(February 17, 2010 at 1:16 am)tackattack Wrote: looks like everyone's been doing doughnuts in here, so I'll chime in if you don't mind.
1-no data exists, to my knowledge, outside subjective experience save the teachings of the bible, which should be subjectively rationalized and logically deduced.
2- one under the avalanche
3- Define hard facts and specify an area please
4-Yes evangelicals, pentacostals as well as I believe the sola scriptura. The difference is I prefer to use more logical deduction or deductive reasoning to indirectly reach my conclusions.
1. Rationalization is illogical and indistinguishable from finding evidence to fit a delusion or unfounded claim. If no data exists, you cannot make the claim that it exists in reality objectively.
2. I have a few things to add to that, I'll get to it in a bit.
3. I was referring to the hard facts fr0d0 was referring to, I also want to know his definition and experience.
4. In other words, you interpret it to suit your personal beliefs. That is called rationalization. Since there can be no objective standard of God's existence, everyone has their own personal brand of the divine. That's fine, but every once in a while people have to realize that this may just be a hallucination, voices in their head, or something created by the effects of placebo.
If you used deductive reasoning, you'll realize where the pieces of the Bible don't fit. What do you do then? Interpret it differently? Try to take another meaning that makes more sense to you?
