In the beginning...

[A_Nony_Mouse]

How is he limiting his knowledge? Any presupposition which never progresses beyond presupposition is not knowledge. If I am to be as generous as I can be, Christianity can never be more than an educated guess, and it almost never even approaches that. That isn't knowledge. The last 400 years of science has demonstrated loudly that even if every single word of the Bible is absolutely valid, the Christian religion does not even begin anything but the most insignificant sliver of the truth of the universe and what is in it. The Bible isn't even aware of a universe beyond a tiny backwater of the planet it's set on. With many major sects of Christianity at war with science to some varying degree, it is hard to say that the religion encourages understanding beyond what it purports to provide. Therefore, the diagram above is a very accurate depiction.

Thank you for providing the perfect example, Ryan.

Ryan here is limiting his knowledge through his own presuppositions, which can through little or no effort be brought to light. When Ryan says, "The last 400 years of science has demonstrated loudly that even if every single word of the Bible is absolutely valid...", he is actually making a claim against God rather than physics. He cannot see this because, like the article states, his mind is conditioned to this. God, being able to spawn matter at will, probably can do miracles, which would take even less of a feat than that. This limitation has made Ryan think that the entirety of Christianity is the Jewish version of redneck superstition. There is little to be done with Ryan until he himself realizes the shell he's created.

All this time you have been saying your god spawned physics making physics a subset of your god. The only possible consequence of that is "making something out of nothing" has no meaning in that there is only an issue with making something out of nothing is only after the arbitrary rules your god decided on for this universe. It is not rational to assume making something out of nothing is an issue external to the rules of this universe.

Other examples of Ryan's shell includes, " The Bible isn't even aware of a universe beyond a tiny backwater of the planet it's set on." This statement allows us to know that Ryan holds the presupposition that any book trying to teach that doesn't care about the physical is worthless. However, I also believe he allows for the contradiction of other books, mostly due to a greater presupposition that "the bible is wrong and bad".

Why am I not impressed with your presupposition that it is designed to teach? You do not like his assumption and you respond by inventing your own assumption. That is not a rational response.

Finally, Ryan's last presupposition is here: "With many major sects of Christianity at war with science to some varying degree, it is hard to say that the religion encourages understanding beyond what it purports to provide." Apparently, there is a war between religion and science, and he has taken a side. This, too, limits his knowledge. More rational people would consider this the same as arguing that large scale physics (black holes, etc.) is better than small scale physics (quarks, etc.). However, because of his own presupposition, Ryan cannot even process this information. He probably will think that this is completely ridiculous, but these are the walls he set up and the walls he must take down.

Join us next time on PSYCHOANALYZING RYANTOLOGY!

He has taken the side which has increased the well-being of the human race in the last couple centuries thousands of times more than all the god belief in all history. One the science side one can pick even the simplest single examples such as antibiotics and challenge the believer to name anything comparable from the realm of religion. Religion never has anything to contribute. Even the very concept of a god and religion has gotten in the way of learning how the universe works as it does not work in the manner believers claim.

---

Those are a lot of words which are not quite coherent but you have one common point that is clearly in error. ALL knowledge must be founded on the observation of physical evidence.

One can only validate a presupposition by using physical evidence. If it cannot be validated then it is of no interest. It may or may not be correct but you cannot know.

Another point is your consistent use of one word, Christianity. Which Christianity? 7th Day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Unitarian or some other? I have picked ones which preclude some pious gibberish claiming they are all the same. I mean, does Christianity have a trinity or not?

First Paragraph: There is ontological thought, which needs no physical evidence. However, largely, the physical is a part of most knowledge.

Let me call bullshit on that one. Please produce an example of this "ontological thought" which is completely and totally independent of physical evidence. That does mean a thought which has no reference whatsoever to any sensory input whatsoever meaning no knowledge of this universe in any form. Rotsa Ruck! Any reference to anything in this universe is a reference to physical evidence by definition.

Second: One can only validate a presupposition by using logic. If you needed physical evidence to validate a presupposition, you would need physical evidence to validate that physical evidence is needed to validate a presupposition.

Premises are the basis of logic. If A and B then C. A and B are your assumptions (presupposition is such a pompous word for assumption) can only be from observations which is essentially the same as physical evidence. Physical evidence is all there is. It is only observation. A mind without any sensory input means a mind without input and as such has nothing to think about.

Third: I'm not concerned with denominations. I'm concerned with truth. If I say "Roman Catholicism", I also deny the authority of the pontiff, purgatory, and prayer to saints (including Mary). If I say "Swedenborgian", I also deny modalism. If I say "Tex-ism", I believe all I believe to be true, but I have areas which I don't have knowledge, areas that have not been properly examined, and areas that I may be flat wrong in.

Your lack of concern with denominations is no different from no concern for religion yet you keep using the term Christianity. Please explain what you are trying to convey as Christianity conveys no information other than a number of cults that have some degree of connection to the Yahweh cult of Judea that appeared after the 1st c. AD and down to the present day. This of course includes gnosticism and deism and the dozens if not hundreds of others that have mostly disappeared.

In Deism for example the bible teaches, OT and NT, nothing as it is solely the invention of men yet you have claimed more than that for it. So absent an explanation you might as well write spoonerity in place of Christianity without definition of the latter the former is the as. ALL undefined terms are equally nonsense.