If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[R-Farmer]

You're sharing no such thing, lol.  You have hasty and lazy ad hoc rationalizations which don't survive the slightest whiff of scrutiny.  I guesss it's more important to have something to say, then to say something true, in your christian morality.  

You just told us you worship the god of the dungheap.  Is that true?  Next you'll tell us it turned on the water by cranking huge spigot.

so did I miss where you provided an example of object morality, or are you still working on that one? If you haven't found an example of object morality yet, then maybe we oughta pin in this discussion was the only recourse I see is the discussion degrading to ad hom attacks. I'm not saying their isn't such an example out there. I'm just unaware of one. until you find and provide such an example, this discussion becomes pointless.

[arewethereyet]

Isn't it just grand that Ken Hamm sent one of his lackeys here to edumacate us?

[Ahriman]

As for the OP statement, why does something purposeful need to be good?

[R-Farmer]

History is not a falsifiable science. History is largely based on eye witness testimony and period documentation. As there isn't an experiment we can do to independently verify whether or not Columbus sailed in 1492. The evidence we have comes from eye witnesses and period documentation. So unless you are saying falsifiable science is now accepting eyewitness testimony as scientific proof, then history and science are two different intellectual disciplines with two different rule sets. Just like theology is an independent discipline who like history does not need to obey the rules of 'science' to be vetted/verified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

1, why are you arguing with the Father of modern Philosophy of Science? Karl popper set narrow parameters on what can be considered 'science.'

2, please Note the primary methodologies to vetting scientific theory verses historical facts.

I ask you to look up and read the first section of the wiki page concerning the scientific method. (I can't post links or quote the page because of the links imbedded on the page)

Do you notice how the Historical method and scientific method have different rules and standards of proof? Do you see how in the scientific method requires 7 different steps. Karl Popper said these 7 steps are necessary and must be observed and completed before a subject can be considered to be a scientific subject or field of study. Anything that falls outside of the rigors of the scientific method Can NOT be considered science.. One can not observe any point of history and one can not produce a reproducible experiment to prove or disprove history as again history is based on eye witness testimony or commentary of a given event. Or primary or secondary source material.

[R-Farmer]

What I'm saying is test the story with in the frame work of the story and make a conclusion from an honest effort. Otherwise you are simply setting parameters, the story was never met to meet.

If the story was never intended to meet a reasonable standard of evidence for determining if its claims are actually true in reality, in what way am I mistaken for not believing the story is actually true in reality?

Again back to my analogy of turning lead into gold.

Your 'reasonable standard' in my story was when you took an already known defeated process of turning lead into gold, using those finding to assume all other claims are equally invalid.

Meaning your reasonable standard is NOT a reasonable standard. Your reasonable standard becomes a confirmation bias when you refuse to test the formula as prescribed, and substituted your own processes/known failed experiment.

If you made an honest effort you would test the formula as prescribed.

[R-Farmer]

I should reject your claim to have a formula that turns lead into gold as false on the face of it unless you have a suspiciously large amount of gold. Then it might be worth testing just on the remote chance you're not a charlatan. I have no obligation at all to take your claim seriously just on your say-so.

On the other hand, the 'canon' method you're suggesting is a form of self-brainwashing. The trouble isn't that I don't think it will work, the trouble is that I'm concerned that it will; for reasons that have nothing to do with whether the underlying claim is actually true in real reality or not.

What I'm suggesting with the "in canon method" is Not approach a given subject with a confirmation biased dressed up as 'reasonable scrutiny.' 

If a banana bread recipe calls for 4 bananas and you substitute apples, you can't then say 'I knew this band bread recipe wouldn't taste like bananas."

[R-Farmer]

Because it having a purpose of gaining access to knowledge not previously known doesn't mean it can actually give you knowledge not previously known. If you think visions give you knowledge that you don't already know, that's testable. We know how to induce visions and we know how to make information inaccessible to someone. Have at. Until a vision can produce inaccessible knowledge under controlled conditions, the conclusion that they are hallucinations under stress is the most parsimonious. Sometimes those hallucinations can provide insight that would otherwise be locked in your subconscious; or inspire you to change your ways, and that's nice.

Not what I said. I said:

If the purpose of a successful vision quest is to gain access to knowledge not previously known, then how can you claim the vision was a product of our own brains? How can a brain produce knowledge that it does not correctly possess?

I'm not saying all vision question are successful, but I am saying ALL Vision quests That Are successful Do in fact result in information not previously known to the quester. Which is in fact the evidence you claim did not exist.

[R-Farmer]

"Testing within the parameters given" is not a form of objective testing.  It's explicitly limited by the parameter giver - and would thus be relativistic if that parameter giver were your society, or subjective if that parameter giver were a single individual.

To test something objectively is to ignore whatever ludicrous red lines god draws on his dick map.

So again, If I provided you with the world's best banana bread recipe, and you said no way! I bet it does even taste like banana! Then to test/prove me wrong, would you substitute the bananas for apples, and say to me that this banana bread (you baked with apples) doesn't even taste like B-bread?

If so how is this any different than NOT following God's prescribed path, but demanding He follow your methodology?

[R-Farmer]

No reason to lie.
My mother was the only one who went to church regularly and she generally she took us, but we (being mixed race children who did not speak the language fluently) were not allowed inside for services or Sunday school. So unless you count the parking lot and the play ground outside the church 'growing up Christian' we didn't.

I can't control if you think my comment was an accusation that you're lying.

O... K... I guess.

[R-Farmer]

..and Taking credit for something God did is a sin of biblical proportions.

As there is no God the credit is available.

ok cool..