Dr. Satanical.........

[Dr.Satanical]

@Meno

@Dr.Satanical

No, my faith is based on historical and philosophical supports.

Start here. Let’s see if you are capable of creating a cogent argument WITH support. Bald assertions will be met with more mockery.

Ok, first I will provide some philosophic supports, first Christianity is the most consistent system of thought.

My Epistemology is based on God being the source of all truth. That the world is knowable through our senses, because God created us to live in this world.

Ok. But that sure doesn’t sound like epistimology, which deals with knowledge, not conjecture, such as you have written here.

In addition what my senses gather is consistent with is really out there.

I would tend to agree, but I’d like to see you prove this.

There also exists a body of knowledge that is non-empirical, which one can obtain knowledge through rational discourse, A Priori knowledge. Mathematics, and Geometry are excellent examples, in particular, Euclid’s 5 postulates, which are accepted without proof. Of any other e is the other`mathematical formula is independent of empirical knowledge.

The reason these things are ‘accepted without proof’ is because they produce acurate results and stand up to testing and scrutiny. Any attempt to tie this to religious belief, in this light, is bound to fail.

Another example, What is beauty? Platonic Forms have a grain of truth. and can be helpful. My knowledge of reality is based on the existence of God, which of course is a presupposition.

You got that right. Baseless presupposition at that.

Ultimate reality is God and His activity in the universe. The universe is not an eternal self sustaining substance as Spinoza or Hegel would conjecture. It wasn’t constructed out of pre-existent material, like the Platonic form of God. It was created out of nothing. The universe had a starting point and its creator is God. (Of course one would ask, who created God? This leads into the Cosmological arguments, which I’ll deal with later.) Ethics, for me Ethics is a no brainer simply because God has established absolute standards of right and wrong. (It always amuses me how people grapple with moral issues, and because they don’t have an absolute standard on which to base their beliefs, they are at a loss for a clear decision) Christians have an unfair advantage in ethical issues.

So many bald assertions in a row…this has to be satire.

So uhh ya…where’s the beef? Where are the philosophical supports?
Where are the historical supports?
Preaching is not evidence.

[Meno]

@Dan~

Christians have an unfair advantage in ethical issues.

Laugh as you may, but that is the truth, your lack of response demonstrates that you yield to the truth. In addition, Dan, in Philosophical discourse, passsionate arguments are disallowed and an admission of defeat. Furthermore, any future emotional responses will be ignored, I dialogue only with other serious philosophers engaging in rigorous thought provoking issues. Something you seem incapable of being an active participant. Here’s a question for you Dan, please explain why I said, " Christians have an unfair advantage in ethical issues." Good day.

[Meno]

@Dr.Satanical

@Meno

@Dr.Satanical

No, my faith is based on historical and philosophical supports.

Start here. Let’s see if you are capable of creating a cogent argument WITH support. Bald assertions will be met with more mockery.

Ok, first I will provide some philosophic supports, first Christianity is the most consistent system of thought.

My Epistemology is based on God being the source of all truth. That the world is knowable through our senses, because God created us to live in this world.

Ok. But that sure doesn’t sound like epistimology, which deals with knowledge, not conjecture, such as you have written here.

Well then you don’t know what epistemology is
In addition what my senses gather is consistent with is really out there.

I would tend to agree, but I’d like to see you prove this.

Well, when you come to an intersection with pretty Red, yellow and green lights, and the pretty red one lights up, what do you (I hope) and other drivers do? How do you know when you sit on a chair, it is not the bloated belly of a dead donkey? You see Dr. Satan, you agree with me in your actions, though in you words you set up a facade.
There also exists a body of knowledge that is non-empirical, which one can obtain knowledge through rational discourse, A Priori knowledge. Mathematics, and Geometry are excellent examples, in particular, Euclid’s 5 postulates, which are accepted without proof. Of any other e is the other`mathematical formula is independent of empirical knowledge.

The reason these things are ‘accepted without proof’ is because they produce acurate results and stand up to testing and scrutiny. Any attempt to tie this to religious belief, in this light, is bound to fail.
It may not be that simple, as you appear to think, there exists Apriori knowledge in this area, begs the question, is there more out there, and where did it originate? Dismissing other possibilities out of hand doesn’t establish your position any better.

Another example, What is beauty? Platonic Forms have a grain of truth. and can be helpful. My knowledge of reality is based on the existence of God, which of course is a presupposition.

You got that right. Baseless presupposition at that.

Now how did you extrapolate that from what I wrote? I don’t read any intelligent responses, just sarcasm. That is unacceptable as a rebuttal. If you are doing philosophy then you are wrong, dead wrong.
All your answers are based on baises, presuppositions and the unwillingness to find a real response.
Ultimate reality is God and His activity in the universe. The universe is not an eternal self sustaining substance as Spinoza or Hegel would conjecture. It wasn’t constructed out of pre-existent material, like the Platonic form of God. It was created out of nothing. The universe had a starting point and its creator is God. (Of course one would ask, who created God? This leads into the Cosmological arguments, which I’ll deal with later.) Ethics, for me Ethics is a no brainer simply because God has established absolute standards of right and wrong. (It always amuses me how people grapple with moral issues, and because they don’t have an absolute standard on which to base their beliefs, they are at a loss for a clear decision) Christians have an unfair advantage in ethical issues.

So many bald assertions in a row…this has to be satire.
I don’t see any intelligent responses, your ideas are also based on pre-suppostions, but you avoid responding. What’s the matter?
So uhh ya…where’s the beef? Where are the philosophical supports?
Where are the historical supports?
Preaching is not evidence.

You obviously are not serious, you have not made any responses, just sarcasm. This is not philosophy, you are wasting my time. Here’s a good quote for you to live by, “My mind is made up don’t confuse me with the facts.” You just want to have a war of words, but that not my interest, you have been a serious disappointment, future responses from you will be ignored.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Meno

@Dan~

Christians have an unfair advantage in ethical issues.

Laugh as you may, but that is the truth, your lack of response demonstrates that you yield to the truth. In addition, Dan, in Philosophical discourse, passsionate arguments are disallowed and an admission of defeat. Furthermore, any future emotional responses will be ignored, I dialogue only with other serious philosophers engaging in rigorous thought provoking issues. Something you seem incapable of being an active participant. Here’s a question for you Dan, please explain why I said, " Christians have an unfair advantage in ethical issues." Good day.

Thought provoking?

How could God be ‘perfect’ and create all life on earth in imperfect, fallible forms?

If Christianity is the truth – then why are there over 1000 devisions – each claiming to be absolutely right?

If I’m going to go to hell for not fallowing the word of “God” – why will my immortal, eternally burning, non-physical ‘soul’ have pain neurves?

passsionate arguments are disallowed and an admission of defeat

‘Defeat’?

oooowh! stunning logic! You got me!

you have been a serious disappointment,

hahah.

future responses from you will be ignored

Please, don’t ignore my 3 questions here.

[Dr.Satanical]

So, I supose that means you can’t suply any ‘philosophical or historical suports’
Gee, I’m so surprised.

[Dust_of_the_earth]

Dan:
Well lots of people say God created everything – is all-mighty – far more righteous then any human. All of that crap doesn’t add up.

Ok…“it doesn’t add up”…My point exactly! That is…the methodolgy you seem to employ in finding or determining truth does not/will not add up regarding God and His word.

Dan:
I can’t prove it all wrong because it was never proven right in the first place. It’s just one big opinion that can’t do anything on its own so it needs tons of people to preach it – otherwise it would not exist or effect anyone.

Dan, when/if a man reaches a point where he actually rejects God (as appears to be the case with you) it’s time to grow up, and mature your perceptions of God. Many perceptions of God proceed from childhood…which is fine if one maintains faith in God and the truth of His word. I suppose we could consider such childhood perceptions as ‘sub principles’ or at lest avenues to sub principles. The sum of all perceptible sub principles lead us to the most comprehensible or accurate perception/understanding of the primary principle. I think it is by human nature that we fall upon folly/misinterpretation/distortion/inaccracy when attempting to consciously preceive the primary principle. We simply cannot do it! Not consciously anyway. Now, spiritual understanding is another thing entirely. As you read this, you are probably automatically rejecting the term ‘spiritual’, as it is probably tied-in with your rejected perceptions of God.

I’ll attempt to quickly explain what I mean by spiritual understanding in more scientific terms, though it is necessary to view my explanation as analogous at best or as a similtude…

A scientist can conduct an elaborate scientifc obervational analysis of an individual who consistantly hits homeruns, determining and charting the exact mechanics invovled, the proper timing, and virturally every observable or detectable element needed to consistantly hit homeruns, yet when the scientist himself steps up to the plate, possesing presise and elaborate scientific knowledge cannot hit a homerun. On the other hand the individual who actually consistantly hits the homeruns has none of the conscious scientific knowledge the scientist has, yet his ability to hit the homeruns is not deminished. The home run hitter has ‘tacit knowledge’. Tacit knowledge, in this case, proves to be more reliable or functional than scientific knowledge.

The homerun hitter in this senario has preformed some sort of an unconscious blending of all the pertenant sub principles involved in hitting homeruns…this function of ‘blending’ perhaps takes into account non-observable sub principles (not recorded by the scientist), but whatever the case…the homerun hitter is utilizing a sum of sub principles, whereas the scientist only pocesses an aggregate of sub principles, which he himself consciously determines (through hypothisis or whatever) the sum of, or how each of these sub principles interact. Perhaps this conscious determination is not an impossible task to figure out, but obviously considering the various outcomes .000 to 1000 (batting averages) a highly complex matter.

Well I have some superbowl preperation to take care of right now…so maybe more later. Oh, you may want to consider that not all of our perceptions are observable. (How does an ant know how to build the perfect ant hill?)

P.S. I haven’t taken a look at the internet reference you provided yet, but I will.

GO SEAHAWKS!

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Dust of the earth

Dan:
Well lots of people say God created everything – is all-mighty – far more righteous then any human. All of that crap doesn’t add up.

Ok…“it doesn’t add up”…My point exactly! That is…the methodolgy you seem to employ in finding or determining truth does not/will not add up regarding God and His word.

Bah. Christendom makes absolute claims about God that don’t add up in a reasonable way. If there was a humane and loving God, he would have created a humane and loving eco-system. Evolution makes more sense.

Dan:
I can’t prove it all wrong because it was never proven right in the first place. It’s just one big opinion that can’t do anything on its own so it needs tons of people to preach it – otherwise it would not exist or effect anyone.

Dan, when/if a man reaches a point where he actually rejects God (as appears to be the case with you) it’s time to grow up, and mature your perceptions of God.

Understanding supernatural things is one of the hardest tasks on earth. I can’t say much for sure, but I can say: “That’s bull shit!” when people make absurd claims.

Many perceptions of God proceed from childhood…which is fine if one maintains faith in God and the truth of His word.

When God talks – then it is God’s word. If a man talks – it is a mans word. Religious leaders want us all to join their ranks.

I suppose we could consider such childhood perceptions as ‘sub principles’ or at lest avenues to sub principles. The sum of all perceptible sub principles lead us to the most comprehensible or accurate perception/understanding of the primary principle. I think it is by human nature that we fall upon folly/misinterpretation/distortion/inaccracy when attempting to consciously preceive the primary principle.

I can precieve primary principals okay.

spiritual understanding is another thing entirely. As you read this, you are probably automatically rejecting the term ‘spiritual’, as it is probably tied-in with your rejected perceptions of God.

? ‘Spiritual’ is like ‘vital’.

I’ll attempt to quickly explain what I mean by spiritual understanding in more scientific terms, though it is necessary to view my explanation as analogous at best or as a similtude…

A scientist can conduct an elaborate scientifc obervational analysis of an individual who consistantly hits homeruns, determining and charting the exact mechanics invovled, the proper timing, and virturally every observable or detectable element needed to consistantly hit homeruns, yet when the scientist himself steps up to the plate, possesing presise and elaborate scientific knowledge cannot hit a homerun. On the other hand the individual who actually consistantly hits the homeruns has none of the conscious scientific knowledge the scientist has, yet his ability to hit the homeruns is not deminished. The home run hitter has ‘tacit knowledge’. Tacit knowledge, in this case, proves to be more reliable or functional than scientific knowledge.

The homerun hitter in this senario has preformed some sort of an unconscious blending of all the pertenant sub principles involved in hitting homeruns…this function of ‘blending’ perhaps takes into account non-observable sub principles (not recorded by the scientist), but whatever the case…the homerun hitter is utilizing a sum of sub principles, whereas the scientist only pocesses an aggregate of sub principles, which he himself consciously determines (through hypothisis or whatever) the sum of, or how each of these sub principles interact. Perhaps this conscious determination is not an impossible task to figure out, but obviously considering the various outcomes .000 to 1000 (batting averages) a highly complex matter.

So, ‘spirituality’ is the Scientist and is not the Homerun-Hitter? I already know the difference between observation and experience. What were you really trying to say here?..

[Dust_of_the_earth]

Dan~:
Christendom makes absolute claims about God that don’t add up in a reasonable way.

Yeah, they very well may not add up. …to you!

Dan~:
If there was a humane and loving God, he would have created a humane and loving eco-system.

Dan, of course I understand your conception of God as humane and loving, this has been revealed to us, but on the otherhand it’s also been revealed that this is not the case with our existence here on earth. This isn’t heaven, this is preparation for heaven so to speak. To be more specific I think we are undergoing a preparation which will allow us to exist together eternally. Logically eternity would require a perfect harmony in-order to avoid a destructive end. If such an end were possible, obviously it wouldn’t be eternity. The Bible indicates that we are being perfected.

Dan~:
Understanding supernatural things is one of the hardest tasks on earth. I can’t say much for sure, but I can say: “That’s bull shit!” when people make absurd claims.

Your right on both counts, but if your understanding and your critque of somebody elses supernatural claims is derrived soley from scientific method (whether simple or sophisticated), your understanding will not be accurate or functional for a couple of reasons…

1. Science at this point in it’s evolution almost exclusively deals with the natural. However, in cosmology models/theories and in quantum physics science has identified or detected the invisable supernatural realm, but they have not as of yet unvailed it. (i.e. timeless hyperspheres, parallel dimensions, the string theory postulates that our entire universe exists on a paper thin membrane and that our perception of 3D is but an illusion, actual expirmentation with quantum particles have indicated that a single quantum particle can appear to or actually does occupy two different spatial areas at the exact same time)

2)As in the homerun senario of my last post, strictly scientific knowledge is not as accurate or functional as tacit knowledge, at least in some cases.
In the case of theism, theistic tacit like knowledge, in theory could include such scientifically undetectable sub principles as would be gained from an unconscious or semi-conscious spiritual sort of awareness. We do find some evidence of the existence of such spiritual like sub principles…Currently 5 billion of the 6 billion people on the planet have some sort of theistic belief…And through-out history, virtually every discovered ancient society was involved in some sort of theistic belief…And the fact that animals in nature do indeed posess ‘unlearned knowledge’, makes such a claim at the human level at least viable.

Dan~:
When God talks – then it is God’s word. If a man talks – it is a mans word. Religious leaders want us all to join their ranks.

Of course you are right., but that does not pre-empt God from using men to accomplish His will.

Dan~:
Read this, okay?
Yes, there are higher powers that have a deep effect on us – but they are not life forms are they?

I read the article. It’s interesting, especially the part about the potential for information to be transmitted via the synchronized brain/SR frequencies. God is said to exist in a timeless state. It’s not by magic that God would communicate with us…it’s by process or something like process (Process is a chronological term and is dependent on time). God accomplishes things by method and/or process, and when He (the term ‘He’ being an anthropomorphism) interacts from the supernatural realm to the natural realm, more than likely there is some scientifically detectable aspect, at least at the natural side of the interaction. Specifically the supernatural realm is of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe. Now, I am not saying that God actually uses SR frequencies to communicate with us, but I do find it interesting that when processes created and set into motion by God are discovered through the scientific method, some folks view this as an indication of God’s non-existence.