Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[The Grand Nudger]

My comments to you, on these boards, could very well be the praiseworthy parts..the treasured part.....the good part.....the beautiful part, the "light" part. What am I suggesting, if I'm not suggesting that you are doing a disservice to faith by the manner in which you discuss it? If you want to discuss arguments, make an argument. If you want to discuss a rationally tenable faith, use some reason ffs.

[Mystic]

You want a deeper study of the issue, you can read http://www.al-islam.org/lwm . Have a go at it. You might like what you find.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't want a deeper study of the issue, I'd like my friend Mystic to stop being a loony.  It's not your belief that I consider lunacy (that I understand), it's the manner in which you "argue" for it.

[popsthebuilder]

If you stub your toe, regardless of whether or not you decide to believe that you stubbed your toe.....you could just show us a stubbed toe.  God vanishes the moment someone assesses god claims critically.  No stubbed gods to show for all your trouble, huh? Special exemptions for special gods. Do you understand why this response fails to be rationally tenable? You're asking us to suspend the rules in this case, you're asking us to ignore the dissimilarity in your own chosen analogy.

Not asking you to suspend anything. If I stubbed my toe five years ago and showed it to you today would it be evident that I hurt it unless it was severely damaged?

What do you have to suspend in order to believe in a creative force? Is the big bang a creative force? Is the sun? What about carbon? I state that God doesn't refute science and science doesn't refute GOD. You say that God isn't needed to explain existence. I remind you that our observations and the theories based on them are neither complete or factual, just hypotheses.

Indeed God is the unifying point of all existence and all encompassing, something no scientific theory can say.

Why do atheist always act like science refutes the existence of a single causal force responsible, in one way or another, for all other existence, laws, and energy?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[popsthebuilder]

How would you..........this is -precisely- the trouble. If you maintain that these things are difficult or impossible to express properly from the status of a lowly human worm, then how is it you feel so confident in your own worm's knowledge? If an atheist says to you..."you've clearly fucked the god thing up, what you describe is inaccurate/nonsense/incomplete/incomprehensible".......are they wrong? It's hard to see why you would think so...what with thinking god is so damned ineffable......

I was talking about the spiritual, Not GOD specifically.

How does little ole me KNOW there is a God?

After about 20 years of atheism and many years of self harm and harm to others, with hope and meekness of heart, by God's grace it was made undeniably obvious to me.

It has since been repeatedly verified to many varied degrees.

I am not, nor was I ever, your average Joe Christian.

Your generally atheist would excuse it with a delusion or psychotic episode or sometimes they say seizure. I wouldn't expect anything less from them generally.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[popsthebuilder]

Generally? In my experience, the "militant" ones have a very strong agenda to end all organized religious practice.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Is that your experience in fantasyland, that you're referring to?

That's funny, unfortunately not though. They are a minority among "hard atheists"

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not asking you to suspend anything. If I stubbed my toe five years ago and showed it to you today would it be evident that I hurt it unless it was severely damaged?

Did god reveal himself to you five years ago, and since that time any trace of the event has vanished, ala a stubbed toe? 

What do you have to suspend in order to believe in a creative force? Is the big bang a creative force? Is the sun? What about carbon? I state that God doesn't refute science and science doesn't refute GOD. You say that that God isn't needed to explain existence. I remind you that our observations and the theories based on them are neither complete or factual, just hypotheses.

I defer to theories, not hypotheses..the difference is lost on you, clearly.  But fuck it..if what I have are "just hypothesis"..what you have is the shit you've flung at a wall, nothing changes.

Indeed God is the unifying point of all existence and all encompassing, something no scientific theory can say.

Because "science" cares about supporting it's statements..you do not.  If you don't have an intellectually rigorous fiber in your entire body there's no limit to the things you can say.

Why do atheist always act like science refutes the existence of a single causal force responsible, in one way or another, for all other existence, laws, and energy?

Why do you act as if you have a clue as to how atheists "always act"?

How does little ole me KNOW their is a God?

A wonderful question.  I predict failure.

After about 20 years of atheism and many years of self harm and harm to others, with hope and meekness of heart, by God's grace it was made undeniably obvious to me.

It was made undeniably obvious to you in a manner that you are completely incapable of articulating?  I doubt that.

It has since been repeatedly verified to many varied degrees.

Your standards of verification are, in all likelihood, laughably low.  

I am not, nor was I ever, your average Joe Christian.

Yeah, you are.....but I can see that it;s important to you to believe otherwise...so have at it.  

Your generally atheist would excuse it with a delusion or psychotic episode or sometimes they say seizure. I wouldn't expect anything less from them generally.

Oh, would they?  See... I'd just call you a liar for christ.

[popsthebuilder]

Rythm,


Never said I couldn't articulate it. Actually have things that I wrote that same day after it happened that match up with scripture in general meaning even though I never read a bible prior to being saved, or for about 4 years afterwards.

As stated; the verification is generally only to the individual and as such may very well be laughable to you.

Most relievers in GOD, especially Christians do not approve of my views. Don't assume things about me please. It makes you seem foolish.


A true follower under God by way of Crist doesn't lie, about it as that us the only unforgivable sin(blasphemy against the holy spirit).

That post was strange to look at on tapatalk. Thought I missed someone else's posts initially.

Peace.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rythm,


Never said I couldn't articulate it. Actually have things that I wrote that same day after it happened that match up with scripture in general meaning even though I never read a bible prior to being saved, or for about 4 years afterwards.

I see, so your limited human comprehension can articulate the reality of an experience with god (and it even matches scripture, bonus!)?  

Make up your mind about the limits of humanity before you get back to me.  When people disagree with your god concept you seem to think that we're fundamentally limited.  Well guess what cupcake, if that's true, it would also apply to you and your experience.  

As stated; the verification is generally only to the individual and as such may very well be laughable to you.

Yes, a special kind of verification....... that isn't verifiable........ is, indeed, laughable to me.

Most relievers in GOD, especially Christians do not approve of my views. Don't assume things about me please. It makes you seem foolish.

You're totally right, you're a unique snowflake...we've never heard your wishy washy shit before.  You, and your fellow christers may not see each other as peers...but I'm an outsider, and your little disagreements seem irrelevant to me.  Distinguish yourself.....and protip...calling me a fool for perceiving you as a common believer for having acted like a common believer won't accomplish that.  I've seen it and heard it before.  Personally, I'd just suggest that you make peace with what you are, rather than fantasize about being a religious revolutionary.

A true follower under God by way of Crist doesn't lie, about it as that us the only unforgivable sin(blasphemy against the holy spirit).

Guess that means you aren't a true follower, huh?

You've claimed receipt of a package that was never sent.

[LadyForCamus]

Okay...first of all, I find it insulting that you made a false assumption regarding my world view a few posts above ( assuming that my atheism is about not wanting to believe in God), I corrected you, and you just continued on with that false assumption. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't intentionally straw manning me, and try it again. My atheism has nothing to do with stubbornness, willfulness, or "not wanting to budge," as you put it. I simply don't see any evidence for a creator God. If you can't accept my world view for what it is, then we can't move forward with a discussion.

So let's modify the argument so it's more clear.

Assume where it the case an eternal creator was possible (metaphysically possible).

If that assumed eternal creator can create goodness out of nothing, it can decide it's good to torture a being for ever with intense torture for no crime on it's own in some possible world.
It's impossible that assumed eternal creator can make goodness such that it's good to torture a being forever with intense torture for no crime on it's own in any possible world

You can't begin a debate about whether or not God exists with: "assume God can..." You aren't really debating his existence if your whole premise relies on him existing. You use the word "good" in a strange way. So God creates "good," but then tortures people and also calls that "good?" I am not following your logic.

Therefore it's necessarily the case that goodness cannot be created out nothing by any assumed creator in any possible world.

I honestly have no idea what any of that means, or how you would justify it as necessary.

Goodness exists and it's part of our reality/selves.

Science easily explains why humans are good to each other. Google is a wonderful tool.

If assumed creator cannot create goodness out of nothing, then neither can evolution, as it can create evolution.
Goodness therefore is eternal (not created)
Goodness only is possible if perceived.
Therefore an eternal perception of goodness existed.

Honestly, none of that even makes sense. Why you think humans being good to each other is some kind of mystical phenomenon is beyond me.

I don't understand your argument, or how you think it is based in logic and rationality. Not trying to be an ass, just saying...