Local megachurch preacher with his own TV show. Today's sermon is, "Muhammad, prophet or pretender?"
Thesis statement: Muhammad was a pretender, not a true prophet of God.
lol
The irony is not lost on me.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 18, 2018, 12:08:09 PM
Local megachurch preacher with his own TV show. Today's sermon is, "Muhammad, prophet or pretender?"
Thesis statement: Muhammad was a pretender, not a true prophet of God.
lol
The irony is not lost on me.
You really have to stop listening to those Christian stations when you are driving your car.
Messengers of GOD where sent to the corners of the earth. Each would be different in that they are of their own nation or heritage or culture. Each would be singular in Spirit and message/ direction of followers though.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 18, 2018, 12:49:51 PM
Messengers of GOD where sent to the corners of the earth. Each would be different in that they are of their own nation or heritage or culture. Each would be singular in Spirit and message/ direction of followers though.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Well of course. Everyone knows the earth is a big flat square.
Quote from: aitm on August 19, 2018, 04:19:09 PM
Well of course. Everyone knows the earth is a big flat square.
Cute.....I thought someone might comment somewhere along those lines.
It simply means the extent sir or ma'am. A cylinder could seem to be flat; even square, and circular or round. It all depends on perspective.
All I'm saying is that it isn't good to be closed minded due to petty word games. I'm sure you understood my actual meaning just fine.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Yeah right. The babble is quite content to proclaim the world flat, that 2/3rds of the stars of the universe has already landed here and that angels who supposedly are here to help us and guide us were content to sit inside and sup tea and crumpets while a guy let his daughter get raped and murdered to protect them. Poor angels.....it's almost like god doesn't even care about them....
Yeah, wouldn't you think angels of God would be able to withstand anything the rabble could throw at them? You'd think angels would be pretty fuckin' bad, like a super heros or somethin'.
Quote from: aitm on August 19, 2018, 05:01:59 PM
Yeah right. The babble is quite content to proclaim the world flat, that 2/3rds of the stars of the universe has already landed here and that angels who supposedly are here to help us and guide us were content to sit inside and sup tea and crumpets while a guy let his daughter get raped and murdered to protect them. Poor angels.....it's almost like god doesn't even care about them....
let me know as soon as you are ready to get out of the literal "understands" of the ot.
We know well the ancient "Jew", or two thirds of them at least were guilty of misdirection and or misrepresentation of the truth. They were clouded or veiled by greed and pride and hypocricy.....coupled with a literalist "understanding"; that is to say, little to no understanding.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 19, 2018, 05:33:01 PM
let me know as soon as you are ready to get out of the literal "understands" of the ot.
You should have this conversation with Mousecrap.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 19, 2018, 05:33:01 PM
let me know as soon as you are ready to get out of the literal "understands" of the ot.
oh we all know what you are saying........the parts that have been discredited by 5th grade science is not true....the parts open to blathering stupidity is absolute true!
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 18, 2018, 12:49:51 PM
Messengers of GOD where sent to the corners of the earth. Each would be different in that they are of their own nation or heritage or culture. Each would be singular in Spirit and message/ direction of followers though.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Yeah, right. That is called wishful thinking.
The Earth has corners? Who knew?
Quote from: aitm on August 19, 2018, 06:32:41 PM
oh we all know what you are saying........the parts that have been discredited by 5th grade science is not true....the parts open to blathering stupidity is absolute true!
Actually I was only speaking against what is not of the Spirit of life, and had nothing to do with historical validity or science. I do believe science is not contrary to faith or visa versa though.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
I loved the episode where River Tam found Sheppard Book's Bible and started cutting out all the falsehoods. The poor preacher was horrified, and River explained his Bible was broken and she was just fixing it for him.
Quote from: SGOS on August 19, 2018, 07:16:47 PM
I loved the episode where River Tam found Sheppard Book's Bible and started cutting out all the falsehoods. The poor preacher was horrified, and River explained his Bible was broken and she was just fixing it for him.
Jefferson did the same.
I am not too much into prophets, not even Moses.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 19, 2018, 04:29:19 PM
Cute.....I thought someone might comment somewhere along those lines.
It simply means the extent sir or ma'am. A cylinder could seem to be flat; even square, and circular or round. It all depends on perspective.
All I'm saying is that it isn't good to be closed minded due to petty word games. I'm sure you understood my actual meaning just fine.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Christians today may take the "four corners" thing to be allegory, but that's not how it was intended to be interpreted when it was written. Hebrews believed that the earth was flat, that there was water both under and above the earth, and that the sky was a physical object with vaults in it that allowed water to fall down onto the earth. The book of Revelation even has the earth rolled up like a scroll in the end of times. The Biblical authors had no understanding of how the world worked, and it showed.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2018, 01:10:44 AM
Christians today may take the "four corners" thing to be allegory, but that's not how it was intended to be interpreted when it was written. Hebrews believed that the earth was flat, that there was water both under and above the earth, and that the sky was a physical object with vaults in it that allowed water to fall down onto the earth. The book of Revelation even has the earth rolled up like a scroll in the end of times. The Biblical authors had no understanding of how the world worked, and it showed.
Very little of the Bible is to be interpreted through a literal lense. The Hebrew had a big problem with this along with hypocrisy and pride.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Yeah, well, tell that to all those fundamentalist Christians out there who do, indeed, take the Bible absolutely literally.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 21, 2018, 12:48:56 PM
Very little of the Bible is to be interpreted through a literal lense. The Hebrew had a big problem with this along with hypocrisy and pride.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Given that so many christians demand that their text be considered as literal, I don't think you have a book to stand on.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 22, 2018, 05:16:07 AM
Given that so many christians demand that their text be considered as literal, I don't think you have a book to stand on.
It's okay. I don't need to stand on a book.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 21, 2018, 01:09:45 PM
Yeah, well, tell that to all those fundamentalist Christians out there who do, indeed, take the Bible absolutely literally.
I do.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 07:19:46 AM
It's okay. I don't need to stand on a book.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
You are posting as if the above posts were aimed at you and you are somehow defeating them. Why is that?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 21, 2018, 12:48:56 PM
Very little of the Bible is to be interpreted through a literal sense.
Why is that Pops??? And why is the bible found only in one small area of the world and in an obscure (Aramaic) language? Isn't the message to be universal, since your god created the entire universe? And why are all sacred books found in only one spot on earth? My answer is that this clearly demonstrates that all sacred books are man-made. If a universal god wanted to give a universal message he could have issued the same book in all languages that ever was or will be.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 21, 2018, 12:48:56 PM
Very little of the Bible is to be interpreted through a literal lense.
I agree totally. As a Christian in an attempt to keep my Christianity, I recognized early on that you can't take everything in the Bible literally. You have to discard the fallacious and the absurd. This is where things started to fall apart in my Christian life.
The Bible stories that describe how God spoke to mankind use devices like a burning bush, or a man who climbed a mountain where God spoke to him. Really, what's the point of having to get to the top of a mountain to communicate with God? It's a metaphorical suggestion that talking to god requires great strength of character and commitment. The very basis of the Bible as the word of God, can't be taken literally. It has to be apologized as symbolic and metaphorical. And for as much as mankind loves the symbolic, truth gets lost in metaphor.
The parts that don't have to be taken literally are the known historical facts like the Romans ruled the greater Mediterranean area. But the inclusion of such facts doesn't support anything divine, any more than the inclusion of Nazi Germany in a comic book make Captain America true.
That the Bible is the word of God must be taken on blind faith. Bible study and theological thought given to a mishmash of literal and metaphorical are exercises of imagination. We might say that God's existence is metaphorically true and gain heart, but that's not very satisfying as a rational conclusion that there is an actual God.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2018, 01:10:44 AM
Christians today may take the "four corners" thing to be allegory, but that's not how it was intended to be interpreted when it was written. Hebrews believed that the earth was flat, that there was water both under and above the earth, and that the sky was a physical object with vaults in it that allowed water to fall down onto the earth. The book of Revelation even has the earth rolled up like a scroll in the end of times. The Biblical authors had no understanding of how the world worked, and it showed.
To be fair, it's not like most people living during those times would know much better. For them, the whole world was just most of Europe, some parts of Africa, and a little bit of Asia. That's it. Water under and over the Earth makes intuitive sense since it rains and water seeps up out of the ground. And picturing a flat earth is probably the second most intuitive but wrong notion humans have had about our planet (the first is being oblivious to deep time). All that makes sense at a time when humans had a poor understanding of the world.
What doesn't make sense is how an omniscient god who allegedly speaks through them shares all their failings.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 22, 2018, 12:00:31 PM
What doesn't make sense is how an omniscient god who allegedly speaks through them shares all their failings.
AMEN!
The universal god is the product of theology. The perfect god is the product of theology. It isn't the product of actual cultures (most of us aren't academics). So all those criticisms apply to theologians. Too bad for them.
The popular gods of old, or now ... are much like their worshippers, as they always have. The Universal and Perfect god is a straw-man invented by theologians, and turned to other use by atheists. In other words, dishonest rhetoric.
And once again, semantics intervenes. I don't think Pop's notion of literal matches other people here, anymore than my notion of metaphorical matches other people here. People talking past people, at best.
Ancient people couldn't even read. Culture and religion were oral (see Oral Torah). Literate people produced literate religion, which is why whatever Moses believed, it was never written down. Same for Jesus and Muhammad. Wonder why?
And literate people were the upper class and the middle class that makes the predation of the upper class possible. People like Caiaphas (upper) and Paul (middle). Folk religion is ain't.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 22, 2018, 08:55:45 AM
Why is that Pops??? And why is the bible found only in one small area of the world and in an obscure (Aramaic) language? Isn't the message to be universal, since your god created the entire universe? And why are all sacred books found in only one spot on earth? My answer is that this clearly demonstrates that all sacred books are man-made. If a universal god wanted to give a universal message he could have issued the same book in all languages that ever was or will be.
IT is universal. Every one has the capacity to abide by the Spirit. It does not have to be known through any sacred texts in my opinion.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Cavebear on August 22, 2018, 07:26:59 AM
You are posting as if the above posts were aimed at you and you are somehow defeating them. Why is that?
I do not understand what it is you are asking.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: SGOS on August 22, 2018, 10:16:28 AM
I agree totally. As a Christian in an attempt to keep my Christianity, I recognized early on that you can't take everything in the Bible literally. You have to discard the fallacious and the absurd. This is where things started to fall apart in my Christian life.
The Bible stories that describe how God spoke to mankind use devices like a burning bush, or a man who climbed a mountain where God spoke to him. Really, what's the point of having to get to the top of a mountain to communicate with God? It's a metaphorical suggestion that talking to god requires great strength of character and commitment. The very basis of the Bible as the word of God, can't be taken literally. It has to be apologized as symbolic and metaphorical. And for as much as mankind loves the symbolic, truth gets lost in metaphor.
The parts that don't have to be taken literally are the known historical facts like the Romans ruled the greater Mediterranean area. But the inclusion of such facts doesn't support anything divine, any more than the inclusion of Nazi Germany in a comic book make Captain America true.
That the Bible is the word of God must be taken on blind faith. Bible study and theological thought given to a mishmash of literal and metaphorical are exercises of imagination. We might say that God's existence is metaphorically true and gain heart, but that's not very satisfying as a rational conclusion that there is an actual God.
That is very opinionated.
In my opinion the vast majority is not to be taken literally, yet is truthful in manifold ways and levels. It is written by men inspired by GOD or rather inspirited by GOD. some more than others no doubt.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 21, 2018, 12:48:56 PM
Very little of the Bible is to be interpreted through a literal lense. The Hebrew had a big problem with this along with hypocrisy and pride.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Proof that religion trumps science, common sense and simple observation. And they wonder why we laugh at them.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 21, 2018, 12:48:56 PM
Very little of the Bible is to be interpreted through a literal lense. The Hebrew had a big problem with this along with hypocrisy and pride.
So how are we supposed to know which parts are, and which are not, supposed to be "interpreted through a literal lense"?
Quote from: aitm on August 22, 2018, 07:43:02 PM
Proof that religion trumps science, common sense and simple observation. And they wonder why we laugh at them.
I'm not following. Science and faith in a Source and belief in a purpose dont cancel one another out, but to together to me.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 22, 2018, 07:49:11 PM
So how are we supposed to know which parts are, and which are not, supposed to be "interpreted through a literal lense"?
What is the point of doubting or believing a particular part is to be taken literally? If you are looking at the Bible to find some historical validity then you are enquiring on the wrong topic. It is a guidance to the soul or heart. Such is considered spiritual or philosophical; and as such, not literal or related so much to the material.
That isn't to say that guidance of the heart and mind cannot change the actions of one's hands or the direction of their feet.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 07:25:56 PM
That is very opinionated.
How so?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 07:25:56 PM
In my opinion the vast majority is not to be taken literally, yet is truthful in manifold ways and levels.
Manifold truths tend to contradict themselves. The literalist says, "This is so." The illiteralist says, "It is not so. Where is the truth in that? Do you feel it in your bones? And metaphorical apologetics allow even more variety of conflicting interpretations.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 07:25:56 PM
It is written by men inspired by GOD or rather inspirited by GOD.
Oh, I thought they were inspired. But really they were inspirited. That makes a lot of difference, right?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 07:25:56 PM
some more than others no doubt.
Do I assume those who were more inspirited were the credible experts with the better credentials, and those who were less inspirited were the unreliable sources we were told about in high school critical reading exercises.
Quote from: SGOS on August 22, 2018, 08:25:52 PM
How so?
Manifold truths tend to contradict themselves. The literalist says, "This is so." The illiteralist says, "It is not so. Where is the truth in that? Do you feel it in your bones? And metaphorical apologetics allow even more variety of conflicting interpretations.
Oh, I thought they were inspired. But really they were inspirited. That makes a lot of difference, right?
Do I assume those who were more inspirited were the credible experts with the better credentials, and those who were less inspirited were the unreliable sources we were told about in high school critical reading exercises.
Nonsense; how does truth intertwined and related on multiple levels equal that which is false?
Who said the literalist was ever correct when speaking of spiritual guidance?
Indeed one can feel the truth.
Much or a difference in inspirited? Not too much; one would be to a greater extent.
Credentials? No....these aren't things for the scholarly regardless of what the wealthy would have one believe.
That isn't to say a scholar can't come to know what is good in their life, hit that it is difficult; not having a place/ time for the experience due to being....sidetracked or deviated from significance and purpose by greed or fear.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Indeed one can feel the truth.
See, this is that part that just feels silly to me. The truth I feel is that truth can't be felt.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 22, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
See, this is that part that just feels silly to me. The truth I feel is that truth can't be felt.
You are speaking of a different type of truth or rather, a different level.
Do you believe in the conscience?
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Nonsense; how does truth intertwined and related on multiple levels equal that which is false?
... what truth? How is truth divined? Who knows what's false? That's exactly the problem with the Bible.
QuoteWho said the literalist was ever correct when speaking of spiritual guidance?
... not me, I would never say that. I think the literalists are on the extreme end of the wacky to weird scale.
QuoteIndeed one can feel the truth.
... interesting.
QuoteCredentials? No....these aren't things for the scholarly regardless of what the wealthy would have one believe.
... not sure what that means.
QuoteThat isn't to say a scholar can't come to know what is good in their life, hit that it is difficult; not having a place/ time for the experience due to being....sidetracked or deviated from significance and purpose by greed or fear.
... I'm lost, but then I'm losing interest really fast.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 08:50:33 PM
You are speaking of a different type of truth or rather, a different level.
Do you believe in the conscience?
Do you mean "conscience" as in the part of us that feels bad when we hurt someone, or do you mean consciousness, as in the part of us that is awake and aware?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 22, 2018, 08:55:56 PM
Do you mean "conscience" as in the part of us that feels bad when we hurt someone, or do you mean consciousness, as in the part of us that is awake and aware?
conscience...
It is a guidance we feel and can correlate with literal truth on manifold levels and is in no way limited to the physical though some may contend it is due to chemical changes. The thing is; these sorts of emotions that have to do with the conscience. Though some emotion is caused by chemical changes in the brain and is from thought processes; other emotion can cause further chemical change and further critical thought.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 07:20:43 PM
IT is universal. Every one has the capacity to abide by the Spirit. It does not have to be known through any sacred texts in my opinion.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
How is one supposed to 'know' spirit??????
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 08:50:33 PM
You are speaking of a different type of truth or rather, a different level.
Do you believe in the conscience?
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
I do. And it guides me daily. But it is not a spirit--nor is it just 'known'. I work on it daily. And through practice it is reinforced or changed.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 22, 2018, 10:02:24 PM
I do. And it guides me daily. But it is not a spirit--nor is it just 'known'. I work on it daily. And through practice it is reinforced or changed.
That is good to hear friend.
The conscience is a guidance and it can change or be subjective unless altruism or selflessness is actively applied to moral equations. You can say it is a product of chemical/ changes caused by the brain and that it too causes these changes in instances. You don't haven't agree that it is of GOD; and I didn't exactly mean the conscience is GOD, but that it is imparted by GOD that we might attain to the guidance of GOD/ the Spirit/ Creator/ Origin of both life and the conscience....even if you believe in evolution and that we are but the sum of our parts.
peace
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 22, 2018, 09:59:26 PM
How is one supposed to 'know' spirit??????
Not everything is epistemology. And folks here don't even believe that philosophy exists (neither did Feynman or Hawking).
There are metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics. There is little agreement on epistemology. I deny rationality for instance, but support empiricism. My hand exists, and I know it. Not quite Descartes, but I think more valid than "I think, therefore I am". I find my body more convincing than my mind. I don't agree with Descartes on the "I am" either. Thinking is iffy. The "I am" depends on more modern views of psychology (multiple personalities).
Quote from: SGOS on August 22, 2018, 08:25:52 PM
How so?
Manifold truths tend to contradict themselves. The literalist says, "This is so." The illiteralist says, "It is not so. Where is the truth in that? Do you feel it in your bones? And metaphorical apologetics allow even more variety of conflicting interpretations.
Oh, I thought they were inspired. But really they were inspirited. That makes a lot of difference, right?
Do I assume those who were more inspirited were the credible experts with the better credentials, and those who were less inspirited were the unreliable sources we were told about in high school critical reading exercises.
Some people can appreciate or produce poetry or philosophy. Others cannot. One can attribute this charism to G-d or to quantum mechanics. Scientists are analytical .. not synthetic. Artists are synthetic, but a good artist is expert at art, even if they aren't a scientist. For you probably, an expert = scientist. We are not Vulcans. Reality isn't rational (for humans anyway} ... humans are irrational, we can't experience reality any other way. To make a claim beyond experience, is to be Platonic or prophetic.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 22, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
See, this is that part that just feels silly to me. The truth I feel is that truth can't be felt.
You are abnormal. An extreme example of personality variation. Some people have no emotions at all.
Truth isn't arithmetic. Truth is integrity with self and between people. I assume you have that, but you can't label it that, because if one is all IQ and no EQ ... one can't. If I am sincere and self aware then anything I say to you is truthful, but not necessarily factual. To equate words that don't equate, is Newspeak. And I believe you are being truthful ... but that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 22, 2018, 10:02:24 PM
I do. And it guides me daily. But it is not a spirit--nor is it just 'known'. I work on it daily. And through practice it is reinforced or changed.
In my experience, I call that G-d. But for you, it is philosophically impersonal, like the Force in Star Wars. Aka a Buddhist.
A universal god does not exist. It cannot. It is simply an [abstract] idea, without substance.
It is restricted to the planet earth and by geography/culture, it differs in ethics, laws, customs, often diametrically.
It is a creation by humans for humans.
Quote from: pr126 on August 23, 2018, 05:38:29 AM
A universal god does not exist. It cannot. It is simply an [abstract] idea, without substance.
It is restricted to the planet earth and by geography/culture, it differs in ethics, laws, customs, often diametrically.
It is a creation by humans for humans.
Exactly correct. But not irrelevant. Human things, including religion and politics, are completely relevant to humans. I agree that the theologians and philosophers have failed in their search for eternal life or the philosopher's stone.
Earlier this year, I was exploring early Medieval thought in Andalusia. It is full of this kind of universalist speculation. It was apologetic too, to keep worldly Muslims and Jews from going materialist.
So no need to keep up the straw men, while claiming rationality or objectivity.
The philosophers stone was taken by Hagrid from the Gringotts bank, gave it to Dumbledore who destroyed it.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/harrypotter/images/e/e9/Gringotts_bank.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2018, 05:20:22 AM
Some people can appreciate or produce poetry or philosophy. Others cannot. One can attribute this charism to G-d or to quantum mechanics. Scientists are analytical .. not synthetic. Artists are synthetic, but a good artist is expert at art, even if they aren't a scientist. For you probably, an expert = scientist. We are not Vulcans. Reality isn't rational (for humans anyway} ... humans are irrational, we can't experience reality any other way. To make a claim beyond experience, is to be Platonic or prophetic.
And how does this prove the existence of God?
Actually, I asked Pops the Builder for an explanation of truth, but he couldn't explain it either, because most of his explanation of truth is "manifold," probably because it comes out of his manifold. But only after he first puts it in a blender. This should make sense to you. It does to me. I get it, as I believe obscuring meaning is a theological defense mechanism.
QuoteSee, this is that part that just feels silly to me. The truth I feel is that truth can't be felt.
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2018, 05:24:19 AM
You are abnormal. An extreme example of personality variation. Some people have no emotions at all.
Truth isn't arithmetic. Truth is integrity with self and between people. I assume you have that, but you can't label it that, because if one is all IQ and no EQ ... one can't. If I am sincere and self aware then anything I say to you is truthful, but not necessarily factual. To equate words that don't equate, is Newspeak. And I believe you are being truthful ... but that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
"My personal acting technique is working with color. Imagining, then finding the emotional vibrational mood connected to the color. See, if you look through my scripts, you see that all my lines have a special color. So, I don't memorize language, I memorize colors. This way I can go through red, yellow, green, blue, and you have a full palette of emotions."
- Kramer gives a lecture, in "The Trip"
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 10:28:29 PM
That is good to hear friend.
The conscience is a guidance and it can change or be subjective unless altruism or selflessness is actively applied to moral equations. You can say it is a product of chemical/ changes caused by the brain and that it too causes these changes in instances. You don't haven't agree that it is of GOD; and I didn't exactly mean the conscience is GOD, but that it is imparted by GOD that we might attain to the guidance of GOD/ the Spirit/ Creator/ Origin of both life and the conscience....even if you believe in evolution and that we are but the sum of our parts.
peace
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
I don't 'believe' in anything. I think evolution exists and works because I've seen the evidence that proves it to me. Evolution is not something one has to 'believe' in; one has to 'believe' in god because there is no proof of any kind that god exists or ever existed. As for my conscience, it is simply that part of my brain that processes my perception of what is good/bad for me, what is right/wrong for me all based on how the world impacts me. Spirit has nothing to do with it--it is totally me.
Quote from: SGOS on August 23, 2018, 06:40:56 AM
And how does this prove the existence of God?
Actually, I asked Pops the Builder for an explanation of truth, but he couldn't explain it either, because most of his explanation of truth is "manifold," probably because it comes out of his manifold. But only after he first puts it in a blender. This should make sense to you. It does to me. I get it, as I believe obscuring meaning is a theological defense mechanism.
Don't worry about proof. I don't demand proof that you are human, instead of a Turing test, do I?
Proof - applied so logic and mathematics ... highly technical things. Do you demand proof before you eat your breakfast?
Can't speak for Pops. Also originally logic was negative, not positive. And it is used in that original nihilistic way, by atheists usually. While I agree that positivistic proofs of G-d are ... flawed. Asking logic to prove G-d is like asking a pencil to prove drawing. There has to be an artist to pick the pencil and paper up and do the drawing.
And yes, logicians (the ordinary kind) are not comfortable with multivalence. Like science fans who are stuck with Newton, most logic fans are stuck with Boole. I have already posted on how more recent and advanced logics totally go beyond such 19th century notions. Fuzzy logic for example.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 23, 2018, 08:59:02 AM
I don't 'believe' in anything. I think evolution exists and works because I've seen the evidence that proves it to me. Evolution is not something one has to 'believe' in; one has to 'believe' in god because there is no proof of any kind that god exists or ever existed. As for my conscience, it is simply that part of my brain that processes my perception of what is good/bad for me, what is right/wrong for me all based on how the world impacts me. Spirit has nothing to do with it--it is totally me.
Being in possession of absolute reality (ala Plato) you don't make hypotheses ;-) Well I do feel that way about subjective physical facts (my hand for example typing this). So I actually think you mean the same thing as I do, though perhaps extending to ideas.
Quote from: SGOS on August 23, 2018, 07:14:45 AM
"My personal acting technique is working with color. Imagining, then finding the emotional vibrational mood connected to the color. See, if you look through my scripts, you see that all my lines have a special color. So, I don't memorize language, I memorize colors. This way I can go through red, yellow, green, blue, and you have a full palette of emotions."
- Kramer gives a lecture, in "The Trip"
You are not Unbeliever. I don't see you as un-emotional as he is, not nihilistic.
1+1=2 is an abstract fact.
My hand typing this is a physical fact.
Truth isn't about facts, anymore than calculus is about ardvarks.
Define truth? This is about power certainly, because truth claims are highly important in politics. Where truth goes to die. This is why Papal authority (ex cathedra) is so important. So basically I get to beat you up until you agree with me, what is truth. Didn't Mao say truth comes from the barrel of a gun? Per the OP, this is exactly how Muslims define truth. If I conquer you, rob you, rape you, kill you ... then Allah is clearly on my side, and the Quran is true.
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2018, 08:59:43 AM
Do you demand proof before you eat your breakfast?
What would be the point? But when someone tells me there is a fairy godfather living in the sky, I want to see some proof. But I would happily settle for logic.
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2018, 08:59:43 AM
While I agree that positivistic proofs of G-d are ... flawed.
Because they can't prove god exists, doesn't mean they are flawed. It just means you have no ground to make incredible claims.
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2018, 08:59:43 AM
Asking logic to prove G-d is like asking a pencil to prove drawing. There has to be an artist to pick the pencil and paper up and do the drawing.
And using logic to prove a god also requires an artist; A bullshit artist.
Quote from: SGOS on August 23, 2018, 09:25:21 AM
What would be the point? But when someone tells me there is a fairy godfather living in the sky, I want to see some proof. But I would happily settle for logic.
Because they can't prove god exists, doesn't mean they are flawed. It just means you have no ground to make incredible claims.
And using logic to prove a god also requires an artist; A bullshit artist.
Prove you are not an AI, a chatbot. I demand it now!
You should demand demonstration of claims of fairy godfathers, not proof. Unless of course you are Pythagoras. For me, the existence of anything and everything is a demonstration, that nihilism is false. Not proof.
Atheists claim that eventually science will know everything. Well perhaps eventually theologians will prove they weren't wasting their time.
All humans are BS artists ... particulary Tay, the Nazi teen girl AI.
Logic is fine, but it only proves logic. As a fish demonstrates the existence of fishiness.
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2018, 09:32:03 AM
Logic is fine, but it only proves logic. As a fish demonstrates the existence of fishiness.
It stands to reason that any commoner practicing philosophy or theism from an armchair while watching the Simpsons is going to abhor logic. Logic is a monkey wrench to idle musings, dream states, and armchair philosophy.
Quote from: SGOS on August 23, 2018, 10:57:08 AM
It stands to reason that any commoner practicing philosophy or theism from an armchair while watching the Simpsons is going to abhor logic. Logic is a monkey wrench to idle musings, dream states, and armchair philosophy.
Logic should be considered important to all I think.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPfw422Wcso
Really? If people like this, we can move to the Philosophy section.
In other words ...
All Athenians are ardvarks
Socrates is an Athenian
Therefore Socrates is an aardvark
The problem lies with dodgy axioms. The first one is not factual, the second one is. The syllogism is correct. But the conclusion is wrong.
Most people here would be interested in epistemic modal logic or alethic modal logic. Months ago I posted material on non-Classical logic, that takes the POV that truth can't even be defined (the usual kind of truth conflated with facts, not the humanistic definition I use).
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2018, 09:02:00 AM
Being in possession of absolute reality (ala Plato) you don't make hypotheses ;-) Well I do feel that way about subjective physical facts (my hand for example typing this). So I actually think you mean the same thing as I do, though perhaps extending to ideas.
I think we mean the same. I realize there is no such thing as absolute reality. There is my own subjective reality. But it is not 'fixed' in that I don't think there is even an absolute reality from my own personal point of view. But there is a working reality; if not, then all one could do would be to huddle in a chair somewhere. My working reality allows me to function in this universe. I treat my reality as tho it was universal for me; but I do change it as I think it necessary. There are universal facts, such as gravity works this way on earth. But even those facts are subject to change.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 23, 2018, 08:59:02 AM
I don't 'believe' in anything. I think evolution exists and works because I've seen the evidence that proves it to me. Evolution is not something one has to 'believe' in; one has to 'believe' in god because there is no proof of any kind that god exists or ever existed. As for my conscience, it is simply that part of my brain that processes my perception of what is good/bad for me, what is right/wrong for me all based on how the world impacts me. Spirit has nothing to do with it--it is totally me.
Quote from: Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, 'Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!' If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.
Verily, I say unto you, Unbeliever!
If it is true to you, to kill a stranger, then go right ahead. It is about ethics, not facts.
That really puts the pi in onion!
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 24, 2018, 01:33:51 PM
That really puts the pi in onion!
Sophists then and now, have no integrity.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 22, 2018, 07:20:02 AM
I do.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
So beating a slave to death with a rod is forbidden. What about other objects like baseball bats and closet poles? You did say the bible should be taken literally.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 27, 2018, 04:26:10 AM
So beating a slave to death with a rod is forbidden. What about other objects like baseball bats and closet poles? You did say the bible should be taken literally.
St Augustine said ... the reason why there is Hell is for dealing with argumentative people like that.