Hey,
But even the extraordinar-ity of my claim is interpretative. You think my claim of knowing god is crazy, it makes no sense to you why someone would think like that... But as much so, I think it crazy that there are people out there who do not see the god that too myself is undeniable. So we can't really say who is crazy, and who is right in that case. And, as I've stated, I care very, very little for what's 'currently acceptable', because there are a lot of current ideas I find unacceptable.
This is old hat, we've already had this conversation... We just get different answers from things. You see 'multiple god claims' as clear evidence of a complete lack of god, whereas I see it as evidence of a failed referencing of a real thing.
Oh yeah, now is when I say 'I don't think the argument over the existence of god can be held to the same forensic standard of fact as other scientific things and processes, as it is nothing more than ideas and theories now. Then (this is just to save time) you accuse me of 'special pleading', another little gem of Dawkins. That my argument is refuted by the fact that I can't expound that certain standards cannot be held over certain other things, unless of course what I say is true. You can skip whether or not what I say is correct, and just argue that I cannot say that. The only thing that makes it possibly not 'pleading' is that it may be accurate, that god cannot be measured and photographed...
I apologize about going on and on... I do appreciate your input, and look forward to your response.
Thank you,
-Pip
PS I think I keep writing to you on all the threads this morning... Just start a new one called 'Leave me alone Pippy', it will save time. I don't use emoticons, but if I did, I would use one now.
But even the extraordinar-ity of my claim is interpretative. You think my claim of knowing god is crazy, it makes no sense to you why someone would think like that... But as much so, I think it crazy that there are people out there who do not see the god that too myself is undeniable. So we can't really say who is crazy, and who is right in that case. And, as I've stated, I care very, very little for what's 'currently acceptable', because there are a lot of current ideas I find unacceptable.
This is old hat, we've already had this conversation... We just get different answers from things. You see 'multiple god claims' as clear evidence of a complete lack of god, whereas I see it as evidence of a failed referencing of a real thing.
Oh yeah, now is when I say 'I don't think the argument over the existence of god can be held to the same forensic standard of fact as other scientific things and processes, as it is nothing more than ideas and theories now. Then (this is just to save time) you accuse me of 'special pleading', another little gem of Dawkins. That my argument is refuted by the fact that I can't expound that certain standards cannot be held over certain other things, unless of course what I say is true. You can skip whether or not what I say is correct, and just argue that I cannot say that. The only thing that makes it possibly not 'pleading' is that it may be accurate, that god cannot be measured and photographed...
I apologize about going on and on... I do appreciate your input, and look forward to your response.
Thank you,
-Pip
PS I think I keep writing to you on all the threads this morning... Just start a new one called 'Leave me alone Pippy', it will save time. I don't use emoticons, but if I did, I would use one now.
