Do you believe what you claim to believe?

[Resha Caner]

If other gods exist and you choose to deny them, the same applies to you.

It does. I'll just ask if you're aware that the Bible does speak of other gods.

 

[Chriliman]

Wrong. I never actually carry cash, and if you knew me... you'd know better, because you'd decide based on evidence.

I don't even wear a clothes that have pockets. The reason why I've made this claim should be obvious. A claim is different than a statement.

But, thank you for making me laugh.

Do we now have proof that you lied based on your own claims/statements?

Or were you not actually claiming to have $20 in your pocket? Was it just a hypothetical claim?

 

[HitchSlap]

Do we now have proof that you lied based on your own claims/statements?

Or were you not actually claiming to have $20 in your pocket? Was it just a hypothetical claim?

Lol. Goof.

 

[bhsmte]

It does. I'll just ask if you're aware that the Bible does speak of other gods.

When you can demonstrate claims in the bible are valid, i will then take those claims seriously.

 

[Resha Caner]

When you can demonstrate claims in the bible are valid, i will then take those claims seriously.

Sorry. I thought you were starting a conversation on other gods ... since you brought it up.

 

[devolved]

That is not at all the case. You were lecturing me on social contracts as if I had never heard of the idea before. I was simply demonstrating that I am familiar with the idea of social contract - and further that you were misrepresenting them. A contract is worthless if it doesn't bind the parties. Now you're equivocating on your previous comments by telling me you don't care about such things.

I wasn't lecturing. I think it's a good rule to explain what my understanding of concept is prior to assuming that your understanding is similar.

Sure. I never actually made a case that contract is worthless if it's not enforced. I'd really love to see where you got that idea from anything that I've said. I merely point out the difficulty of enforcing certain "universal contract" and treating these as some "natural laws" that tend to be "enforced" by preset of nature.

Even in the scope of authority today who polices the police? And who polices those who police? A God? Who polices God? If authority can police themselves, then it's not a consistent argument one would apply to people. But, in reality the authority is vested in each and every individual and that individual delegates it for the sake of specialization. You seem to have an idea of some "god-given" concept of authority which has no basis in our society.

Contractual law isn't as much based on enforcement, but it's based on trust. And trust is based on common understanding of certain ideals and not on authoritarian force.

The laws of gravitation say much more than that, and thereby have explanatory power.

Again, you are not answering my question. What relevance does it have to the subject of human authority? I asked you on what bases do you relate contractual laws with natural consistency? What's your point and how is it relevant?

It is only arguable if the majority allows it to be arguable. The implication behind "majority" is that they have the power to enforce their will. You simply don't have the means to argue with the police. They will force you to comply. Being on the minority side of an argument makes that immediately clear.

Yes, I understand the current preset. I'm asking you what's the moral justification for the current preset? A group of bandits can invade your house (hopefully not) and can enslave you and dictate and allow you to do whatever they find to be arguable. I don't find such setting to be morally acceptable.

What would be your moral justification for authoritarian pluralism?

Further, hiding your choices does not mean winning the right to them. You have simply stolen from the community. Running away from the police does not mean you have won the right to choose. Rather, you have ceded your place within the community. In the same way, there are "ways around" gravity. I can build a machines that flies, and thereby leap off cliffs and live ... yet I am still subject to gravity.

Sure, explain it to Jews in Nazi Germany .

Some people may lack understanding by accepting what a pastor says without thinking about it. But that is nothing that was enforced by the pastor as you imply. A pastor does not direct belief. A pastor teaches.

What do you think teaching is in that context ?

As for a lack of feedback, counter-argument, etc. you only make it obvious you have never encountered the Confessional Lutheran community. So, I will assume your answer to my question is: No, you don't know the difference between my church and the proclamations you are making.

I'm pointing out to a general observation, and you are saying "no, it's not true, because I have this exception here".

I wasn't asking you to conform to my ideas of the spiritual. I was asking about you. Should I assume you don't subscribe to an idea of the spiritual?

I don't know what you mean by "spiritual". I've talked to many people who have conflicting views of that concept. Please explain what you mean by that. The reason why I elaborate, because I don't carry assumption that we are in agreement in how we explain concepts or language.

Please explain what you mean by "spiritual", and we can then discuss whether I subscribe to such idea or not. I can't subscribe to a vague concept.

 

[devolved]

Do we now have proof that you lied based on your own claims/statements?

Or were you not actually claiming to have $20 in your pocket? Was it just a hypothetical claim?

Yes, I claimed to have $20.. and you thought it was true. It wasn't a hypothetical claim. It was a false claim that you believed was true. You were wrong!

The point is that without a line of evidence you can't tell a difference between a false and true claim. If you are merely taking one's claim as evidence, then you are merely guessing whether the claim is true or false.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, I claimed to have $20.. and you thought it was true. It wasn't a hypothetical claim. It was a false claim that you believed was true. You were wrong!

The point is that without a line of evidence you can't tell a difference between a false and true claim. If you are merely taking one's claim as evidence, then you are merely guessing whether the claim is true or false.

Okay. Am I wrong when I say that you lied in order to make a point?

If your point is based on a lie, is it really a valid point?

 

[devolved]

Okay. Am I wrong when I say that you lied in order to make a point?

If your point is based on a lie, is it really a valid point?

How can you tell a difference if I don't tell you and you merely take my claim as evidence and believe?

 

[Resha Caner]

You seem to have an idea of some "god-given" concept of authority which has no basis in our society... Contractual law isn't as much based on enforcement, but it's based on trust. And trust is based on common understanding of certain ideals and not on authoritarian force.

Trust is the ideal, but it is never perfectly achieved. I wasn't heading toward an idea of divine right, and hence have no need to explain who polices the police, etc. I was simply pointing out that when trust & understanding fails, force takes it place. The police aren't going to stop and have a philosophical discussion with a criminal in order to gain his trust and get his consent. They simply enforce it, thereby removing the ability to make a choice.

What's your point and how is it relevant?

It's relevant if spiritual laws exist that can enforce themselves on people the same way material laws do. If that is the case, you don't have a choice.

The impression I'm getting is that your interest centers around building a "moral" community based upon the consent of those in that community. If that's all this is about, the church (at least my church) is the wrong place to do that. So, where did you get the impression a church would be a good place for that kind of activity?

Yes, I understand the current preset. I'm asking you what's the moral justification for the current preset? A group of bandits can invade your house (hopefully not) and can enslave you and dictate and allow you to do whatever they find to be arguable. I don't find such setting to be morally acceptable.

Maybe you've been thinking this, but it's the first time I recall you asking this question. The person possessing authority and whether that authority is moral are two different issues - though I often see them conflated. If criminals overtake your house, they are indeed the authority in that house. That doesn't mean it's moral.

What do you think teaching is in that context?

I wasn't using the word in any special sense. Teaching simply means to impart knowledge or skills.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/teach?s=t

And I'm not saying that is the only role of a pastor. Probably more relevant to your objections is a pastor's role as expositor of the faith. In simple terms it means he is a referee. It would be silly for you to walk into a baseball game and tell the umpire you have some ideas about the rules you would like to discuss because you want to play the game differently. Likewise with a church. If you're playing a different game, play it on a different field.

I'm pointing out to a general observation, and you are saying "no, it's not true, because I have this exception here".

I don't feel qualified to speak for other churches, so general observations are of little use. I can only discuss my church.

I don't know what you mean by "spiritual". I've talked to many people who have conflicting views of that concept. Please explain what you mean by that. The reason why I elaborate, because I don't carry assumption that we are in agreement in how we explain concepts or language.

That's fine. Explain what you think it means and then use your definition to answer the question.

If you don't have your own understanding of what it means (which is my suspicion at this point), please say so.

 

[Chriliman]

How can you tell a difference if I don't tell you and you merely take my claim as evidence and believe?

If we're all honest, then what's true is eventually made known. Lies only hide and try to confuse the understanding of what is true. Lies are wrong, truth is good.

You already knew that.

 

[devolved]

Trust is the ideal, but it is never perfectly achieved. I wasn't heading toward an idea of divine right, and hence have no need to explain who polices the police, etc. I was simply pointing out that when trust & understanding fails, force takes it place. The police aren't going to stop and have a philosophical discussion with a criminal in order to gain his trust and get his consent. They simply enforce it, thereby removing the ability to make a choice.

No, they don't remove the ability to make a choice. It's extremely difficult to do so. That's why we still have theft and murder. People choose to do that.

It's relevant if spiritual laws exist that can enforce themselves on people the same way material laws do. If that is the case, you don't have a choice.

You seem to be avoiding defining what you mean by "spiritual". Why? I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "spiritual law". Law that ghosts live by? Please explain.

In simple terms it means he is a referee. It would be silly for you to walk into a baseball game and tell the umpire you have some ideas about the rules you would like to discuss because you want to play the game differently. Likewise with a church. If you're playing a different game, play it on a different field.

And I do . I play pick up games in the local YMCA and no refs needed. AMAZING!

I don't feel qualified to speak for other churches, so general observations are of little use. I can only discuss my church.

Well, we'll be done discussing that point then.

That's fine. Explain what you think it means and then use your definition to answer the question.

If you don't have your own understanding of what it means (which is my suspicion at this point), please say so.

I'm not the one invoking it, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to guess what you mean by the term.

What do you mean by it?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not the one invoking it, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to guess what you mean by the term.

I've used many words I didn't define. You didn't ask about those.

You seem to be avoiding defining what you mean by "spiritual".

No. I honestly wanted you to answer from your perspective. Since you won't answer, I'll assume you're taking the position of a physicalist. Feel free to correct that impression.

My definition of spiritual would be: the immaterial part of a person.

 

[devolved]

No. I honestly wanted you to answer from your perspective. Since you won't answer, I'll assume you're taking the position of a physicalist. Feel free to correct that impression.

My definition of spiritual would be: the immaterial part of a person.

No, I choose not to make assumptions about what I don't know about or see no evidence for. Thus it's a term largely dealing people's imagination about something that they can't demonstrate.

It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm not a materialist in a sense that I'm convinced that only material universe exists in the way we model it through science. BUT, I can't go believing things on claims alone, especially when one begins formulate some framework of "spiritual law" that one has zero valid evidence for.

What would be the example of the immaterial part of the person, and how do you know that it exists? What's the evidence that it's there?

 

[Resha Caner]

No, I choose not to make assumptions about what I don't know about or see no evidence for. Thus it's a term largely dealing people's imagination about something that they can't demonstrate.

It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm not a materialist in a sense that I'm convinced that only material universe exists in the way we model it through science. BUT, I can't go believing things on claims alone, especially when one begins formulate some framework of "spiritual law" that one has zero valid evidence for.

I wasn't expecting you to blindly accept. I asked a question. So, you're more agnostic than atheistic with respect to the immaterial. OK. Then I think it would be worth your time to explain what you think defines the material. The saying is that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. IOW, if you take everything you experience to be material, how will you ever come to accept something as immaterial?

I think you'll find it harder than you think to define what "material" means. It's like trying to define a closed door without implictly defining an open door as well. That's the problem physicalists encounter.

What would be the example of the immaterial part of the person, and how do you know that it exists? What's the evidence that it's there?

I'm not at home right now, but I will be in the next hour or so. I need to refresh my memory with some notes I have at home before I answer ... the price of getting old. After I do that, I will answer this question, which basically needs to begin with how I would define material / immaterial.

However, I simply give you those definitions to avoid further accusations that I'm trying to avoid the question. My theology would say such things won't convince you - that you'll have to experience God for yourself. It's like claiming you love the taste of oranges when you've never tasted an orange.

 

[HitchSlap]

Okay. Am I wrong when I say that you lied in order to make a point?

If your point is based on a lie, is it really a valid point?

Right. He lied, to make a point...

The point that claims are not proof of anything...

LOl Goof

 

[devolved]

I wasn't expecting you to blindly accept. I asked a question. So, you're more agnostic than atheistic with respect to the immaterial. OK. Then I think it would be worth your time to explain what you think defines the material. The saying is that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. IOW, if you take everything you experience to be material, how will you ever come to accept something as immaterial?

I think you'll find it harder than you think to define what "material" means. It's like trying to define a closed door without implictly defining an open door as well. That's the problem physicalists encounter.

Materialism is obvious default and it's fairly easy to define as the reality that we experience with our senses ... as matter in motion. I'm not aware of any other reality that I can experience with my senses. I'm not against speculation, but I'm not sure how you both can claim that it's a reality beyond our senses and the one that we can experience with our senses.

However, I simply give you those definitions to avoid further accusations that I'm trying to avoid the question. My theology would say such things won't convince you - that you'll have to experience God for yourself. It's like claiming you love the taste of oranges when you've never tasted an orange.

How do you experience God if it's immaterial? Wouldn't God have to materialize or do we have some selective ability to experience immaterial reality? If so, why would it evade scientific detection?

 

[HitchSlap]

If we're all honest, then what's true is eventually made known. Lies only hide and try to confuse the understanding of what is true. Lies are wrong, truth is good.

You already knew that.

You haven't answered my question.

"My house is yellow," is a valid / invalid claim?

 

[Resha Caner]

Materialism is obvious default and it's fairly easy to define as the reality that we experience with our senses ... as matter in motion. I'm not aware of any other reality that I can experience with my senses.

Unless you're going to distinguish material from matter for me, you can't use it in your definition. I would think material and matter are basically synonyms for the same thing, and therefore your definition appears circular.

Were I to trim your definition back to just, "that which we experience with our senses," you have just made a physicalist-like definition. We don't experience anything apart from our senses, and so you have, by definition, excluded the possibility that we could ever detect anything but the material - something you said you don't do. I could say much the same of your comment about "reality". If material = reality, then you are saying that material is everything. Again, you've excluded any other possibility and made a physicalist claim.

I found my notes ... So, I would say the material can be at rest, exhibits mass and extension while at rest, and is reducible. Since I view material/immaterial as a dichotomy, I would say the immaterial is that which is not material. However, so as to give a "positive" definition, I would say the immaterial is irreducible, always active, and thereby exhibits at least one constant or continuous property.

 

[devolved]

Unless you're going to distinguish material from matter for me, you can't use it in your definition. I would think material and matter are basically synonyms for the same thing, and therefore your definition appears circular.

No, these are not synonyms. They have the same root derived from latin "Materia", which means substance. Matter is a noun. Material is adjective. Like color and colorful. You wouldn't think that usage of both color and colorfoul is circular? It's just how we use English language.

Were I to trim your definition back to just, "that which we experience with our senses," you have just made a physicalist-like definition. We don't experience anything apart from our senses, and so you have, by definition, excluded the possibility that we could ever detect anything but the material - something you said you don't do.

So, you are saying that we have the ability to detect immaterial using our senses? How?

I could say much the same of your comment about "reality". If material = reality, then you are saying that material is everything. Again, you've excluded any other possibility and made a physicalist claim.

Again, you seem to be saying that we have the ability to detect immaterial using our senses? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not excluding possibility. I'm under impression that it's not something that we can detect with our senses except through some kind of material manifistation. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.