any evidence provided to the contrary, but so far I have seen none that is not extremely subjective.
I have seen many rational arguments given insufficient credence as a result of semantic assumptions (intentional and otherwise) on these forums, I know this can happen. In my view, most of these semantic misinterpretations are perpetrated by theists who want to avoid some of the more difficult questions and conclusions put forward by atheists or agnostics; but I’m sure I’ve been guilty on occasion. I try not to, but I’m only human.
But by your very words here, we can infer that your definition of logic is predisposed towards a ‘holy’ or ‘religious’ outcome. Rather than applying logic and ultimately arriving at a conclusion, clearly you are starting with a destination in mind - a “holy picture” and then proceeding to work towards it. What other conclusion would you expect to reach, if you already know your goal?
This at least sounds like a robust process once the picture has been arrived at scientifically. I’d be happy to explore this. If you’re concerned about the (name removed by moderator)ut of others, we could do it using private messaging.
An idiot can doubt anything, that’s true. But doubt is not the exclusive bailiwick of idiots. Intelligent people can (and do, and should) doubt things too, until it can be shown that their doubt is unfounded. Your implication (or is it just my inference?) that anybody who doubts the existence of God is an idiot, can only be backed up by providing evidence of the existence of God. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise you might just as well call someone an idiot for doubting the existence of (you guessed it) unicorns and fairies.
In our previous dalliance with this process I undertook to accept your definition for the sake of argument - but you seemed reluctant to progress.
I’m a fairly patient guy, with the reservation that I won’t spend hours reading something that is patently unprovable from the outset.
Woah there, stop the bus. Why must anybody just accept that they were wrong? Is it not your obligation to prove that they were? Otherwise you’re just saying, “Assume you’re wrong, and you’ll see I’m right,” which doesn’t sound very logical to me!
I would like to understand, but I’m initially skeptical about the method you’ll propose to use to attain such understanding. If you can assure me that it will be a logical, empirical process then you have my complete attention.
As I said, let’s do it in private.
How many atheists have you converted?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
My definition is “All that is” or “All that is real” or “All existence” or “All that has affect”.
I define what it is so as to be coherent to Science and humanity. My definition supersedes scientific observation. Science can’t conclude anything until they define what they are doing. They are observing reality and attempting to draw conclusion from what they observe. If Science did not already believe in a reality, Science could not conclude anything at all from anything they observed.
I have no conflict with real Science at all, although I can clearly see that most people are misled by science magazine articles and don’t really get to see any real Science.
Scientists are technicians of Logicians. The logician dictates that the deductions of the scientist make sense. Too often, the answers to questions are deferred to a scientist who attempts philosophy and almost always misrepresents his actual findings. Einstein is a perfect example.
One example from many I have witnessed;
In that post, you presumed the intent of my response. You presumed “smugness”. You presumed “acceptance of bare assertions” as the issue. You presumed “allusions that you know better”. You presumed that I “attack those who have the same belief”. You presume that your vision of me being “the worst kind of religious prig” is not merely your own twisted perception.
If that was your idea of practicing the lack of presumption, you seriously need to re-examine the meaning of the word and consider how often what you see is merely what you have presumed, but isn’t what was really there (preferably BEFORE you presumptuously attack).
This is largely due to that same knee-jerk presuming. You have been offered simple definitions that remove any real doubt you would have. But you ignore those. Why?
Again, you ignore the evidence presented in the post and presume. I defined exactly, with detail of what I meant by “holy picture” and that definition had nothing to do with any religious belief. Why did you ignore what I said and replace the thought with your claim of ME making an obvious error in reasoning?
Yes that is “just your inference”, not mine at all if you actually read what I stated.
You are only a patient guy by your own presumptive standard. You take the first opportunity to imagine a possible flaw and run with it. That is what presumption IS.
And it is why you can’t “see” the evidence, because you are not actually looking at what is being presented, but rather looking for the tiniest excuse to proclaim doubt before you have even really seen what is said.
There you go again. READ the post. I said, “they have to have the humility to accept that their prior…”. What you assumed was that I meant that they must not question, but just accept. That is NOT what “humility” means and I already explained that the person must have humility “to reality”,… not to ME. Again you substitute your presumption of an error into what I said.
I cannot assure you that you will not presume error so fast that you never actually see what I say. In person, I can do that, but one online.
YOU have to stop YOURSELF from assuming things are being said that really are NOT being said. Look for the possibility of truth before the probability of error, else you will always be blinded by your own emotions.
I have never set out to convert anyone. I have had other things to accomplish and when atheism gets in the way (occasionally) I immediately remove it and go on. What I noticed was how easy it is in the right environment. But in total, I have probably done so to maybe 15-20.
As I said, I don’t go out looking for atheists to convert. If they are not looking for me, they have to depend on accidental discovery. “The teacher appears when the student is ready”. That statement is true because the student isn’t really listening. He is (they are) ready when he desires the real understanding more than he lusts to presume (mental blindness).
W
wanstronian
Guest
That’s a (necessarily) wide scope, certainly beyond current human understanding. How can you have a relationship with something that is beyond your - or anyone’s - ken?
So you know better than the scientists? That might be true, but I’d be interested in hearing your justification.
Okay, so you’re defining a set of rules so that you can embark upon a prima facie rational process. But as your definition ‘supercedes scientific observation’ how can you know whether your rules are correct?
Articles are the lay-term description of real science, do you not think?
Can you give an example? I presume you’re not presuming?
Okay, first sentence was a statement of fact. Second was an observation of common sense - or do you content that assertions should be taken without justification? So I assume you’re talking about my observation of your assumed superiority. I reached that conclusion because you appear unwilling to provide the evidence which you content would change us all from atheists into theists. At the same time you state as fact, that which you cannot know to be such, unless for some reason you have been given special dispensation to received understanding that has eluded the majority of the rest of the human race. I don’t think I presumed anything, I just observed your responses. To be fair, textual discussion is prone to misunderstanding, and maybe you would not seem so condescending face-to-face.
I prefer ‘observed’ to ‘presumed’ in all cases. My perception is different to yours, that doesn’t mean that mine is twisted and yours is squeaky-clean. I stand by my comments.
Well, there we have a difficulty. If one person didn’t presume to understand what another person meant, there would be no conversation without argument and possibly fisticuffs. I, like anybody else, engage in reasonable presumption - enough to actually progress a debate. If that is the level of presumption you rile against, then we can stop this right now.
No, I haven’t been offered. Or if I have, I’ve missed it. Perhaps you could spell out just one example?
Okay, maybe I got thrown off by the ‘h’ word - it seemed a bit too trite to be coincidence. I apologise if I misunderstood your intent.
No, your comment taken out of the context of this forum and thread would be completely benign. However, in the context of this thread, I wonder what the point of a theist discussing idiocy in terms of ignoring evidence is* supposed* to be?
- Status