[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[Davian]

Spirit: is the realm that made the make believe world you call home.

So "spirit" is "reality". Got it. I think you are making this more complicated that it needs to be.

Pixelland, aka: the universe.

The universe already has a name: the Universe. Or is that "Pixelland" term intended in the pejorative?

 

[madera23]

Seeker Davian
Do you have an idea of what you are seeking? Curious.
If you are seeking God, He is within you. The secret is to hunger and thirst to overcome your lower nature.
Do you get angry, have you ever hurt someone you love, Do you feel guilt.
This is not an easy path, it can be painful at times, but that pains leads to the answer you are looking for, change.
Never mind what reality is out there, look within for the reality you are seeking.
Madera

 

[ScottA]

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.

1. I believe we have already discussed "evidence" as being limited to "talk." The reason...is that we who are witnesses to the truth, are witnesses, not the Source. But there is a purpose to all that also: that the truth (the good news) would only go to those who have it in them to receive it, only those who are "of" God (his children). Now, that is not so exclusive as it sounds, in fact, ALL are invited to come into the knowledge of the truth. But you don't do that by making demands of "witnesses", you do it by asking the Creator of these circumstances, which allows for one to be born out of this otherwise make-believe existence. You don't even have to go hook, line, and sinker...but with just a little bit of idea that there may be something to it. We didn't make it so, it's just the way it is, and we know it.
2. "Soon" is the bottomline term used in the scriptures, for good reason: Time, is not what it would seem. But rest assured, it is indeed "soon" for everyone born into the world...and you know not when it comes. I speak of death. It comes "soon" enough.
3. The predictions of when the end comes, are not at all incorrect. The end comes "soon" for every generation. Curiously, history even repeats itself. But think about it: take away Time from the equation, and anyone's version of how old the universe is, etc. in a make-believe setting...is whatever you want it to be, whatever you believe. The creation story then, is simply the way it was told...and likewise, the evolution story. Welcome to wonderland!
4. How do you "test" a clock that does not [actually] tick? You don't. What do you think I have been trying to tell you?

 

[ScottA]

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.



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.

1. No, I don't believe everything. It's a jungle out there. BUT, your mission, should you choose to accept it...is not impossible.
2. It is only "expected" that those who are meant to find the way through the jungle, will.
3. But you are correct...it is a disgusting mess of contradiction...because so many speak out of turn, out of conjecture. A word to the wise: It is a real challenge, not to be one of them.
4. The data (details) in the Christian Bible, are correct, the providence, not of men, but of God. But I do not expect you to believe that at my word. Remember, the truth is obscured, but not impossible to find. Good luck.

 

[Chriliman]

Why would a hypothetically all-powerful, all-knowing deity be bothered by... anything?

God himself is not bothered by anything, to be bothered would mean he would find something out that he didn't already know that would be the cause of his bother. He can't learn because he already knows everything at all times, so from God's perspective everything is perfect as it should always be and will be forever. But from our perspective, a sacrifice had to be made in order for us to be able to share in this perfection. This sacrifice is Jesus and Jesus is well aware of this evil because he actually lived as a human and experienced all the evil we experience, so only Jesus is capable of destroying this evil and he was sent by perfect God who already knows this evil has been destroyed. Again, you'll either eventually understand this deeply or you'll never understand it because you'll never believe. So as long as your not 100% certain that you'll never believe, then there is a possibility you will understand in the future.

 

[Freodin]

I believe we have already discussed "evidence" as being limited to "talk." The reason...is that we who are witnesses to the truth, are witnesses, not the Source. But there is a purpose to all that also: that the truth (the good news) would only go to those who have it in them to receive it, only those who are "of" God (his children). Now, that is not so exclusive as it sounds, in fact, ALL are invited to come into the knowledge of the truth. But you don't do that by making demands of "witnesses", you do it by asking the Creator of these circumstances, which allows for one to be born out of this otherwise make-believe existence. You don't even have to go hook, line, and sinker...but with just a little bit of idea that there may be something to it. We didn't make it so, it's just the way it is, and we know it.

Oh, yes, you made it so. It is your ideology, your way to ensure that you cannot be questioned.

It doesn't work this way in "this world". And it wouldn't work this way in the other world that you assume.

"Soon" is the bottomline term used in the scriptures, for good reason: Time, is not what it would seem. But rest assured, it is indeed "soon" for everyone born into the world...and you know not when it comes. I speak of death. It comes "soon" enough.

You speak of death. The "prophets" you proclaim the end of the world don't. Again you claim a "knowledge" that you evidently do not possess.

The predictions of when the end comes, are not at all incorrect. The end comes "soon" for every generation. Curiously, history even repeats itself. But think about it: take away Time from the equation, and anyone's version of how old the universe is, etc. in a make-believe setting...is whatever you want it to be, whatever you believe. The creation story then, is simply the way it was told...and likewise, the evolution story. Welcome to wonderland!

Welcome to La-La-Land (no offense meant to Robert Asprin).
How can you even start to tell about "taking time from the equation"... and then allude to two examples that explicitly include time?

How do you "test" a clock that does not [actually] tick? You don't. What do you think I have been trying to tell you?

A clock that does not actually "tick" is not a clock. (Something like) that is what I have been trying to tell you.

 

[ScottA]

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.

 

[ScottA]

With all these analogies... perhaps just once in all your infinite knowledge you could recognize where they all fail:

You offer me a drink of water... I can take it, test it, taste it, see if it is water. I know what I have to do in order to take it, test it, taste it.

But here you are, offering us "spiritual life"... without handing it to us or telling us how to get it.

And you keep excusing yourself from your responsibility to do so.

1. You say you know how to test the water, and that it is an analogy...but you DO NOT taste it like water.
2. You get spiritual life, by tasting it...NOT by refusing to taste it and demanding we offer evidence that we have tested or tasted it. I HAVE tasted it, and I HAVE told you how.
3. Are your EVER going to test/taste it? Because that part is on you, and it is your move.

 

[Freodin]

1. You say you know how to test the water, and that it is an analogy...but you DO NOT taste it like water.
2. You get spiritual life, by tasting it...NOT by refusing to taste it and demanding we offer evidence that we have tested or tasted it. I HAVE tasted it, and I HAVE told you how.
3. Are your EVER going to test/taste it? Because that part is on you, and it is your move.

1. So, I do not taste it like water, but I get it by tasting it... like what?
2. But I did not refuse to "taste" it. I did, and it didn't taste, err, work, err... well, I HAVE tasted it, and I now tell you that you are wrong. (And now cue in the excuses why I am wrong, but you are right.)
3. I already did. I constantly do. The evidence I can offer to you that I did is the same that you offer to me. Stalemate!

 

[ScottA]

So "spirit" is "reality". Got it. I think you are making this more complicated that it needs to be.

The universe already has a name: the Universe. Or is that "Pixelland" term intended in the pejorative?

Finally! We now can dispense of the Pixelland analogy? Shall I inform Websters, or would you like to? Shout it from the rooftops!

You do realize, I hope, that I only used the analogy...because the Universe is commonly thought to be something more. But if we can move on, and leave the children's riddles behind...I shall do so gladly.

 

[ScottA]

That is false. Such a realm does not exist.

Or...you simply are unaware of it. Which would make "false" an inappropriately strong claim, for someone who is unable to prove it.

 

[Freodin]

Or...you simply are unaware of it. Which would make "false" an inappropriately strong claim, for someone who is unable to prove it.

I don't have to prove it - I know it.

Which, BTW, also makes me aware of its non-existence.

 

[ScottA]

Where is this, exactly?

So we live in the "make-believe" reality, and you cannot show us "reality". Wait, that doesn't sound right...

1. "Where"...what a concept. There is no "where", only everywhere.
2. "Wait, that doesn't sound right..." said Mickey Mouse to Donald Duck. Of course, they would say that...and you would. Are we back to Pixelland then? Boy, that was brief!

 

[ScottA]

1. So, I do not taste it like water, but I get it by tasting it... like what?
2. But I did not refuse to "taste" it. I did, and it didn't taste, err, work, err... well, I HAVE tasted it, and I now tell you that you are wrong. (And now cue in the excuses why I am wrong, but you are right.)
3. I already did. I constantly do. The evidence I can offer to you that I did is the same that you offer to me. Stalemate!

1. There are no dumb questions, there are no dumb questions... Sorry, you were saying? Oh, yes, tasting. You riding a bicycle, no, not unlike chicken, no...oh, I know...like water! This is not that difficult. Come back when you have analogies figured out.
2. You tasted that? That is not what "I" sent for you! YUK! How could you?
3. The world is full of false, would-be truths. You have yet to discover the One.

 

[ScottA]

I don't have to prove it - I know it.

Which, BTW, also makes me aware of its non-existence.

Who knew of the new world, before it was known? ...Oh there was that one guy, Freo...something. Right!

 

[Freodin]

1. There are no dumb questions, there are no dumb questions... Sorry, you were saying? Oh, yes, tasting. You riding a bicycle, no, not unlike chicken, no...oh, I know...like water! This is not that difficult. Come back when you have analogies figured out.
2. You tasted that? That is not what "I" sent for you! YUK! How could you?
3. The world is full of false, would-be truths. You have yet to discover the One.

0. Please, could you stop using the lists? It is messing up the quote function.
1. Boy, this is fun! Your analogy fails. You have been told where and why it fails.
2. Your instructions must have been faulty. But of course we know that this is impossible! It must be my own reluctance or stupidity or blindness or pride or whatever.
See, this is why in "this world" we have introduced methods to ensure that instructions are precise, the procedure can be checked and the results tested. Methods that you file under "conjecture". I find it quite telling.
3. Yes! You almost got it! The world is indeed full of false, would-be truths. Now you have just to go one little baby-step further: your "truth" is one of these.

 

[Freodin]

Who knew of the new world, before it was known? ...Oh there was that one guy, Freo...something. Right!

Going for your faulty "new world" rant again?

Have you yet found the new world full of dinosaurs and skyscrapers, anti-grav knights on bio-engineered horses in the middle of your garden? No? Could it because there is something else in your garden that doesn't allow for all these things?

I know the "new world"... and it doesn't have space for your version. (Well, it does. And doesn't. You wouldn't understand. Just keep looking and you might get it.)

 

[ScottA]

Oh, yes, you made it so. It is your ideology, your way to ensure that you cannot be questioned.

It doesn't work this way in "this world". And it wouldn't work this way in the other world that you assume.


You speak of death. The "prophets" you proclaim the end of the world don't. Again you claim a "knowledge" that you evidently do not possess.

Welcome to La-La-Land (no offense meant to Robert Asprin).
How can you even start to tell about "taking time from the equation"... and then allude to two examples that explicitly include time?


A clock that does not actually "tick" is not a clock. (Something like) that is what I have been trying to tell you.

1. Your logic has failed you. You do not ask witnesses for firsthand information. Or, am I in the wrong world? No, I didn't think so.
2. Sight one prophet's statement that contradicts what I said of the end. What did you think the end was?
3. Time, all time, is analogy, a story that is told. It doesn't exist, except in the story.
4. There is no clock. Exactly! Do elaborate your views on it.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, I don't believe everything. It's a jungle out there. BUT, your mission, should you choose to accept it...is not impossible.

Yes, I agree. I have a perfectly workable consistent approach to evaluating claims from various sources. That's why I'm not a Christian.

 

[ScottA]

0. Please, could you stop using the lists? It is messing up the quote function.
1. Boy, this is fun! Your analogy fails. You have been told where and why it fails.
2. Your instructions must have been faulty. But of course we know that this is impossible! It must be my own reluctance or stupidity or blindness or pride or whatever.
See, this is why in "this world" we have introduced methods to ensure that instructions are precise, the procedure can be checked and the results tested. Methods that you file under "conjecture". I find it quite telling.
3. Yes! You almost got it! The world is indeed full of false, would-be truths. Now you have just to go one little baby-step further: your "truth" is one of these.

Hahahaha...I would have thought you would like the chronological approach!

1. I guess for the analogy to work...you actually have to follow it.
2. But I did explain...the world is ALL analogy. If you are ever to advance beyond this point, the idea is that you first pass the elementary parables of learning.
3. Satan get behind me. I shall not be throwing the baby out with the bath water (oops, another analogy), nor shall I be the one to obscure the needle in the in the haystack (darn!).