Not really, just commenting on your observation.
The material world determines cognition.
If only you could give some examples of this supposedly plentiful evidence...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not really, just commenting on your observation.You are arguing from objects to subjects, and then insisting that subjects function only as objects...
The material world determines cognition.You want object-constricted rationality to determine mental cognition...
If only you could give some examples of this supposedly plentiful evidence...A changed life from a frying pan upside the head does not argue against a changed life from an encounter with a demon, or with God... There is plenty of evidence of all three...
What argument? My comment was a facetious observation on the fact that - as is common in research into paranormal phenomena - the more rigorous the study, the less significant the observed effects, and that more recent studies, building on the experience of earlier studies, tend to be more rigorous, giving the impression that the cumulative result of such investigation is to destroy the phenomena being investigated, when it actually exposes the phenomena as products of cognitive errors and biases (or, occasionally, fraud). It's happened many times with many claimed phenomena; from remote viewing to homeopathy, and from telekinesis to free energy machines.I tell the truth that I am unfamiliar with your recent experiments
and you are rejoicing in thinking you have won the argument?
That's how scientists see the world - the more we discover the more there is to discover.Ya gotta admit you are merely splashing toddlers in the wading pool...
Think O-C-E-A-N ...
In which case it's also possible that you don't remember it quite as it was. Human memory is pretty unreliable.Sorry - It was some years ago, and I did not keep track of it...
What are you talking about? "Timeless" is relevant to time - NOT relevant to "all knowing", "all powerful", or other anything "limited." - Pull yourself together.And it's a perfectly fine definition....I suppose I hadn't expected your god to be so mundane. I thought you were one of those who believed in a all knowing all powerful god....not something so limited.
Here:I ask again, where did i say certain facts were not facts?
I have presented you with facts - you not having reliable evidence due to your own limited perspective, is on you. Facts are facts, and the evidence is sure.That was my point. Anybody can pile on claim after claim. If the claim is not directly connected to reliable evidence, it is absolutely meaningless and they are a dime a dozen.
In other words, claims are basically opinion, until they can be backed with reliable evidence.
Both perhaps. But my statement was in response to the several atheist's comments that pray does not work.Yes prayer works when it is in accordance to the will of God. Though God will at time gives according to our will, it is the lesser will of God that is fulfilled.
Prayer is for communication not a vehicle for getting what one wants. David said I shall not want, He maketh me to lie down in green pastures and leadeth me by the still waters. Need come from our Spirit and wants from our ego. Which one do you think God answers. Needs? or Wants?
bert12
Then you have, by definition, not presented evidence. And as long as there is no way to verify them, your "facts" are not better than claims.Here:
I have presented you with facts - you not having reliable evidence due to your own limited perspective, is on you. Facts are facts, and the evidence is sure.
The point, and it would appear that you agree, is that a tale has no timeline.By definition, the timeless has no tale, timeline, imagination, or answers, since those are time-like.
If you can make a reasoned argument how any of that could make sense, do so; but philosophy isn't about making up or asserting any old logically incoherent or inconsistent nonsense without a reasoned argument.
That is correct - verification is personal...which we have repeatedly said.Then you have, by definition, not presented evidence. And as long as there is no way to verify them, your "facts" are not better than claims.
No...I am not going to tell you any more of what you said. You figure it out.Show me where i denied any established facts.
You can pick up your marbles and go home any time you please.That is correct - verification is personal...which we have repeatedly said.
But "facts" do not become "not facts" because they are not verified, or verifiable.
So, then, calling them "claims" is incorrect. "Claims" assumes too much in the favor of things unverified - which assumption has no place in a reasonable conversation - in a "challenge" perhaps...but not in a discussion where the unverified "facts" are simply offered as a sharing of knowledge and experience. I gave the example earlier, of a traveler asking for directions, saying the same thing - it is not a contest...but a kindness. And so I must also say again: without an attitude adjustment here...this conversation is going nowhere, and you all are just being rude.
Facts are demonstrable.No...I am not going to tell you any more of what you said. You figure it out.
But you denying everything that "you" cannot verify, is actually what is going on here - which is not how facts are defined. The world of facts does not revolve around the knowledge of bhsmte.
Which you have repeatedly said... claimed. But that is false. The very point of verification is that it is not personal.That is correct - verification is personal...which we have repeatedly said.
Yes, that is correct: "facts" do not become "not facts" because of that.But "facts" do not become "not facts" because they are not verified, or verifiable.
No, this isn't a contest. There is nothing to win. It is a discussion in a forum for philosophical questions. And here you have to offer a little more than... claims.So, then, calling them "claims" is incorrect. "Claims" assumes too much in the favor of things unverified - which assumption has no place in a reasonable conversation - in a "challenge" perhaps...but not in a discussion where the unverified "facts" are simply offered as a sharing of knowledge and experience. I gave the example earlier, of a traveler asking for directions, saying the same thing - it is not a contest...but a kindness.
Thank you! You know, the "lol" meme is so often used on the internet... but this really made me laugh out loud.And so I must also say again: without an attitude adjustment here...this conversation is going nowhere, and you all are just being rude.
this conversation is going nowhere, and you all are just being rude.
Welcome to what may be the one exception - factual verification of matters pertaining to God ARE personal. That is a fact...and you are proof of it from one perspective, and I am proof from the other perspective.Which you have repeatedly said... claimed. But that is false. The very point of verification is that it is not personal.
Whether what I have said is a fact or a claim has not been established - the establishment of facts OR claims pertaining to God...is personal.Yes, that is correct: "facts" do not become "not facts" because of that.
But what you presented isn't "facts"... it is "claims"... and claims only become either "facts" or "non facts" when they are verified (or not).
I am not hear to offer claims - that would not even qualify to be philosophy. No, what I am offering is a very philosophical idea - not that is simply not a fact, but because...if you were at all open to having a conversation without making demands the keep it from being a discussion, then it is an idea to you. So...all of this kindness is only because you are unaware of an actual fact.No, this isn't a contest. There is nothing to win. It is a discussion in a forum for philosophical questions. And here you have to offer a little more than... claims.
No, again, you are under the wrong impression. What we are doing is encouraging you to take advantage of a rescue offer - not that you can escape death, because you cannot - but, so you can rise from the death that has already overcome you. And this, again, we do not do by demanding that you agree with us, but by sharing with you how we were once in you predicament and have made it out alive.Thank you! You know, the "lol" meme is so often used on the internet... but this really made me laugh out loud.
You come here and tell us that we are all criminals worthy of a death sentence and will all be killed if we don't agree with you... and you say that we are being rude?
Yes, you are correct... an attitude adjustment would be very welcome. When will you start?
Yes, good point, the helicopter doesn't circle forever.So if you're not making any progress here... at all... why post?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?