(August 1, 2012 at 7:42 pm)ElDinero Wrote: 'I have an answer, and have presented it all over the forums, but whenever I present it you guys turn tail and hide!'

Just trying out a little roleplay. Good fun.

This.

I often wonder whether Fr0d0 so chose his name because fiction is his life.

That 2 weeks went by fast didn't it?
It seemed to speed up as soon as Rayaan pointed it out for the obvious escape tactic it is. :-)

(August 2, 2012 at 2:06 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Well that's the crux of the matter that I need to get you to address Raph. I need to be precise in my language for those that don't understand the subtelties, and sometimes I forget that. Apologies for confusing you.

Yes. Of course. Everyone else is at fault for your obvious lack of language skills.
Are we also at fault for you inventing new words such as "subtelties"?

(August 2, 2012 at 2:06 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You may have seen me extend that statement to "we cannot have empirical evidence of a god". Even Dorkins will make this correct assessment, but then still contradict that by citing the lack of empirical evidence again.
What have we got left if there isn't empirical evidence? Is there evidence besides the empirical? This is the new world you are seemingly unaware of.

So you think thats an excuse for your ridiculous assumption? Empirical evidence is all we have to go on and you don't even have that. Just to be sure everyone knows what empirical evidence is by the way;
"Empirical research is research that derives its data by means of direct observation or experiment, such research is used to answer a question or test a hypothesis (e.g. "Does something such as a type of medical treatment work?")."

So basically solid evidence. You're bitching because we want solid evidence of your God existing and don't accept your claims you don't need solid evidence to prove such a claim. Well I'm very sorry, you do if you want your claim to be plausible. You have no reason to think such proof is not out there. Whether you can obtain it or not is not my problem. Its your claim, you go back it up.
We'll wait right here.

And where is this new world you speak of? Where did you get the idea it existed? You have nothing. This is compounded by your immaturity in referring to a respected individual in his field as "dorkins".
Its hilarious you would mock someone who is far more educated than you for being a successful author with alot of good points to raise.
What exactly have *you* achieved?

(August 2, 2012 at 2:06 am)fr0d0 Wrote: As a materialist I would expect you to deny this world exists. See if you can't surprise me.

Materialist? What? Because I'm someone who uses his senses as opposed to his imagination when discerning what reality encompasses?
Also, I don't say nothing is beyond material matter. I can't claim to know that and neither can you. I say I need proof that there is before I consider the claim plausible.
Before you say there cannot be proof of the metaphysical, how the fuck do you know that?
Deny? Whats to deny? You haven't shown me anything aside from wishful thinking so far.

Surprise = 0

(August 2, 2012 at 3:48 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Surprise = 0

Oh *wow*. What an amazing retort! Well I think I speak for all of us when I say we were stunned by that rousing comeback to my point that empirical evidence is the only established means by which to judge reality and that you present no other.
I don't know about everyone else but I intend to convert tomorrow as soon as I wake up to your religion and emulate you by posting meaningless drivel across as many forums as I can.
Thank God you're here to tell us we don't need proof to back our claims.
Well done fr0d0, well done. :-)

(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No it does not directly logically contradict anything. You simply don't understand what I mean by directly and personally knowable.

Well, I thought that the words "directly and personally knowable" meant that you would directly know who God is, which also implies that, at least, there is a way for "knowing" Him. I didn't exactly mean to say that God has to be empirically provable, but just that there is way to know Him as per your statement "God is directly and personally knowable," whether it is through the Bible, historical accounts of Jesus, or in any other way.

If your answer is the Bible, then the process of knowing Him is indeed metaphysical.

If you say that you know God through the historical accounts of Jesus, then the belief is not 100% metaphysical, since it relies on documentation. But, God cannot be documented.

(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You think there is some physical (empirically provable) link between humans and God? Then this is your ignorance of Xtianity showing again.

No, I don't think that there's an empirically provable link between humans and God. See above.

(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Only if you think that direct and personal = empirically provable. Which it cannot be.

No, I don't. I suppose it was just the language that got me confused.

I apologize for that.

(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It is only a metaphysical stance. That direct and personal relationship transcends the physical barrier. There is no way to prove empirically that God contacts you, or that you contact him. If you believe that, then your are also trashing your own belief and are declaring atheism here. Or at best deism.

Okay, so, that means that you know God directly and personally only in a metaphysical sense, not empirically. Duh!

But, let me ask you this. What's the difference between the following two?
1. God is knowable.
2. God is directly and personally knowable.

Doesn't the addition of the words "directly" and "personally" convey an extra message compared to the first one? That's what was curious about.
If your answer is no, then fine. I won't pick on these semantic bones anymore.

(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It was a joke Rayaan. You've taken an age to reply, which is perfectly fine. Mine was a joke in return.

Oh, okay. I kind of thought that, but I wasn't sure if that was a joke.

Secondly, the reason I replied two weeks later is only because I was in Canada for a week as I told you in this post, and then I had to catch up with other threads after coming back, hence the late reply. I also told the staff members that I was going to be away for a week for personal reasons. However, it seems that you have used that as an excuse just to avoid addressing my entire post in the previous page at the top (i.e. by making a joke in return). I think that is evasive. But, feel free to prove me wrong.

(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 2, 2012 at 1:44 am)Rayaan Wrote: Here's an escape trick for you:
If you think that you are unable to satisfactorily address my comments, then pretend as if you forgot to reply in this thread after the 2 weeks. Don't worry, though, because I'll forgive you. =D

Thanks for the insult. Join the queue. Asshole.

Not an insult, but I was just making a joke in return as well (and it's clear), just like you jokingly said to me, "Give me 2 weeks and I'll get back to you."

So, if you can make a joke out of me like that, fr0d0, then why are you accusing me of doing the same?

(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 2, 2012 at 1:44 am)Rayaan Wrote: I'm sorry, fr0d0, but I can't help but think that you're intentionally evasive and dishonest in your replies, especially knowing how many times you contradict yourself.

I take that very seriously and can only excuse you as being completely ignorant. From what you've stated above, that seems to be true.

I think that such a remark about me cannot be substantiated from that single sentence of mine. But, that's fine.

I have made that judgement about you after analyzing many different conversations that you had in this forum so far (although I know that I could be wrong). So, it's not an opinion that I arrived at in an ill-considered manner. I have seen that you frequently say things like "The Christian God necessarily exists," "All the other ones fail," "Christianity is the only reasonable conclusion," "God is the only logical answer," etc, but then you fail to provide the logic behind all these statements. When someone else asks you to back them with a logical reasoning, you either tend to be vague, or too general, or insult the person who asked you that question, or say that "It is impossible to prove it," or say that "I already answered that in my other discussions, go and look for it," or sometimes even ignore the post completely by not even replying. You bring all these questions and arguments upon yourself, and yet, you tend to insult and/or block other members when they ask you to prove your claims. For example, El Dinero just asked you elaborate on your OP once again in the last page, but not surprisingly, instead of responding to his question, you went right past that and only replied to the other posters. That is a proof right there of your evasiveness.

I do like you as a person, fr0d0, and you're fun to talk to in spite of what I said about you in my comments above. A lot of the things that you say make me laugh also.

But, it's okay if you think that I'm an asshole. I don't care. I know myself better than you do.

I called you an asshole for your attitude in that post Rayaan. I've been civil with you yet you chose to attack me. I don't regard you as an asshole generally. Despite your nievety.
I have some people on block. Eld being one of them. Is there any law that says everyone must respond to every question? If so I see you silent on most questions.
Your simplistic view is your own. It's kinda endearing. But that's what it is. The nuances of conversation seem to fly over your head. That's fine, and I take your comments in that vein.

(August 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Materialist? What? Because I'm someone who uses his senses as opposed to his imagination when discerning what reality encompasses?

What, exactly, is the difference between your senses and your imagination? You never experience an orange; you experience the appearance of an orange, or the sensation of its touch. But that's not the same as the orange itself.

(August 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No it does not directly logically contradict anything. You simply don't understand what I mean by directly and personally knowable.

Well, I thought that the words "directly and personally knowable" meant that you would directly know who God is, which also implies that, at least, there is a way for "knowing" Him. I didn't exactly mean to say that God has to be empirically provable, but just that there is way to know Him as per your statement "God is directly and personally knowable," whether it is through the Bible, historical accounts of Jesus, or in any other way.

If your answer is the Bible, then the process of knowing Him is indeed metaphysical.

Maybe the language is from my dogma. It's what Christians say. The fully correct wording gets shortened and becomes confusing if you don't understand the references. I try to correct myself, but some slip through.

Yes I/ we do directly and personally know God. It's not just the bible. We accept that the bible is the word of God (is inspired by him and is very accurate), and check our thoughts against that. I need to talk in the lingo to say this, so please bear with me... I talk directly to God and he talks directly to me. This is the function of the Spirit in Christianity. It makes God known to us. Yes this is made possible through Jesus, but Jesus's physical being has no necessity in that (ugh - dogma alert ). His act of sacrifice does.
We treat the historicity as crucial and the miraculous as based on fact. But all of the time God's condition remains that he has to remain empirically unproven.

So the bible to Xtians is like the user manual to a direct contact with God. The bible is a record of what we can know about him. We think he is ultimately unknowable but that we can know some things. This is how we can define him. Part of that definition has to be his mystery.
Our life of faith isn't to live by a rule book, but to be directly inspired by him. To feel and experience the fullness of life that he gives out. I don't communicate with him in the 3rd person. I communicate directly. It's not "God be praised" but "I praise you", "I love you" etc.. This is what I mean by direct and personal.

(August 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm)Rayaan Wrote: If you say that you know God through the historical accounts of Jesus, then the belief is not 100% metaphysical, since it relies on documentation. But, God cannot be documented.

Like we've touched on before, God has to have been involved in the physical universe at some stages. I believe he is constantly involved now, in shaping the physical world and on us individually. So 100% metaphysical may be misleading, depending on how you work that out.

It was my understanding that Mohammed wrote down the words of Allah. Is this not documenting god?

To confront that dogma correctly, I think our faiths would agree about the mysteriousness of god. How he is ultimately unknowable. How us Christians take that, and affirm our confidence in the assurity that God is with us, doesn't ever violate that mystery. God remains soveriegn, and Jesus brings him into direct contact. I hope you can understand that, as it still seems dogmatic (what I've said).

(August 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm)Rayaan Wrote: I apologize for that.

Appreciated

(August 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm)Rayaan Wrote: But, let me ask you this. What's the difference between the following two?
1. God is knowable.
2. God is directly and personally knowable.

Doesn't the addition of the words "directly" and "personally" convey an extra message compared to the first one? That's what was curious about.
If your answer is no, then fine. I won't pick on these semantic bones anymore.

As metaphysical statements, both are correct (the "m" word makes me snigger, dunno if it's the correct usage but we both understand each other I think! ). As statements of scientific fact both are false.

(August 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It was a joke Rayaan. You've taken an age to reply, which is perfectly fine. Mine was a joke in return.

Oh, okay. I kind of thought that, but I wasn't sure if that was a joke.

Secondly, the reason I replied two weeks later is only because...<snip> However, it seems that you have used that as an excuse just to avoid addressing my entire post in the previous page at the top (i.e. by making a joke in return). I think that is evasive. But, feel free to prove me wrong.

I saw your reason for the late posting, hence the joke. I haven't had time yet to answer your post. I'm also wasting time addressing smaller posts. I'm just not getting that long to be on the forums at the moment. Maybe I should have noted this above. Apologies that you were insulted by this. I fully intend to address your post, I haven't even read it yet.

(August 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Thanks for the insult. Join the queue. Asshole.

Not an insult, but I was just making a joke in return as well (and it's clear), just like you jokingly said to me, "Give me 2 weeks and I'll get back to you."

So, if you can make a joke out of me like that, fr0d0, then why are you accusing me of doing the same?

The gist of your post was to call me a liar and an evasive person.

Now the footer to me is very snide and condescending, given what I've just said:

"Here's an escape trick for you:
If you think that you are unable to satisfactorily address my comments, then pretend as if you forgot to reply in this thread after the 2 weeks. Don't worry, though, because I'll forgive you. =D"

This comment cannot be viewed alone, and I think you shouldn't expect it to be, without clearly stating such.