[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[Freodin]

I can only tell you what I see ...

Correct. And what you see is the vision of a human being, nothing more. A deity worthy of that title could do better...

Fair thee well.

... and use a spellchecker.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am in the lifeboat.
You are in the water.
I have extended my hand to you, just as millions of others have.

There are other ways to view it; for example:

You are in the sinking boat.
We are in the water.
You extend your hand to us.
We say, "Abandon ship! come on, jump in - the water is fine - we can swim to shore and have solid ground under our feet".

 

[Davian]

I am in the lifeboat.
You are in the water.
I have extended my hand to you, just as millions of others have.
And this is your answer?
Never mind.

You claim that you are in the lifeboat. I don't see any. I ask you to show me the lifeboat. You cannot.
You claim that I am in the water. I don't see any. I ask you to show me the water. You cannot.
You claim that you extend your hand to help me. I ask you to show me how you could help me. You cannot.

You have nothing to offer but claims and empty rhetoric. But again I ask you to prove me wrong.

You claim to have miracles and prophecies and millions of testamonies. I don't ask for any of these. I ask for an answer... and certainly one with "the mind of Christ in him" would have the means to answer me.

Can you? I doubt it... but I am willing to be shown wrong.


And you have the chuzpah to call others "wacko"? Get real!

But I have to admit: that is an excuse that I haven't heard before. Cudos for presenting something new.

A while back, I did a variation on this with a life jacket:

A man, you don't know, comes up to you and tells you that you have buy his lifejacket, or you will drown. You look around, and there is no open water within miles. There are no clouds in the sky. He can't show you this life jacket - he says you must accept that he has it on faith. He reads from this ancient brochure, and the story it paints is one full of holes, so that you doubt it could float itself, never mind a person. He admits that this jacket meets no certifications, and cannot be tested, and has only third-hand anonymous stories that anyone has ever tried this alleged flotation device. He makes it clear that only *his* lifejackets work, and all the others are crap. And don't fall for any of this "testing" propaganda; if you accept that the testing methods are a valid approach to exploring the nature of floatation devices, then you will drown for sure. Absolutely, he says.

Do you believe that this guy has actual, working, reliable life jackets? Or are you skeptical?

 

[ScottA]

Correct. And what you see is the vision of a human being, nothing more. A deity worthy of that title could do better...


... and use a spellchecker.

Careful now, you speak to a king, a son of a King.

 

[ScottA]

A while back, I did a variation on this with a life jacket:

A man, you don't know, comes up to you and tells you that you have buy his lifejacket, or you will drown. You look around, and there is no open water within miles. There are no clouds in the sky. He can't show you this life jacket - he says you must accept that he has it on faith. He reads from this ancient brochure, and the story it paints is one full of holes, so that you doubt it could float itself, never mind a person. He admits that this jacket meets no certifications, and cannot be tested, and has only third-hand anonymous stories that anyone has ever tried this alleged flotation device. He makes it clear that only *his* lifejackets work, and all the others are crap. And don't fall for any of this "testing" propaganda; if you accept that the testing methods are a valid approach to exploring the nature of floatation devices, then you will drown for sure. Absolutely, he says.

Do you believe that this guy has actual, working, reliable life jackets? Or are you skeptical?

I believe. I believe his name was Noah.

 

[Freodin]

Careful now, you speak to a king, a son of a King.

Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna' be fooled again!

 

[Davian]

I believe. I believe his name was Noah.

Why do you believe?

 

[KCfromNC]

Sorry about that...we're only human.

The fact there is nothing in this approach to counter human fallability tells me that I can't trust any of the conclusions this method generates. Fair enough. I'll stick to sources of knowledge which have figured out how to minimize this problem.

You either have it in you to seek it out...or [sorry again], you don't.

Sounds like a no to me - you can't offer up any reason why I should think your guess holds any weight.

You turning it around doesn't changed the overriding facts...which, of course, are not in your view [sorry again].

Again, given the fact that most people who use faith come to conclusions different than yours, they're not in your view either.

But you will never see them if you continue to repel them. The mountain is there...but...you don't to climb it.

Right back at you. You're ignoring a huge mountain of testimony that tells you that you are wrong, while all the while preaching that you alone have some message that the rest of us are missing.

I am telling you (and corroborating) what is written: We [not just I] have the (infinite) mind of Christ, and it is no longer I who live (in this finite) body, but Christ who lives in me.

Lots of people wrote lots of things. Why is this any more valid than any other random claim?

 

[ScottA]

Why do you believe?

Actually, "believe" is wrong (a common mistake).

Believing is for those who do not know what is true, but hope they have found it. Even the term "True Believers" is not correct. If one is in possession of the truth, they do not believe, but "know."

So, to reconstruct the question, would be to ask: "How do you know?

I know, because I asked and got an answer from an authentic source, from the Creator of all things.

 

[ScottA]

Actually, "believe" is wrong (a common mistake).

Believing is for those who do not know what is true, but hope they have found it. Even the term "True Believers" is not correct. If one is in possession of the truth, they do not believe, but "know."

So, to reconstruct the question, would be to ask: "How do you know?

I know, because I asked and got an answer from an authentic source, from the Creator of all things.

PS, Wait..."things" is actually wrong too. But that's another discussion.

 

[ScottA]

The fact there is nothing in this approach to counter human fallability tells me that I can't trust any of the conclusions this method generates. Fair enough. I'll stick to sources of knowledge which have figured out how to minimize this problem.

Fair enough.

Sounds like a no to me - you can't offer up any reason why I should think your guess holds any weight.

If there is any hope that all of these testimonies are more than meets the eye, calling them "guesses" is probably a bad idea. The term is incorrect. When you are an eyewitness, you don't "guess" what you saw, nor do you step up if you are not absolutely sure.

Again, given the fact that most people who use faith come to conclusions different than yours, they're not in your view either.

True, the world is full of counterfeits. The pea is not under every nut.

Right back at you. You're ignoring a huge mountain of testimony that tells you that you are wrong, while all the while preaching that you alone have some message that the rest of us are missing.

No, sorry, but when one has greater knowledge that supersedes other testimony, the only fair and considerate position to take, is to be honest. The testimony of science is not all wrong...it is just missing the Source and examining the products, and that mountain is a mole hill in comparison.

Lots of people wrote lots of things. Why is this any more valid than any other random claim?

It is only valid if you connect the dots of all history, of all life...which can only be part, if one is not equipped with the gift of spiritual knowledge. By which I do not mean, one must "be" gifted, but must have "received" the gift...which is free for the asking, by the way.

 

[Freodin]

Actually, "believe" is wrong (a common mistake).

Believing is for those who do not know what is true, but hope they have found it. Even the term "True Believers" is not correct. If one is in possession of the truth, they do not believe, but "know."

So, to reconstruct the question, would be to ask: "How do you know?

I know, because I asked and got an answer from an authentic source, from the Creator of all things.

That is logically impossible.

 

[ScottA]

That is logically impossible.

"Knowing" is illogically, impossible? That is absurd.

 

[Davian]

Actually, "believe" is wrong (a common mistake).

Believing is for those who do not know what is true, but hope they have found it. Even the term "True Believers" is not correct. If one is in possession of the truth, they do not believe, but "know."

So, to reconstruct the question, would be to ask: "How do you know?

I know, because I asked and got an answer from an authentic source, from the Creator of all things.

Yet the Noah story and alleged genealogy that follows does not comport with observations of reality.

How do you know that you did not simply image this experience? Are you infallible?

 

[Freodin]

"Knowing" is illogically, impossible? That is absurd.

If you think it is "absurd"... you are free to do so. But "knowing", as you described it, is logically impossible.

How do you know? You know by having gotten an answer. This answer is from an authenticated source, the creator of the universe.

But how do you know that your answer is from an authenticated source, the creator of the universe?
You would have to ask, and receive an answer from an authenticated source. But how do you know that this answer is from an authen... I think you get the idea.

Logically impossible.

 

[Chriliman]

"Knowing" is illogically, impossible? That is absurd.

I think it's important to explain the distinction between believing and knowing. One must first gain the knowledge about who/what God is, hopefully from a good source that knows the truth and then they can begin to believe this God is real and seek the truth about God for themselves and after seeking, God will reveal himself in some way and then the person can then claim to know God is real because they have a personal experience that can't be denied, but it may not just be one experience, someone could know God is real because he's always there when they need him. From here they continue in faith because it's not all sunshine and rainbows yet, although that is coming for those who believe and those who believe will know the truth

 

[ScottA]

Yet the Noah story and alleged genealogy that follows does not comport with observations of reality.

How do you know that you did not simply image this experience? Are you infallible?

1. Let me get this straight: You think that reality is based on fixed laws in an ever changing world whirling through an undefined space within an uncertain time frame? Right!
2. Pick any one of those points of reality, and they can be torn apart...time, for example. Need I say more? But without taking that major side trip and getting of track, the Noah story has no less variation of perceived reality. It's just a different perspective. Contrived reality, is only contrive either way.
3. I know that my experience (by comparison and without contest) is more real than the unknown worldly definition of life. I have seen both, therefore I can say. Does that make me in "infallible?" No...but because of it, I am more than certain that infallibility is not within the scope of science...it's out of this world.

 

[ScottA]

If you think it is "absurd"... you are free to do so. But "knowing", as you described it, is logically impossible.

How do you know? You know by having gotten an answer. This answer is from an authenticated source, the creator of the universe.

But how do you know that your answer is from an authenticated source, the creator of the universe?
You would have to ask, and receive an answer from an authenticated source. But how do you know that this answer is from an authen... I think you get the idea.

Logically impossible.

No. You simply don't understand. Apparently you have nothing to base it on...which doesn't make it impossible, except for you. You therefore, have no logic for it. But I do.

I asked by name, and received by name. I asked for specific answers, and got specific answers, specifically tied to biblical records which I cannot and do not reject, but see as impossible without ultimate power, and by any other whom could be imagined...thereby proof without imagination.

It should also be said, that the reality presented to me overshadowed the know reality of the world. I have seen both, and that is my comparison, and my witness. Others have but this world.

 

[ScottA]

I think it's important to explain the distinction between believing and knowing. One must first gain the knowledge about who/what God is, hopefully from a good source that knows the truth and then they can begin to believe this God is real and seek the truth about God for themselves and after seeking, God will reveal himself in some way and then the person can then claim to know God is real because they have a personal experience that can't be denied, but it may not just be one experience, someone could know God is real because he's always there when they need him. From here they continue in faith because it's not all sunshine and rainbows yet, although that is coming for those who believe and those who believe will know the truth

Well said.

 

[Freodin]

No. You simply don't understand. Apparently you have nothing to base it on...which doesn't make it impossible, except for you. You therefore, have no logic for it. But I do.

I asked by name, and received by name. I asked for specific answers, and got specific answers, specifically tied to biblical records which I cannot and do not reject, but see as impossible without ultimate power, and by any other whom could be imagined...thereby proof without imagination.

I hope you aware that what you see as impossible, what you cannot imagine... that this is not a validation of truth... not a sign of "knowledge".

That isn't even including the option of fakery, not the option of self-delusion... it is just pointing at the inevitable fact that, at some point, you have to accept something as true without being able to get "proof without imagination".

Just claiming "this cannot be wrong" is not enough. It shouldn't be enough by "common sense"... and it is definitly not enough when using logic.

You can claim that I "simply don't understand", that I "have nothing to base it on". Quite the contrary: I understand logic very well, and understand that it is a working system to base knowledge on. And you don't.