[quote]ephrem wrote:
Verbosity does not equal proof or an answer.
You have nothing but words, and words are cheap.
What’s different from you and any other fundamentalist believer?[/quote]On the basis of finite reason to which, in and of ourselves, ALL men are bound, “proof” of anything is impossible. If “proof” is understood to mean a confluence of information by which an object of knowledge is rendered certain or not.
Finite contingent certainty is an impossibility by definition. We are finite and contingent. Therefore we are unable to arrive at certainty by ourselves. Yet, as that rather sharp young chap Groo has so very rightly declared when asked by me if he believed certainty was attainable: “At least I live as if it is. Pragmatically everyone does”. Quite so and I told him what a HALLELUJAH worthy bullseye that was.
Ephrem you and I take every single breath, think every single thought, speak every single word and do every single deed as if 2+2 equaling 4 were a PRE assumed utterly foundational and certain proposition. We live in certainty like fish live in water. Your hypothetical philosophical protestations to the contrary are insane if you actually think about it.
Where does this certainty come from? Or are you going to actually deny that you walk through life under the unconscious assumption that 2+2 does indeed equal 4 along with all the vaaaaaast implications of that simple equation? This is not theory. It is as I say. THE key to everything. You’re always a meaningful and enjoyable conversation btw. Even when you talk mean to me.
@Squating_Bear: Feel free buddy. The only reason I didn’t mention you right away is because you told me you that this topic was consuming too much of your private time. You were one of the first I thought of.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Verbosity does not equal proof or an answer.
You have nothing but words, and words are cheap.
What’s different from you and any other fundamentalist believer?[/quote]On the basis of finite reason to which, in and of ourselves, ALL men are bound, “proof” of anything is impossible. If “proof” is understood to mean a confluence of information by which an object of knowledge is rendered certain or not.
Finite contingent certainty is an impossibility by definition. We are finite and contingent. Therefore we are unable to arrive at certainty by ourselves. Yet, as that rather sharp young chap Groo has so very rightly declared when asked by me if he believed certainty was attainable: “At least I live as if it is. Pragmatically everyone does”. Quite so and I told him what a HALLELUJAH worthy bullseye that was.
Ephrem you and I take every single breath, think every single thought, speak every single word and do every single deed as if 2+2 equaling 4 were a PRE assumed utterly foundational and certain proposition. We live in certainty like fish live in water. Your hypothetical philosophical protestations to the contrary are insane if you actually think about it.
Where does this certainty come from? Or are you going to actually deny that you walk through life under the unconscious assumption that 2+2 does indeed equal 4 along with all the vaaaaaast implications of that simple equation? This is not theory. It is as I say. THE key to everything. You’re always a meaningful and enjoyable conversation btw. Even when you talk mean to me.
[/quote]
Your dichotomy is false and contrived. A number is just a number, they have no deeper meaning nor vast implications.
If you want to propose something of value, just prove that first principle.
You do know that Calvinism was the majority view at the founding of this nation right? Here’s an actually good link since we’re posting them n all. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm [/quote]
You do know that a great many of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, including 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, right?
Yes I do. If I get time later and you demand it, I will find old posts of mine where I stated that I didn’t believe there was ever a time when the majority of the citizens of this nation were truly born again members of the invisible church, the mystical body of Christ. In other words true Christians. The point is, the expression of Christianity most ascendant at that time among those who were, and what gave them their powerful influence in society is the very one I am here espousing.
It is only weird, narrow, intolerant and idiotic to modernist westerners. When religious affiliation was the subject, 44 of the 55 delegates to the first constitutional convention openly and freely identified themselves with communions whose statements of faith were EXACTLY mine in all the majors.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Your dichotomy is false and contrived. >>[/quote]Prove it.[quote]ephrem wrote:<<<A number is just a number, they have no deeper meaning nor vast implications. >>>[/quote]And this too while you’re at it. [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< If you want to propose something of value, just prove that first principle. >>>[/quote]You are not getting it Ephrem. I think you will though. This truth is dead simple, but utterly foreign as I say. In one short post Kamui convinced me that he does get it. At least formally. Where are ya Pierre? Cortes was close. Elder Forlife is due in too. He was for a spell there my greatest opponenet and most useful, though unwitting ally at the same time.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Your dichotomy is false and contrived. >>[/quote]Prove it.[quote]ephrem wrote:<<<A number is just a number, they have no deeper meaning nor vast implications. >>>[/quote]And this too while you’re at it. [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< If you want to propose something of value, just prove that first principle. >>>[/quote]You are not getting it Ephrem. I think you will though. This truth is dead simple, but utterly foreign as I say. In one short post Kamui convinced me that he does get it. At least formally. Where are ya Pierre? Cortes was close. Elder Forlife is due in too. He was for a spell there my greatest opponenet and most useful, though unwitting ally at the same time.
[/quote]
You are playing games here T. If this is how you were lured into your delusions then your mind must’ve been feeble to begin with.
You create confusion and propose there’s depth in a shallow pool. I can imagine, I really do, how it must feel to be hounded and questioned on PWI, cementing your delusions with every post.
Don’t dodge, just prove your unprovable principle.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What’s interesting to note is that Sam’s hero, John “the Butcher” Calvin, could not possibly be one of the elect ("by their fruits ye shall know them) and is likely burning in hell as we speak.
[/quote]Could be. I don’t know who the elect are. Only God does. It ain’t about Calvin anyway. He was just a vessel… [/quote]He was a vessel of Satan. He was a murderer. A mass murderer. Attach yourself to him at your own peril.[/quote]I’m attached to Jesus, but thank you for your concern.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< You are playing games here T. >>>[/quote]I would never play games with you about this Ephrem. [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< If this is how you were lured into your delusions then your mind must’ve been feeble to begin with. >>>[/quote]There you go again after all we’ve been through together. Talkin mean ta me smore. I may be feeble, but the Spirit of almighty God lives in my heart so I can be one of His special needs babies.[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< You create confusion >>>[/quote]I’m not confused. Quite the contrary.[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< I can imagine, I really do, >>>[/quote]Can… CAN!!! “You really can”!!! Sheesh, ya can’t match “do” with “can” like that in a line of thought. You have to say “I can imagine, I really CAN”. If you wanna use “do” in the second part ya gotta drop the “can” from the first. Here like this “I imagine, I really do” Hope this helps =] (ok I’m tweakin ya a little with that one) [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< cementing your delusions with every post. >>>[/quote]I will not let this kinda baseless attack stand Ephrem. My delusions were thoroughly cemented before there was a ubiquitous internet to say nothing of T-Nation. Objections now are like cottonballs off an oak tree. [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Don’t dodge, just prove your unprovable principle. >>>[/quote]Nobody’s dodging anything. You and I are as created finite children of the first man Adam wholly unequipped to discern reality on our own. Since the entrance of sin we are not only UNequipped, but now utterly ILLequipped to do so as well. You preach uncertainty yet live every second universally practicing it. Your sinful rebellious use of logic provides you absolutely NO basis for absolutely anything yet you continue to ask me questions assuming you are in any position to distill meaning from words.
You handle your money, drive a car, use technology, _______________ all in obedience to the same rules that make 2+2=4. If it doesn’t? None of those other areas of your life will work either. 2+2=4 or a new aircraft from Boeing. They both bow to the same logical master. Certainty, and mathematical certainty at that. It’s everywhere. You are pickled in it and powerless to exist otherwise. Your life would fall apart if you actually practiced what you preach. Denial at it’s finest.
Let’s bring in Pat’s infamous assertion that he went on to deny until I helped him remember himself saying it. “In order to know anything for certain you’d have to know everything.” That IS absolutely VITAL to this discussion. Agree or disagree I went through this with Elder Forlife for a couple months. He agrees.
[quote]pushharder wrote:You are by your own admission a Calvinist…a follower, parishioner if you will, of Calvin…and Calvin was a false prophet and mass murderer.[/quote]I have no pope sir. I am a follower of the risen Lord Jesus as revealed in the Word of God. Thank you.
Let’s bring in Pat’s infamous assertion that he went on to deny until I helped him remember himself saying it. “In order to know anything for certain you’d have to know everything.” That IS absolutely VITAL to this discussion. Agree or disagree I went through this with Elder Forlife for a couple months. He agrees.
[/quote]
In an earlier post I told you I don’t know if a god exists, but that doesn’t mean we can’t know anything for certain.
You know you’d fall to your death if you jump off a tall building without a parachute or safety net, don’t you?
Similarly, if you have a single item and then you’re given another single item, there are two items in your possession. You really don’t need to make this complicated, because it is not complicated. That’s why I say you try to confuse things.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote: @Squating_Bear: Feel free buddy. The only reason I didn’t mention you right away is because you told me you that this topic was consuming too much of your private time. You were one of the first I thought of.[/quote]
Thanks
It’ll take a long while, but I think I will eventually get around to reading that book you posted. I don’t really want to battle you again until after that.