Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every one of those questions expressed dialectics typically emanating from belief in the supernatural and the Omni's that you and so many other theists categorically assert (totally without basis) are the attributes of God. I have seen no reason (other than human vanity and hubris) why God should automatically have any of those attributes.
My eyes do glaze over as if they stumble upon your words so I just course over them and you always seem to leave something at the end being all that I needed to know.
Asking questions with only two options...as if I must believe one of the other. That stifled me. Blank stare. You could give me 20 pages that type IQ of what I believe, and finish in 2 minutes, 20 minutes, 2 hours? 20 days? Hell, I've just got too many other options.
Is the universe a living organism? Do you believe that? How cares what you believe? I ask a question, then I search for options. Then I consider the options and exercise some discernment. Then I search for more options...and some of them stand before me as better than others.
Whether God grows, expands, is round or square, has nothing to do with my relationship with him. It don't matter to me. Why would I care? And it has nothing to do with what or why I believe. I'm certainly not going to agree or disagree in such matters.
And to those that have no Objective Truth whatsoever, yet claim to make great use out of it, yet show no ability or evidence of use, yet flash it as if it were some Badge of authority; followed by what I'd call gossip to what the Bible actually does say and promote their misunderstandings and false accusations based upon religious rumors from their past, unable to discern that their opinion of what the Book actually teaches is nothing but a truckload of garbage; and we stand accused and judged because one size has to fit all. I agree with Tzap on this matter. I don't care if she believes God is fat or skinny. it doesn't matter.
If you know something Beyond A Reasonable Doubt then you don't need to believe it.
If you believe it then you don't know it and therefore you shouldn't have no doubts.
"Every man thinks what he believes is true, otherwise he wouldn't believe it."
I could place something I know Beyond Unreasonable Doubt.
I Doubt you could place anything Beyond Reasonable Doubt, or ever could, or ever should.
What we know we know, and we learn something new that we didn't know, man has been known to change his mind a time or two. What happens to that what you knew you knew...I think we just keep steering it in the right direction...if possible...what? Slow down?
I have found that oftentimes it's not what we say but how we say it that is offensive. A few carefully considered words -- either included or omitted -- can make a world of difference in whether a person comes across as arrogant or just comfortable with his own beliefs.
What a person says is all that matters to me.
How a person says it, I can easily forgive that, doesn't harm me much at all.
What a person says, that can be a little harder to deal with.
Some people are just too easy to offend. Something their dog did so they bite your head off.
And even less arrogant answer would be "I don't know" or "I'm pretty sure but I could be wrong"
Why would you lie?
Give them a piece of your mind if you are getting more than a fair share of theirs.
I mean, on this board...burn some rubber if you can. I wanna hear something that takes my breath away.
And that's precisely the problem now isn't it? Religious folks truly believe that they follow the ultimate truth and think that their ultimate truth is the word of all words...sorry Taz...that's not the way the world works.
I disagree as there is nothing worse then wasting your life chasing after a delusion or wasting a lifetime on thinking you have the ultimate truth when in fact you don't. In addition there is nothing worse then seeing humans being subjected to the horrors and oppression of those who think they hold the ultimate truth.
Seeking objective truths and knowledge in our lifetime is a very worthy endeavor vs. wasting a life living in delusion and false realities.
You sound like dead meat. Your group of religious folks is a fantasy in your mind, like some religious net you carry around to snare people. And some get tangled in your one way world with your one was signs with your badge of authority with your ultimate truth of blaming all the innocents caught in your snare for your own wasted life.
This is a discussion forum addressing subjects that impact real lives in real ways and trying to parse fact from faith and fiction because it matters. Beliefs about God drive many conflicts in the world and drive mistreatment among peoples. It is one thing to be accepting of the beliefs of others when there are no negative repercussions from them but it is quite another when people are treating people as abominations, or flying planes into towers, or blowing themselves up in crowded venues, or using trucks to murder pedestrians and cyclists. Vetting beliefs against reality and facts is essential to reasoned discourse.
True, I think that is why I am here. But how does this fit it the scales of Tzap? How can you weight this from what she has said? She is no more guilty of this than any other one of us based upon anything I've seen posted.
True, I think that is why I am here. But how does this fit it the scales of Tzap? How can you weight this from what she has said? She is no more guilty of this than any other one of us based upon anything I've seen posted.
it is not one size fits all for any of the topics we are discussing: God, religion, Divinity, relationship with God, reincarnation, soul existing before birth, using free will at the soul level, miracles, omniscience, omnipotence, omniprescence, prayer, faith, God not bound by space and time. Therefore for these topics there is no "right answer" there is no "objective truth" there is no "ultimate truth" for everyone on these topics. Rather, there is a wide variety and range of views, understanding of how things work, and belief systems.
If this is your view, then I have probably misinterpreted you at various points. Most likely I have unfairly projected certain religious beliefs upon you - perhaps, in some cases, my mind has blurred your posts with other religious posters? I seem to recall - at various points in this thread, or other threads, some fairly adamant-sounding assertions about the divine inspiration of holy books, the Omni-features of God, we choose to be born, etc. If you truly believe that there are no right answers or any objective truths about these things, then some of my comments to you have been wildly off-base. I don't have the time or inclination to search back through zillions of pages to look for any concrete examples of what gave me the wrong impressions of you, so from this point forward I am going to simply accept what you say here and apologize for the misunderstanding.
As for me, I am a relativist about many, many things, and I think that, indeed, there are no determinate "yes/no" answers to many aspects of life. (A few post ago I suggested that even the past is not entirely set in stone.) I value diversity of thought/beliefs, so I'm not opposed to, or uncomfortable with, strong beliefs - although my reaction to strong metaphysical beliefs generally boils down to some variation of "How do you know? What makes you feel so certain?" etc., because strong claims of knowledge about metaphysical questions tend to make me skeptical. I do admit, however, to a pet peeve when people attempt to use reason-based and/or empirical arguments to defend a belief that - to me - seems blatantly irrational (and this is especially true when this belief leads them to impose their beliefs on others - e.g., homosexuality is a sin, evolution is fake, etc., but you don't appear to be imposing your beliefs in that way, so that's cool).
But there are limits to my relativism and indeterminism. Some questions are structured in such as way that, logically, there has to be a correct yes/no answer. E.g., "Did I choose to be born?" There is room for nuance here, so to get down to the core question we'd have to agree on the sense in which we mean to use the words "I" and "choose" and "birth". But once we agree on exactly what claim is being made, then I think there has to be a correct "yes/no" answer. This alleged act of choosing is a part of the past that cannot fall into the realm of indeterminism. Future contingencies cannot determine whether or not I choose to be born. You believe that you chose to be born. I am perfectly happy that you believe this. I'm not uncomfortable with this belief at all. And, epistemologically, it is unlikely that I will ever be able to "prove" that you could not have made this choice. But your claim inspires me to ask "How do you know? Do you feel as though you actually remember making this choice?" Of course you can feel certain that you believe that you chose to be born; I'm not questioning that at all. And you are certainly welcome to have faith that you chose to be born. But if you want to claim that your faith is rational, then I feel fully justified in offering a variety of reasons for thinking "No, it is not rational." It certainly might seem rational to you, and that is fine, but it does not seem rational to me, and since this is a discussion forum about such things, I will often attempt to explain why I think this belief is irrational. And I will sometimes express some feelings of incredulity when my arguments fail. It's all just part of the game.
BTW: To get at the feeling tones for me, perhaps this will help: Suppose someone says "I have a square circle at home." Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of geometry and logic should be a bit puzzled by this statement, and ought to suspect that this person is pulling your leg, or is confused, etc. Now if you really don't think that there are any objective truths, then you might be happy to believe them and let the whole thing go without further comment. After all, if there are no objective truths, then maybe it is, in fact, "true for him" that he actually has a square circle at home. You might say: "Given my beliefs, a square circle is logically impossible, but given his beliefs, maybe a square circle is logically possible, so maybe he really does have one at home. The square circle exists for him, but not for me. All is well."
My reaction, however, would be completely different. My philosophical bones would start buzzing and I'd seek clarification. I'd feel fairly certain that he is not using the term "square circle" in the same way that I use the term because, as I am using the term, such an object is logically impossible and I believe that logic is objective, not subjective. In this case, there has to be a determinate correct "Yes/No" answer to the question: "Does Joe have a square circle at home?" (once Joe and I agree on the definitions of the terms). And, of course, if Joe agrees to my definitions of the terms, then the correct answer has to be "No" - Joe does not actually have a square circle at home. I can know this with rational certainty. I don't have to be agnostic on the topic of Joe's square circle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
...it sounds like you are focused on "claims to know" and "absolute ultimate truths." and "unjustified knowledge" and "a person can not know this." and "knowing the actual answer."
which is (again, still) what you were doing before (see post #2301) as you think, talk, focus, discuss in terms of being "correct" and "right" and "wrong"
Yes. Hopefully what I have said above will help clarify why I think that sometimes there are correct/incorrect answers (even if we can't actually know the correct answer - in which case agnosticism is a perfectly rational attitude to take).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
I don't get it.
it sounds like you are uncomfortable when someone is secure in their beliefs. when someone is not disturbed by doubts.
I'm generally not uncomfortable with such beliefs, but sometimes I am. If Joe insists that he has a square circle at home and he is completely undisturbed by any feeling of doubt, then I will doubt Joe's rationality and probably even his sanity. And I think I have excellent reasons for doing so. Upon reaching this conclusion, I would be happy to leave the discussion alone. But if Joe goes into discussion forums and talks about his square circle with total confidence as if he knows, without any shadow of doubt, that he has a square circle - and if other people start buying into Joe's claims, i.e., they are saying "Well, maybe Joe is right! Maybe he really does have a square circle!" Then I will become somewhat adamant - perhaps even somewhat "animated" in my arguments against Joe's belief.
(BTW: Just to be clear: I don't regard your beliefs to be of the "square circle" variety and I don't claim to know with certainty that you are wrong. Nor am I necessarily trying to get you to change your beliefs. My arguments are merely meant to cast shadows of doubt for other people who may be tuning into the conversation.)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-17-2018 at 09:39 AM..
Ok MPD here is a simple question. Again for understanding more clearly your beliefs.
Which do you believe:
God created the universe and everything in it.
or
God "is" the universe and everything in it.
God does not grow or change. God exists independent of whether the universe exists or not.
Or
God does grow and change because the universe grows and changes.
God's intelligence and knowledge is greater than the sum total of our intelligence and knowledge.
or
God's intelligence is the sum total of our intelligence and knowledge but does not exceed it.
In the statements above, which statements match your beliefs? Anyone welcome to answer
So yes, there is only one that I can accept with most certainty as an attribute of the Lord my God that I do know and recognize by his word as I know him: "God's intelligence and knowledge is greater than the sum total of our intelligence and knowledge."
This God of infinity, and the saturation of his infinite being beyond my comprehension, that is but as a word to me of his conscious existence ; life; to give aim to our being.
And the #5 option is rather obvious, or self-evident, most near certainty of the bunch. The Lord God I know, and his right hand CXrist, and I...i think MyPhD...is it not an attribute of the Lord that exists? But you can keep all the others...Huh?
... To get at the feeling tones for me, perhaps this will help: Suppose someone says "I have a square circle at home." Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of geometry and logic should be a bit puzzled by this statement, and ought to suspect that this person is pulling your leg, or is confused, etc. Now if you really don't think that there are any objective truths, then you might be happy to believe them and let the whole thing go without further comment. After all, if there are no objective truths, then maybe it is, in fact, "true for him" that he actually has a square circle at home. You might say: "Given my beliefs, a square circle is logically impossible, but given his beliefs, maybe a square circle is logically possible, so maybe he really does have one at home. The square circle exists for him, but not for me. All is well."
My reaction, however, would be completely different. My philosophical bones would start buzzing and I'd seek clarification. I'd feel fairly certain that he is not using the term "square circle" in the same way that I use the term because, as I am using the term, such an object is logically impossible and I believe that logic is objective, not subjective. In this case, there has to be a determinate correct "Yes/No" answer to the question: "Does Joe have a square circle at home?" (once Joe and I agree on the definitions of the terms). And, of course, if Joe agrees to my definitions of the terms, then the correct answer has to be "No" - Joe does not actually have a square circle at home. I can knowthis with rational certainty. I don't have to be agnostic on the topic of Joe's square circle.
I'm generally not uncomfortable with such beliefs, but sometimes I am. If Joe insists that he has a square circle at home and he is completely undisturbed by any feeling of doubt, then I will doubt Joe's rationality and probably even his sanity. And I think I have excellent reasons for doing so. Upon reaching this conclusion, I would be happy to leave the discussion alone. But if Joe goes into discussion forums and talks about his square circle with total confidence as if he knows, without any shadow of doubt, that he has a square circle - and if other people start buying into Joe's claims, i.e., they are saying "Well, maybe Joe is right! Maybe he really does have a square circle!" Then I will become somewhat adamant - perhaps even somewhat "animated" in my arguments against Joe's belief.
if someone told me they had a square circle at home I'd be intrigued. I'd be fascinated. I'd want to see it. I'd want to hear more about it. I'd wonder about the puzzle. I'd say how does that work, tell me more, what's it like. I'd say what do you like about it, what do you use it for, where did you get, how long have you had it.
I like puzzles, always have.
and it has always fascinated me to hear, see, understand how people view the world.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-17-2018 at 11:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
