[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[ScottA]

What does "spiritual" mean?

Of the spirit.

"Truth", as in religious opinion?

You must mean truth as in religious opinion. No. I mean the overriding truth, the actual truth, rather than the make believe truth of storybook Pixelland. You know...where Geppetto is real, and Pinocchio is not [actually]. Oh, darn, I let another demonstration slip through again!

Do you think that a philosophy forum is an appropriate venue for preaching?

A "Christian" Philosophy Forum? Yes.

 

[ScottA]

I seek accurate descriptions of reality.

Philosophically speaking...accuracy would depend on context.

Truthfully speaking...if one knows the whole truth, it would not be accurate to limit a description to only part of reality, especially the make believe part.

In that complete context, the accurate description includes the reality of a higher life form Creator, and a make believe (created) reality. Again, the make believe part is only a reality within its created context.

 

[Davian]

Of the spirit.

What is "spirit"?

You must mean truth as in religious opinion. No. I mean the overriding truth, the actual truth, rather than the make believe truth of storybook Pixelland.

But all you have proffered is your opinion.

You know...where Geppetto is real, and Pinocchio is not [actually]. Oh, darn, I let another demonstration slip through again!

Where?

A "Christian" Philosophy Forum? Yes.

Post #678, if you care... speaking of Jiminy Cricket, and all that.

 

[Davian]

Philosophically speaking...accuracy would depend on context.

Truthfully speaking...<snip preaching>

I do not, by default, accept your religious opinion as truth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Of the spirit.

Can you make that definition less circular? What does being "of the spirit" mean without resorting to the word "spirit"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

The wackos are not exclusive to Christianity, by any means, but I am happy to expose those who are. They do a grave disservice to the greatest news the world has ever heard. Without naming names, I would break it down as follows:

• There are those who do not "believe" in the witness recorded down through the ages by the Judeo-Christian patriarchs...but they should be considered outside the camp. Their conjecture often ends up within, where it really has no business being.
• There are those who "want" to "believe", because the alternative is picking up the newspaper and putting their hope in what the world has to say. And yet, they could not defend their faith...which should not be considered necessary, because it is not. They, if fact, are considered the most qualified to receive the great things of God, and they do, strictly by their faith.
• There are those who "believe" because they HAVE done the research. They have put God on trial and weighed the evidence on all sides, and are intellectually convinced. Their faith is first in themselves, for first having done their homework, and then, and only then, do they believe.
• There are those who actually don't "believe" but simply follow what they were born into, only to fall away, perhaps to come by the same belief on their own, or perhaps never to return.
• Then, there are those whom, in a variety of circumstances...actually come to "know" God, because he made himself known "to" them. Which in all fairness, and I am convinced that it is so, could and does happen to a certain amount from all of those other "believers" listed above...who then, no longer "believe" but "know" the truth directly from God.

...It is those who, before "knowing" the truth, but only "believe" who run the risk of false testimony and conjecture, resulting in a kind of false gospel. They're everywhere (unfortunately).

I give you that: you are someone - in a long line of apologets - who has managed to absolve yourself from all scrutiny.

Evidence? Who needs that?

Falsification? Impossible... just claim that you "know" better and the others don't.

Just don't make any testable statements at all, and no one can test you.

In another thread you said:

My view is God-centered, and the universe is like make-believe temporary passion, soon to be complete and thrown in the trash.

"Soon". That is such an untestable claim. What is "soon"?

Some make the claim that the universe would end, in the year 1000, or 1914, or 1989, or 2012, or 2014. Precise claims, born out of "knowledge"... and false.
Some make the claim that the universe will end this year... still to come. Not shown false yet, but wait six months, and we will see. My bet is on "false".
And some make the claim "soon". Unspecified. If it doesn't happen this year, it might be next year, or next decade, or... or...
And if it doesn't happen while they are alive, they are free from any responsibility for their claims - no one can touch them any more. And the "soon" goes on. The gospels talk about "soon"... and here we are, 80 generations later.
And the apologets present their excuses: "soon" in divine measurements. 1000 years are as one day. His ways are not our ways.

The torah had a good rule for prophecy: if what a prophet says will happen does not happen, he does not speak from "infinite knowlegde". He does not speak for God. Kill him!

No wonder wannabe prophets found a way to circumvent this rule. Like you do.

When the universe doesn't end in 2015 (and it will not - I know it ) the self-proclaimed prophets will not be killed... we don't do that anymore. Most likely, they will not even be ignored and left by their faithful disciples... they will receive new "revelations" and new "knowlegde" and carry on. Wackos. But at least they go out to new frontiers, search for new things, make new assertions... at least they claim to have found new worlds.

People like you can stay safe and sound within their bubble of untestable claims. You don't risk anything... but you also don't gain anything.

You accuse the knowledge of "this world" to be a house of cards, conjecture, empty, make-believe. You claim to have a more real world, an infinite knowledge.

But you have nothing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I give you that: you are someone - in a long line of apologets - who has managed to absolve yourself from all scrutiny.

Evidence? Who needs that?

Falsification? Impossible... just claim that you "know" better and the others don't.

Just don't make any testable statements at all, and no one can test you.

In another thread you said:


"Soon". That is such an untestable claim. What is "soon"?

Some make the claim that the universe would end, in the year 1000, or 1914, or 1989, or 2012, or 2014. Precise claims, born out of "knowledge"... and false.
Some make the claim that the universe will end this year... still to come. Not shown false yet, but wait six months, and we will see. My bet is on "false".
And some make the claim "soon". Unspecified. If it doesn't happen this year, it might be next year, or next decade, or... or...
And if it doesn't happen while they are alive, they are free from any responsibility for their claims - no one can touch them any more. And the "soon" goes on. The gospels talk about "soon"... and here we are, 80 generations later.
And the apologets present their excuses: "soon" in divine measurements. 1000 years are as one day. His ways are not our ways.

The torah had a good rule for prophecy: if what a prophet says will happen does not happen, he does not speak from "infinite knowlegde". He does not speak for God. Kill him!

No wonder wannabe prophets found a way to circumvent this rule. Like you do.

When the universe doesn't end in 2015 (and it will not - I know it ) the self-proclaimed prophets will not be killed... we don't do that anymore. Most likely, they will not even be ignored and left by their faithful disciples... they will receive new "revelations" and new "knowlegde" and carry on. Wackos. But at least they go out to new frontiers, search for new things, make new assertions... at least they claim to have found new worlds.

People like you can stay safe and sound within their bubble of untestable claims. You don't risk anything... but you also don't gain anything.

You accuse the knowledge of "this world" to be a house of cards, conjecture, empty, make-believe. You claim to have a more real world, an infinite knowledge.

But you have nothing.

It's reasoning without risk. The beliefs are permanently safe; locked into stasis by faith; invulnerable to scrutiny.

 

[KCfromNC]

History has already given good reasons, miracles, fire brought down from heaven, etc....and many believed.

Do you accept the random stuff that believers from many different religions also cite as "good reasons"? If not, why would you expect others to? And if you do, you'll need to convert since they all have this level of "evidence" for their mutually contradictory claims.

They ARE recorded with all the specifics, if you care to go through the data.

Feel free to point out the details on these. It is easy to claim that records exist. It is much harder to actually demonstrate this fact.

 

[dlamberth]

If provided with compelling evidence to that effect, I would make every effort to prepare myself for that.

Because you haven't woken to the spiritual aspect of our being, we end up talking past each other. The human being is much more than a mixture of mechanical/chemical/physical chunk of meat.

.

 

[dlamberth]

No, it isn't.

Sure it is...your position WAS questioned.

.

 

[dlamberth]

Then I have no idea of what you mean by the word "reality".

I know...you've never tried to find out.

.

 

[dlamberth]

S

I seek accurate descriptions of reality.

That's imposable. Even your unable to provide that because there are as many descriptions of reality as there are human beings.

.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's imposable. Even your unable to provide that because there are as many descriptions of reality as there are human beings.

So, then your view that human beings are "much more than a mixture of mechanical/chemical/physical chunk of meat" isn't accurate?

 

[dlamberth]

So, then your view that human beings are "much more than a mixture of mechanical/chemical/physical chunk of meat" isn't accurate?

Why not?

.

 

[Chriliman]

Matthew 7:6
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

I'll use an analogy to try to explain what I see happening here between ScottA and all the rest of you who are against ScottA.

Everyone is on the ground looking up at the clouds. ScottA has had a spiritual awakening that has allowed him rise up towards the clouds and get a better view of what's above the clouds. What's above the clouds is absolute truth and ScottA has a better vantage point of this absolute truth and he's looking down at those on the ground and trying to explain what he sees above the clouds. Those on the ground can't possibly understand because they are on the ground and don't have the same vantage point that ScottA has. Now I hope you won't take offense to this ScottA, but I feel lead to say, that you should go down to those on the ground and explain things from their vantage point and they may then be encouraged to follow you up to the clouds for a better vantage point. Right now it appears that you are throwing spiritual truths at those who are not spiritual.

Convincing an atheist that God is real is not something man can do, only God can do this and God uses His people to prepare the unspiritual for their spiritual awakening.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why not?

How seriously should I take your claim if no one can accurately describe reality?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Matthew 7:6
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

I'll use an analogy to try to explain what I see happening here between ScottA and all the rest of you who are against ScottA.

Everyone is on the ground looking up at the clouds. ScottA has had a spiritual awakening that has allowed him rise up towards the clouds and get a better view of what's above the clouds. What's above the clouds is absolute truth and ScottA has a better vantage point of this absolute truth and he's looking down at those on the ground and trying to explain what he sees above the clouds. Those on the ground can't possibly understand because they are on the ground and don't have the same vantage point that ScottA has. Now I hope you won't take offense to this ScottA, but I feel lead to say, that you should go down to those on the ground and explain things from their vantage point and they may then be encouraged to follow you up to the clouds for a better vantage point. Right now it appears that you are throwing spiritual truths at those who are not spiritual.

Convincing an atheist that God is real is not something man can do, only God can do this and God uses His people to prepare the unspiritual for their spiritual awakening.

Analogies are such a wonderful method to get your point across... any point.

In this case, these people are above the clouds. They see what he sees above the clouds... and for some reason, this is everything and infinite and absolute and divine.
The people on the ground do not see that, because of the clouds. And they do not believe what they don't see.

But these people above the ground... do they really see everything? The infinite? The "true reality"?
Or are the clouds keeping them from looking back to the ground as well?

That is one of the problems: these people (ScottA in this case) claim to have "infinity knowledge". The people on the ground try to test this claim... a good, reasonable and valid approach: "test the spirits!"
And here the people above the clouds fail. Their "infinity knowledge" excludes everything that is or could be known to the people on the ground.
What is my middle name? They don't know. How do you cure cancer? They don't know.
How do I convince this ground-person who begs me for a convincing argument to believe? They don't know.
How do you correctly use logic when debating someone who provides you with a logical argument? THEY DON'T KNOW!

Their "infinity knowledge" is limited to what someone else said previously and got it recorded in a religious text. Strange kind of an infinite and superiour and "real" knowledge.


Another problem: the people are above the clouds, and the see - see the infinite and divine. And they relate it to the people on the ground.
And they contradict each other. They relate their infinite knowledge in ways that cannot all be correct. In way that get people - even those who claim to have been above the clouds - to diminish, persecute and destroy each other. Not a sign of infinite and superiour and "real" knowledge either.

And another problem: these people above the clouds recognize that there are contradicting voices. But they "know": all these people are just wrong. They haven't been above the clouds. They just think they have been. They are deluded or lying. ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG.
How can that be? Easy! People can be evil, and even the well-meaning people can be deceived. Humans are fallibe. They can be wrong.
But they themselves cannot be wrong: they KNOW! Impossible to be wrong. Everyone else can be... they cannot.

All these things, and all what we know about humans... even the myriad of believers that exist and have existed... point to one thing: neither human claims nor human witness are a good way to infinite and absolute and divine knowledge.

You claim that only God himself can convince an atheist that he is real. That might be so. But God doesn't do it.

 

[Chriliman]

Analogies are such a wonderful method to get your point across... any point.

In this case, these people are above the clouds. They see what he sees above the clouds... and for some reason, this is everything and infinite and absolute and divine.
The people on the ground do not see that, because of the clouds. And they do not believe what they don't see.

But these people above the ground... do they really see everything? The infinite? The "true reality"?
Or are the clouds keeping them from looking back to the ground as well?

That is one of the problems: these people (ScottA in this case) claim to have "infinity knowledge". The people on the ground try to test this claim... a good, reasonable and valid approach: "test the spirits!"
And here the people above the clouds fail. Their "infinity knowledge" excludes everything that is or could be known to the people on the ground.
What is my middle name? They don't know. How do you cure cancer? They don't know.
How do I convince this ground-person who begs me for a convincing argument to believe? They don't know.
How do you correctly use logic when debating someone who provides you with a logical argument? THEY DON'T KNOW!

Their "infinity knowledge" is limited to what someone else said previously and got it recorded in a religious text. Strange kind of an infinite and superiour and "real" knowledge.


Another problem: the people are above the clouds, and the see - see the infinite and divine. And they relate it to the people on the ground.
And they contradict each other. They relate their infinite knowledge in ways that cannot all be correct. In way that get people - even those who claim to have been above the clouds - to diminish, persecute and destroy each other. Not a sign of infinite and superiour and "real" knowledge either.

And another problem: these people above the clouds recognize that there are contradicting voices. But they "know": all these people are just wrong. They haven't been above the clouds. They just think they have been. They are deluded or lying. ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG.
How can that be? Easy! People can be evil, and even the well-meaning people can be deceived. Humans are fallibe. They can be wrong.
But they themselves cannot be wrong: they KNOW! Impossible to be wrong. Everyone else can be... they cannot.

All these things, and all what we know about humans... even the myriad of believers that exist and have existed... point to one thing: neither human claims nor human witness are a good way to infinite and absolute and divine knowledge.

You claim that only God himself can convince an atheist that he is real. That might be so. But God doesn't do it.

Sorry, you missed a key point of the analogy. No one is above the clouds, we are all below the clouds. It just that those who've had a spiritual awakening have risen to just below the clouds, but above the ground and are able to get a better vantage point of what is above the clouds, but they themselves are not yet above because they are still in this world on earth. Does that make sense?

So what I've done and continue to try to do is look at my own beliefs from the perspective of an athiest. This has allowed me to understand some of the confusion athiests have regarding Christian beliefs and theology and I've tried to explain and clear up the confusion, but until you have your own personal spiritual awakening, you won't understand my vantage point or what I've been trying to do.

As Christians we are called to seek the lost sheep. And a lost sheep who wants to understand is definitely worth seeking and finding. I consider you a lost sheep who is seeking to understand and I also consider myself a lost sheep if I don't have the truth of Jesus Christ to guide me. I hope this makes sense at least.

 

[madera23]

Will someone tell me why this conversation continues?

 

[Chriliman]

Will someone tell me why this conversation continues?

Because evil is real and Jesus is working to destroy it.