Atheism vs Theism confusion

[bhsmte]

Still no specifics about what I'm wrong about?

LOL

I guess you have not paid attention to countless posts, that have identified you're flawed logic.

 

[Chriliman]

LOL

I guess you have not paid attention to countless posts, that have identified you're flawed logic.

I identified them at the time and explained myself then. What else do you expect of me?

Feel free to bring up any specific instance you have in mind.

 

[bhsmte]

I identified them at the time and explained myself then. What else do you expect of me?

Feel free to bring up any specific instance you have in mind.

This has been done countless times.

 

[ScottA]

Sure, in order for us to communicate, we should define words with consistency, but in a scope of an established framework for knowledge you can't begin redefining things as how you see fit in order to convince people via re-defentions of your terms.

Evidence can't rest in the claim itself... do you agree or disagree?

No, first, it must be recognized that there is not just one established framework, but two.

For instance: If you define "proof of life" as having a heartbeat in this world...then we need to discuss the most basic of terms. That proof is misleading, and is a good example of the many misconceptions that would occur on that limited level. In the greater reality of the spiritual world, a heartbeat is a ticking time bomb, tokens in parking meter. So...we are not offering more tokens, but a renewing of your mind regarding how you view life, what you are willing to believe. And the token evidence you seem to need acquires nothing - because, just as life is not life (as you see it) but death, empirical evidence...has no real substance as you may think.

Likewise, what we do have to offer, is not transferable - light has no communication with darkness. So, if we say, you cannot receive the proof unless you believe...it is because you cannot remain in the darkness of this world and see the light of the world we have given witness to - you, like darkness exposed to light, would be destroyed. Those are the terms, and the framework.

 

[devolved]

No, first, it must be recognized that there is not just one established framework, but two.

Why would you limit the "established frameworks" to 2? Why not a 100, or a 1000? What criteria do you use when it comes to a wide variety of claim-based frameworks to narrow it down to a single one?

If you define "proof of life" as having a heartbeat in this world...then we need to discuss the most basic of terms.

I'm not quite sure what the point of your analogy is, but that's why we do have methodological framework in order to both insure the accuracy of communication when it comes to conveying certain meaning, and to derive some reliable models of the reality that we occupy.

When you define something in a way that we don't define it, and then say "hey, that's not really useful or incomplete", of course it's not in a way that you define it here. The usefulness judgement doesn't follow from some metaphysical guess or claim, but it follows from utility of any given claim.

because, just as life is not life (as you see it) but death, empirical evidence...has no real substance as you may think.

Can you unpack the meaning of the above? I'm not quite sure why you think I see life as death? And what do you mean by empirical evidence having no real substance?

Likewise, what we do have to offer, is not transferable - light has no communication with darkness. So, if we say, you cannot receive the proof unless you believe...it is because you cannot remain in the darkness of this world and see the light of the world we have given witness to - you, like darkness exposed to light, would be destroyed.

Scott, again, It's difficult for me to take you seriously when you are using language like that, and making contextually false metaphors and all of the "linguistic theatrics and drama" makes you seem like a verbal equivalent of Chris Angel performing stage magic act.

Can you descend from whatever transcendent reality that you are in, and speak to us mortals in a language that we speak, and attempt to avoid vague metaphors, or explain them with our mortal human language?

Forgive the sarcasm. It's extremely difficult to understand the meaning of the words you are typing.

 

[devolved]

Likewise, what we do have to offer, is not transferable - light has no communication with darkness. So, if we say, you cannot receive the proof unless you believe...it is because you cannot remain in the darkness of this world and see the light of the world we have given witness to - you, like darkness exposed to light, would be destroyed. Those are the terms, and the framework.

The terms sound very similar to the parable below:

 

[ScottA]

Why would you limit the "established frameworks" to 2? Why not a 100, or a 1000? What criteria do you use when it comes to a wide variety of claim-based frameworks to narrow it down to a single one?

Of all the would-be possibilities, they all would fall into only two categories, whether they are of God or men.

I'm not quite sure what the point of your analogy is, but that's why we do have methodological framework in order to both insure the accuracy of communication when it comes to conveying certain meaning, and to derive some reliable models of the reality that we occupy.

When you define something in a way that we don't define it, and then say "hey, that's not really useful or incomplete", of course it's not in a way that you define it here. The usefulness judgement doesn't follow from some metaphysical guess or claim, but it follows from utility of any given claim.

Can you unpack the meaning of the above? I'm not quite sure why you think I see life as death? And what do you mean by empirical evidence having no real substance?

Perhaps I should have started by asking you what your definition of life is with regard to people. So, if you would like to go back and start there, we can. But assuming that you would have answered that anyone with a heartbeat is alive...I then would have to repeat my comment and say, that is not correct within the context of our discussion. That definition works in the world only - but our discussion is also to include the theistic point of view. What would be the point of only including half the information? And don't think that because you have put a fix on your information, that it is fixed...in which case I will ask you over and over again, "And what happened before that?" until you confess you don't know. So we can either discuss this respectfully without evidence (because yours ends with "I don't know."), or we can just disagree. But I know you got nothing, and you think I got nothing. So you decide...I have nothing to loose.

Scott, again, It's difficult for me to take you seriously when you are using language like that, and making contextually false metaphors and all of the "linguistic theatrics and drama" makes you seem like a verbal equivalent of Chris Angel performing stage magic act.

Can you descend from whatever transcendent reality that you are in, and speak to us mortals in a language that we speak, and attempt to avoid vague metaphors, or explain them with our mortal human language?

Forgive the sarcasm. It's extremely difficult to understand the meaning of the words you are typing.

If we are going to get anywhere with you learning about another world - you are going to have to make an attempt at learning the language. Meanwhile, all comes in parables - for you - not for me. That is what parents do for their children...and God is a good parent.

So...are you here to learn?

 

[HitchSlap]

Of all the would-be possibilities, they all would fall into only two categories, whether they are of God or men.
Perhaps I should have started by asking you what your definition of life is with regard to people. So, if you would like to go back and start there, we can. But assuming that you would have answered that anyone with a heartbeat is alive...I then would have to repeat my comment and say, that is not correct within the context of our discussion. That definition works in the world only - but our discussion is also to include the theistic point of view. What would be the point of only including half the information? And don't think that because you have put a fix on your information, that it is fixed...in which case I will ask you over and over again, "And what happened before that?" until you confess you don't know. So we can either discuss this respectfully without evidence (because yours ends with "I don't know."), or we can just disagree. But I know you got nothing, and you think I got nothing. So you decide...I have nothing to loose.
If we are going to get anywhere with you learning about another world - you are going to have to make an attempt at learning the language. Meanwhile, all comes in parables - for you - not for me. That is what parents do for their children...and God is a good parent.

So...are you hear to learn?

Lol.

Goof.

 

[devolved]

Of all the would-be possibilities, they all would fall into only two categories, whether they are of God or men.

Ok, you clearly don't understand the question, so I'll leave this one alone, because I don't see any progress on this one.

Perhaps I should have started by asking you what your definition of life is with regard to people. So, if you would like to go back and start there, we can. But assuming that you would have answered that anyone with a heartbeat is alive...I then would have to repeat my comment and say, that is not correct within the context of our discussion.

That wouldn't have been my answer. Hence you are discussing to your own presuppositions in that instance.

That definition works in the world only - but our discussion is also to include the theistic point of view. What would be the point of only including half the information.

Why should it only include a theistic worldview? Why not include solipsism, and Eastern concepts of reality? Again, how do I personally draw the distinction between your claim and the reality that I personally observe?

If your claim is just that... a claim that I either believe or don't... then I don't believe it, because you are not giving me a good reason to believe it other than saying that I should believe it because it's true.

And don't think that because you have put a fix on your information, that it is fixed...in which case I will ask you over and over again, "And what happened before that?" until you confess you don't know....But I know you got nothing, and you think I got nothing. So you decide...I have nothing to loose.

Scott, not only you are talking through your own presuppositions, but "your something" is merely a shift of the same question that follows through with a special pleading or special "answer".

What happened before God? I don't merely think you have nothing. I have some degree of certainty that you have nothing. Just like I have a pretty high degree of certainty that a guy who claims to be a Saudi Prince and tells me that he will give me 10 million dollars if I first pay some transfer fees and give him my bank account info.... has nothing.

If you really did have something indisputable, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If we are going to get anywhere with you learning about another world - you are going to have to make an attempt at learning the language. Meanwhile, all comes in parables - for you - not for me. That is what parents do for their children...and God is a good parent.

So...are you hear to learn?

Scott, if God is a good parent, he wouldn't be sending a person like you to teach me the nature of this reality via incoherent metaphors . He'd be doing exactly the same thing with me that you claim it did with you, and show me firsthand. I can guarantee you that I'd do a much better job communicating concepts than you are doing right now.

 

[ScottA]

That wouldn't have been my answer. Hence you are discussing to your own presuppositions in that instance.

So, answer the question: What is your definition of life regarding people.

Why should it only include a theistic worldview? Why not include solipsism, and Eastern concepts of reality? Again, how do I personally draw the distinction between your claim and the reality that I personally observe?

If your claim is just that... a claim that I either believe or don't... then I don't believe it, because you are not giving me a good reason to believe it other than saying that I should believe it because it's true.

I am just a messenger and a small piece of what God has done to speak to you. But the jungle only obscures the truth, it doesn't take it away.

Scott, not only you are talking through your own presuppositions, but "your something" is merely a shift of the same question that follows through with a special pleading or special "answer".

What happened before God? I don't merely think you have nothing. I have some degree of certainty that you have nothing. Just like I have a pretty high degree of certainty that a guy who claims to be a Saudi Prince and tells me that he will give me 10 million dollars if I first pay some transfer fees and give him my bank account info.... has nothing.

If you really did have something indisputable, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"Some degree of certainty"...that's rich.

Scott, if God is a good parent, he wouldn't be sending a person like you to teach me the nature of this reality via incoherent metaphors . He'd be doing exactly the same thing with me that you claim it did with you, and show me firsthand. I can guarantee you that I'd do a much better job communicating concepts than you are doing right now.

Mary had a little Lamb...and now you have offended Him.

 

[devolved]

Mary had a little Lamb...and now you have offended Him.

Then he should talk with me and let me know what I can do to make it right. I don't really have a who lot of confidence in you at this point of time. . Sorry, and good luck.

 

[Davian]

...
Can you descend from whatever transcendent reality that you are in, and speak to us mortals in a language that we speak, and attempt to avoid vague metaphors, or explain them with our mortal human language?

lol.

From what I gather from my past exchanges with him, no.