View Full Version : How to get reliable informations about God
screwtype
09-15-2005, 16:13
Jesus...believes in piece
Hmm, nothing very special about that, a lot of guys believe in piece. Fervently! ~:)
PS I think the word you were looking for is "peace" ~;)
Byzantine Prince
09-15-2005, 18:10
You have admitted yourself that some of your convictions have changed.
yeah, but you are responding to me saying you have none. Change is one thing, not having any is quite different.
Thus, either they have been wrong before or you have wrong convictions now.
No such thing as right and wrong, only ignorant and not ignorant.
Either way, it is proven that you can be mistaken. Do you have an interest in avoiding that?
To be mistaken is quite different from changing your convictions as you see fit.
I have convictions, I only question them from time to time. I don´t like dogmas. Including the dogma "I`m always right".
If you have convictions it's good to question them, but it's not good to rely on other people to change them through dialectics, that can be dangerous and history itself has shown.
Then you´ll surely understand when I don´t follow your example. I mean no offence but it doesn´t strike me as a particularly good one.
Well I don't particularly care, and neither should you if someone says this to you. It's part of being your own person.
I think it's going to be a long time before we ever get empirical evidence about God. This is because God if it exists is the subtlest of the subtle - what instrument is going to be subtle enough be able to register it? Also, God is not a relative entity, God is the Absolute - how do you measure the Absolute? It is immeasurable. There is nothing to compare it to. There is nothing outside it, nothing beyond it. Therefore it presents enormous, perhaps insurmountable difficulties to empirical science, which knows only how to quantify the relative.
So is God matter or energy?
If not then he is not physical. If this god is not physical, you'll NEVER get any empirical evidence at all.
Byzantine Prince
09-16-2005, 06:16
So is God matter or energy?
If not then he is not physical. If this god is not physical, you'll NEVER get any empirical evidence at all.
Exactly right. (to quote Pindar)
If god lies in the metaphysical he could never affect the physical world. His existence whether true or not, could not affect anything. There for we can't actually have any empirical evidence.
Pindar is a mormon. :laugh4:
Exactly right. (to quote Pindar)
If god lies in the metaphysical he could never affect the physical world. His existence whether true or not, could not affect anything. There for we can't actually have any empirical evidence.
Pindar is a mormon. :laugh4:
Joseph Smith was a Mormon, and he kicked ass.
Byzantine Prince
09-16-2005, 06:37
I don't think Joseph Smith would appreciate that comment. He was the king of being nice.
Joseph Smith had 24 wives. The comment stands.
Adrian II
09-16-2005, 08:14
‘Ello, my name ees Eugène. I am writeenk a piece of thee-a-tayr. Eet ees called ‘Waiteenk for God’. I must ask you not to move one eench from your eentellectual position. Please stay put until my casteenk director contacts you. Merci!
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/00009160.gif
Papewaio
09-16-2005, 08:19
Damn casting couch :beatnik2: :pimp:
It always makes an atheist go Awww GawwwwwwwwwDddd :hide:
Byzantine Prince
09-16-2005, 08:30
‘Ello, my name ees Eugène. I am writeenk a piece of thee-a-tayr. Eet ees called ‘Waiteenk for God’. I must ask you not to move one eench from your eentellectual position. Please stay put until my casteenk director contacts you. Merci!
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/00009160.gif
Is that dutch? :laugh4:
Exactly right. (to quote Pindar)
If god lies in the metaphysical he could never affect the physical world. His existence whether true or not, could not affect anything. There for we can't actually have any empirical evidence.
Actually, Pindar is quite unsure hence he contradicted himself by agreeing with A. Saturnus that the Soul and God are physical.
If God communicates with your soul, the same question remains how your soul (something metaphysical) can interact with your brain (physical). If the physical brain is able to sense the metaphysical, artificial devices that can do the same must be possible. Conclusion: if the metaphysical can interact with the physical, it is only another part of the physical.
I think that is right.
If the Soul is physical, then it should have physical properties and it should obey the laws of physics.
Adrian II
09-16-2005, 08:39
Is that dutch? :laugh4:Non, zat would bee French. Ah haha. Don't move, mon petit Prince, I weell conserve your youthful cruelty for all eternity...
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/artist.gif
A.Saturnus
09-16-2005, 17:40
yeah, but you are responding to me saying you have none. Change is one thing, not having any is quite different.
Where did I say that?
No such thing as right and wrong, only ignorant and not ignorant.
If that statement isn´t right, why are you saying it?
To be mistaken is quite different from changing your convictions as you see fit.
Indeed, being mistaken can happen to everyone, whereas changing convictions as you see fit is a sign of intellectual immaturity.
If you have convictions it's good to question them, but it's not good to rely on other people to change them through dialectics, that can be dangerous and history itself has shown.
I do not rely on other people, I rely on ideas.
"All certainty arises from the comparison of ideas" - David Hume
Well I don't particularly care, and neither should you if someone says this to you. It's part of being your own person.
Depends. If a significant number of rather reasonable people thought I were an ass, that would give me pause, I admit.
Byzantine Prince
09-16-2005, 23:23
No such thing as right and wrong, only ignorant and not ignorant.
If that statement isn´t right, why are you saying it?
It's not wrong either, it's insightful and intelligent in my opinion. 'Right' and 'wrong' are semantically contradictory words anyhow.
To be mistaken is quite different from changing your convictions as you see fit.
Indeed, being mistaken can happen to everyone, whereas changing convictions as you see fit is a sign of intellectual immaturity.
A matter of opinion really, I think the best way to think about things is to edit them yourself after deep contemplation. When you are reading a book you are reading someone's else thoughts, and from that you later get new ways of looking at the subject. My experience has shown that that has never once hapened in these boards through debate.
Well I don't particularly care, and neither should you if someone says this to you. It's part of being your own person.
Depends. If a significant number of rather reasonable people thought I were an ass, that would give me pause, I admit.
Again, history has shown the contrary. Look at all the great scientists that had to deal with adversity. They were pretty much looked down upon by everyone around them. Now look at how acceptable someone as racist and unreasonable as Hitler became, doesn't make much sense does it. I'm sure there's less extreme examples BTW. What is reasonable is also not fixed. I hope you see what I'm saying.
It's ironic that this is increasing my debating skills. ~D
bmolsson
09-17-2005, 03:39
Pindar, do you have any reliable information on God and his existance ??
Abokasee
09-17-2005, 08:06
george bush is the best way to get it..... or blair or any other presidatial person
Kantian framework or not, you cannot claim that a rejection of naive realism requires the acceptance of a coherence schema.
I have not made that charge. However, a Kantian framework is a coherence model. Any time one admits the subject impacts experience they will move into a coherence schema.
Whether he saw the heavens open is still something else than the heavens really being open above him. Others didn´t see what he did. Regardless of who you are, one of the perceptions involved must have been deceptive.
The subject may be able to be determined by the subject, but that doesn´t mean that the subject is always right. Stephen´s might have been mistaken to think his experience was reliable.
As we have already determined: the question isn't about truth or a perfect standard but reliability which may be mistaken. Reliability is a trustworthiness. I have argued that any reliable information about Deity would come from direct experience with Deity.
Here´s a commercial information from their website (http://www.alienabductions.com/index2.html):
Contact them now, and soon you can have your own alien abduction experience!
I'm goin to make a booking. This is exciting.
Byzantine Prince,
I read through your most recent reply to me. I suggest your refer to my post #196.
Actually, Pindar is quite unsure hence he contradicted himself by agreeing with A. Saturnus that the Soul and God are physical.
Where did I contradict myself?
Pindar, do you have any reliable information on God and his existance ??
Yes.
Byzantine Prince
09-17-2005, 13:41
Byzantine Prince,
I read through your most recent reply to me. I suggest your refer to my post #196.
How very brave of you to not address anything because sooo mentally superior. :rolleyes2:
How very brave of you to not address anything because sooo mentally superior. :rolleyes2:
This is a fragment. You're missing a subject.
bmolsson
09-18-2005, 05:39
Yes.
Please share... :bow:
A.Saturnus
09-18-2005, 17:20
I have not made that charge. However, a Kantian framework is a coherence model. Any time one admits the subject impacts experience they will move into a coherence schema.
No. The coherence schema is about the relation between language and the truth. It is possible to assume that the process of perception is a function of the subject without admitting that coherence is sufficient for truth, it fits within a correspondence schema.
As we have already determined: the question isn't about truth or a perfect standard but reliability which may be mistaken. Reliability is a trustworthiness. I have argued that any reliable information about Deity would come from direct experience with Deity.
And reliable information about aliens would come from direct experience with aliens. It is a question about truth, namely whether that experience really come from a divine source or something else. AAI cannot count as reliable information about aliens, even though their clients may think that afterwards.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.