L
- Status
B
Betterave
Guest
No, that is not what I said. Either you’re again being wilfully ignorant, or you made a mistake in reading what I wrote. Please read it again.
Absolute certainty, obviously: “the greatest certainty of total completeness, with no possibility, however remote, of error or further change or refinement or doubt or lack of clarity.”
Just because you wrote some stuff down and posted it doesn’t mean you answered my question. Try paying attention and stop being so smug yourself.
B
Betterave
Guest
Again, your glibness may indicate subjective certainty, but that certainty is probably objectively worthless.
L
larkin31
Guest
I’ll take that as a yes, and that you actually are here simply to dump on an agnostic.
Why do you expect anything more than glibness after calling someone “willfully ignorant” in simply questioning a God-based argument in a thread debating the objectivity of morality? Do you not respect those whose opinions differ from your own? Do you only respect those who take your snide denigrating remarks without rejoinder? If so, I recommend that you not respond to me any further in that way because you will always receive rejoinders from me.
B
Betterave
Guest
Larkin, please, be reasonable.I’ll take that as a yes, and that you actually are here simply to dump on an agnostic.Were you under the impression that I was God? FYI, I’m not. And I’m certainly not interested in dumping on anyone - I just wish you would be reasonable (which you might accomplish by toning down your own arrogance - and, again, glibness).]
Why do you expect anything more than glibness after calling someone “willfully ignorant” in simply questioning a God-based argument [What is that supposed to mean: “God-based argument”?
You say: “I no longer have interest in the question because it assumed a premise that I have no interest in nor understand the definition of.”
So I note that you are being wilfully ignorant. (If you want to dispute this, please explain how else I could interpret your comment.) Then you get upset and claim that I’m making snide denigrating remarks?? That’s nonsense. Try again.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
The point is, you have to be absolutely certain that you exist. If you cannot be certain of that, you are lunatic. Now, if you can be absolutely certain of one thing, why can you not be absolutely certain of other things? Redirecting the question back to its original target, can we be be absolutely certain that some things are moral and other things are immoral?
Why or why not?
The point is, you have to be absolutely certain that you exist. If you cannot be certain of that, you are lunatic. Now, if you can be absolutely certain of one thing, why can you not be absolutely certain of other things? Redirecting the question back to its original target, can we be be absolutely certain that some things are moral and other things are immoral?
Why or why not?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Because “I might be wrong” does not indicate the probability of being wrong in a specific context. It simply tells us what any intelligent person knows - that we are all fallible.
If it gives you satisfaction use it as a mantra…Here, I’ll say it for me again: “I could well be wrong.”
Let me recall our posts:I’m delighted you agree. It means **we **are far more significant than material objects.
I don’t see why this conclusion is true. Perhaps you might explain how you reached it to make your thinking clear.
The subject precedes the object logically and ontologically!
L
larkin31
Guest
Try again for you? Not likely. I prefer adult conversations. You were the one who used “God” in your “interpretation” and then asked me to define the terms of my objection even though you did not define the terms of your question to begin with. THAT is when I lost interest, because your question was a form of insincere trap.
And sure enough, your smug attitude revealed that my suspicion was correct, and my disinterest validated.
You can have the conversation with someone else, if anyone else cares to.
B
Betterave
Guest
For me?
No. Try again to say something reasonable, to respond to an apparently well-founded comment with a topical, substantial response, instead of irrelevant whining… or not. Your choice, big guy. Try not to deceive yourself into thinking that you prefer ‘adult’ conversations though. (Not that being an adult actually means that you won’t also be highly irrational in your conversations.)That’s just stupid, Larkin. “God” has been central to this thread throughout and if you had a problem with me not defining something, all you had to do (mr. ‘adult’) was to ask me to define whatever it was you had a problem with.
…but sure enough, you’re not actually interested in an open-minded ‘adult’ conversation. You just like to make irrational comments and whine and make personal attacks when you are asked to clarify your position, instead of trying to understand and respond constructively to your interlocutor. Your choice, dude. Just don’t think you’re fooling anyone but yourself.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Looks like this thread is dead. 
B
Betterave
Guest
Just like Nietzsche (God love him).Looks like this thread is dead.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Then I shall revive it:Looks like this thread is dead.
I should like to add “… at the human level”. The Supreme Being transcends the subject-object distinction even though we may be tempted to opt for the former.
L
larkin31
Guest
That’s a nice statement of faith. As such, I respect it.Then I shall revive it:
I should like to add “… at the human level”. The Supreme Being transcends the subject-object distinction even though we may be tempted to opt for the former.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I should like to add “… at the human level”. The Supreme Being transcends the subject-object distinction even though we may be tempted to opt for the former.
Thank you for your kind words.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
tonyrey
*I should like to add “… at the human level”. The Supreme Being transcends the subject-object distinction even though we may be tempted to opt for the former. *
When Moses asked God for his name because the Jews wanted to know more about Him, God answered: “Tell them, I Am That I Am.” There has been endless theological debate about this sentence by Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. Perhaps God is saying something so metaphysical that it transcends objective or subjective description. “I Am Being” might be one interpretation. God is the perfect fullness of Being as we are not. Since we are not the fullness of being, we are divided and our perception of being is split into objective and subjective realities. Indeed, this may account for why we often speak of God as a hidden God. We cannot perceive Him fully in our present state, and He will only reveal Himself more fully to us when we have earned the right. Earning the right means we have become more like God, “perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
*I should like to add “… at the human level”. The Supreme Being transcends the subject-object distinction even though we may be tempted to opt for the former. *
When Moses asked God for his name because the Jews wanted to know more about Him, God answered: “Tell them, I Am That I Am.” There has been endless theological debate about this sentence by Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. Perhaps God is saying something so metaphysical that it transcends objective or subjective description. “I Am Being” might be one interpretation. God is the perfect fullness of Being as we are not. Since we are not the fullness of being, we are divided and our perception of being is split into objective and subjective realities. Indeed, this may account for why we often speak of God as a hidden God. We cannot perceive Him fully in our present state, and He will only reveal Himself more fully to us when we have earned the right. Earning the right means we have become more like God, “perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
- Status