Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 18, 2014 at 2:32 am)psychoslice Wrote: Oneness is like the body, we can divide the body into its parts, but still its a body, its one, just like we are one with the Source, or Consciousness.
Consciousness? So you are saying that there is some sort of consciousness out there which existed all the way from big bang? Now you are making some bullshit hypothesis.
Yes you are right, I am at a level that cannot be proven by science, it can only be experienced, and I will not try to explain to you that which I cannot but into a concept, so I suppose this is where we finish.
March 18, 2014 at 2:40 am (This post was last modified: March 18, 2014 at 2:41 am by tor.)
(March 18, 2014 at 2:38 am)psychoslice Wrote:
(March 18, 2014 at 2:33 am)tor Wrote: Consciousness? So you are saying that there is some sort of consciousness out there which existed all the way from big bang? Now you are making some bullshit hypothesis.
Yes you are right, I am at a level that cannot be proven by science, it can only be experienced, and I will not try to explain to you that which I cannot but into a concept, so I suppose this is where we finish.
What you experience is your consciousness. It does not prove any other consciousness in any way. Yeah we can finish because your bullshit has been proven false.
(March 18, 2014 at 2:38 am)psychoslice Wrote: Yes you are right, I am at a level that cannot be proven by science, it can only be experienced, and I will not try to explain to you that which I cannot but into a concept, so I suppose this is where we finish.
What you experience is your consciousness. It does not prove any other consciousness in any way. Yeah we can finish because your bullshit has been proven false.
(March 18, 2014 at 2:40 am)tor Wrote: What you experience is your consciousness. It does not prove any other consciousness in any way. Yeah we can finish because your bullshit has been proven false.
(March 16, 2014 at 3:20 am)xr34p3rx Wrote: soooooooo no matter what person i debate, the way i see it is, if you cant prove gods existence, then NOTHING you say about, attribute to your god will help you, unless you can prove his existence. in my experience NO ONE has ever convinced me that their god exists and the "evidence" is soooo vague and ignorantly claimed without further thought. Other than me being bored, i challenge any theist to try to convince me that god exists (or YOUR god for that matter...)
What are some examples of things you know to 'exist' and what is the 'proof' that led to your belief?
well is the earth a sphere? science has photographs and we can see it from different angles, do you deny that? and my belief is different from a xians, belief is accepting something as true based on evidence
xR34P3Rx it isn't in our nature to think of a God, it is in our nature to seek answers and the concept of God is most influenced in this world.
March 18, 2014 at 3:27 am (This post was last modified: March 18, 2014 at 3:33 am by fr0d0.)
(March 17, 2014 at 11:28 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:
(March 17, 2014 at 12:20 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: @MFM agree on all. Not sure what you say about metaphysics. It includes both physical and nonphysical, yes?
Yes. My point was that Fr0d0 is using 'metaphysical' as if it were a synonym for 'non-physical', which isn't what the word means.
(March 17, 2014 at 12:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: That's not what you said at all.
So is God metaphysical or not? By your definition of metaphysical he is physically existent. Is this what you're stating?
I did say that, I even underlined where I did.
No. Saying "God is metaphysical" makes no sense. He is no more metaphysical than I am. The closest thing to what you're saying that could make sense is when aoologists say that God is the 'metaphysical ultimate'. But even that is a description about God's ontology, it's not saying He's metaphysical.
Quote:It seems the dictionary disagrees with you.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not interested in a pissing match with you. If I'm misusing language I'm grateful for the correction.
I don't see where it disagreed with me.
You're misuse of the word metaphysical is what I'm on about. 'Metaphysical' is not synonymous with 'non-physical'.
Quote:Your mistake is your interpretation of the Christian philosophers. You fail to see the subject matter they're addressing isn't related to what we're taking about here.
You were discussing the nature of the relationship between rationality and faith, and I demonstrated that there have been differing views on that amongst Christian philosophers and theologians. So yes, I both understood them and brought up their views related to this topic.
Quote:
Quote:Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.
Those caricatures bear no resemblance.
Again, are you so arrogant (or blind) as to think there is - or ever was - a set, "the Christian view" on this. That is absurd and false, as I demonstrated via Kierkegaard (faith is necessarily irrational and requires a "leap to faith"), Kant (Christian faith requires an irrational affirmation, even if Christianity is internally consistent), Pascal (Christianity requires faith in the face of irrationality) and Wittgenstein (Christian faith's rationality must be "pased over in silence").
Quote:You as an atheist know better. Hmm. More substantive reasoning needed.
I think I've given plenty.
(March 17, 2014 at 1:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: @MFM "Is God metaphyical?" The Father, YHVH, is the fully transcendent aspect, the glorified Christ is the visible manifestation, and the Holy Spirit is the divine in operation...at least that's New Church doctrine. Not sure how that fits with your question.
Me neither. :p "God is metaphysical" just makes no sense, no more sensical than saying "I am metaphysical" does.
Thanks for the correction about my misuse of the word.
To be clear, you aren't saying that God is solely physical right?
There have been differing views on faith, sure. I fully acknowledge that. You haven't addressed my objection that they either a. don't address the route to belief , or b. are simply incorrect. The standing of the philosophers bears no relation to their correctness. Much of philosophy, I find, is simply wrong. It lacks basic common sense answers. For me, the mainstream view as presented by Ryft is true for me and most Christians that I know. So in my immediate sphere of experience it is true, and national and international speakers confirm it also. I don't find, therefore, that I'm either arrogant or blind on the subject.
March 18, 2014 at 6:28 am (This post was last modified: March 18, 2014 at 6:30 am by Mudhammam.)
(March 18, 2014 at 6:26 am)tor Wrote: fr0d0 if you are going to die when you die what do you need christianity for?
Fr0d0 just doesn't admit what he actually believes when he realizes what an idiot he must sound like to those us who have half a brain (i.e. those of us who aren't his church pals).
