[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And yourself and Ephrem have the strongest faith of all. If I could ever hold your attention long enough I could demonstrate that to you. That’s what the epistemology thread is all about. There is no such thing as autonomous objectivity. Your faith is no more “objectively” irrational than mine. Elder Forlife actually conceded that… in so many words, which is why I still have so much respect for him.[/quote]
He tickled your balls, that’s it. All you’ve done is make positive and definitive statements about the reality of life and existence, yet somehow you also concede that there’s no autonomous objectivity?
Define “autonomous objectivity”, if you would be so kind.[/quote]The ability IN OURSELVES to apprehend any particle of reality as it truly is, uninfluenced by the finite AND sinful constraints of our own consciousness. That is the fatal philosophical symptom of death in sin. Only resurrection brings freedom. Only Christ Jesus can provide resurrection.
[/quote]
Prettily written gobbledygook, and a fallacious argument to boot.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< You make one exception to your rule justifying all that you believe.
How convenient.
[/quote]And you have no justification at all. Even for the above post.
How inconvenient.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< Prettily written gobbledygook, and a fallacious argument to boot. [/quote]EVERY argument is fallacious without an anchor in certainty. I have that anchor. What’s yours. Whatever it is it MUST be taken by faith unless you can demonstrate your “autonomous objectivity” to me. I won’t be holding my breath.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< You make one exception to your rule justifying all that you believe.
How convenient.
[/quote]And you have no justification at all. Even for the above post.
How inconvenient.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< Prettily written gobbledygook, and a fallacious argument to boot. [/quote]EVERY argument is fallacious without an anchor in certainty. I have that anchor. What’s yours. Whatever it is it MUST be taken by faith unless you can demonstrate your “autonomous objectivity” to me. I won’t be holding my breath.
[/quote]
I don’t need justification for my beliefs or opinions in the way you need to justify yours. I base my opinions on what I think is logical, rational or sensible but when those opinions are challenged and prove themselves [in light of my standards] wrong I’ll adapt them.
I can do that because I’ve not built myself up around a belief system for self-esteem and/or sanity. Believe it or not, I actually process and ponder these discussions offline and test my position against those of my discussion partner[s].
You have circular logic as the basis for your beliefs and you must remain firm and unwavering in those beliefs at all cost.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< You make one exception to your rule justifying all that you believe.
How convenient.
[/quote]And you have no justification at all. Even for the above post.
How inconvenient.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< Prettily written gobbledygook, and a fallacious argument to boot. [/quote]EVERY argument is fallacious without an anchor in certainty. I have that anchor. What’s yours. Whatever it is it MUST be taken by faith unless you can demonstrate your “autonomous objectivity” to me. I won’t be holding my breath.
[/quote]
You have your/a belief, anchored in your/a faith. So that makes your standpoint any better or more correct than another ,how? Look at the very words you use. Certainty? In your own mind,rooted in an idea you cannot prove. Or can you? I won’t hold my breath either.
We really have nothing in common to discuss, because our goals in a discussion are so far apart as to be almost mutually exclusive.
You have zero interest in anything that doesn’t involve hammering your particular world view into another’s skull, the iron fist of intolerance and your perceived unequivocal rectitude couched in the velvet glove of caring for the immortal souls of those on the other side of the screens.
You WANT to be right and correct, no more , no less.
You want to believe? Good for you and all that, anything that helps us be better human beings is a-ok in my book. But you err in thinking you can prove your stance, regardless how many biblical quotes you put up of how much you claim your certainty to be real and exist.
Wanting it to be so will never make it true for anyone other than you. Which should be good enough, but apparently not.
What it tells me is that, in-spite of pat’s insistence that his concept of independent metaphysical existence is objectively true, we’re still talking about subjectivity.[/quote]
It’s true for pat, because pat is a man of faith. Seriously, it’s just about impossible to argue with a man of such strong faith, because, well, they have faith. I’m not saying to this to denigrate, but when someone has faith, they have no need of “proof”. They have faith in their beliefs, because they choose to have faith in their beliefs. Just hard to argue with that.[/quote]
This is amazing. This has nothing to do with arguing against Pat’s arguments.
Our purpose in the greater purpose (infinite intellect) is to seek the greater purpose.[/quote]
It’s actually a tautology. Like most metaphysical proposition, in last analysis.
[quote]
Therefore, there is a piece (humans) of the greater purpose that seeks to understand the Infinite Intellect outside and within ourselves and the relationship and unity of them, yet such is impossible because of our finite intellect.[/quote]
“man is nature becoming aware of itself”, as Elisee Reclus once said.
[quote]
It seems like an exercise in futility, yet such is the nature of our being and we do it anyway…
Are you suggesting it’s a state of being that we can only submit to?
I’m confused and I’m not sure why I feel confused right now to be totally honest lol.
edit: I think circular reasoning is the wrong term. [/quote]
submitting ourselves is the only hhing we can do with/about a “state of being”. any state of being, for that matter.
And it should be done with joy.
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< submitting ourselves is the only hhing we can do with/about a “state of being”. any state of being, for that matter.
And it should be done with joy. [/quote]What does that look like in your everyday life?
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< submitting ourselves is the only hhing we can do with/about a “state of being”. any state of being, for that matter.
And it should be done with joy. [/quote]What does that look like in your everyday life?
[/quote]
I just saw i left this question unanswered.
It’s quite hard to explain.
Lets say that the acceptance of the events or situations that occur in one’s life, or in one’s world free us of our natural but misplaced will of changing them when they can not (or no more) be changed. What’s left is some kind of tranquil joy.
Probably the same kind of joy that make you sleep like a baby last night.
But the important word here is not “joy”, it’s “it should be done”. It’s not only an ethical necessity, it’s a moral imperative.
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< With respect to panENtheism only. Not with respect to pantheism.
it’s the extra “EN” that is theoretically possible, but that can not be asserted from our finite perspective. >>>[/quote]I’ve been saying that all along. Which is why I do not assert it from our finite perspective, but from the perspective of the mind of Christ the creator which I have been given by faith(1 Corinthians 2:16 ). I understand the things from God because His Spirit lives in me(1 Corinthians 2:12) and I have been made a partaker of His diviner nature(2 Peter 1:4). Really and for true =] I encourage you to check those verses.[/quote]
I do not think that your faith give you the perspective of an infinite intellect. It only give you some faith that you have such a perspective. Which, at least in my mind, is not the same thing.
But, since it’s a subjective claim i have no way to disprove it.
Exactly.
[quote]quote]It does indeed, however, He recreates me by the power of His Son’s resurrection whereby my intellect is literally 'plugged into" His by His grace. THAT is the central driving point of the gospel itself. Once dead and deluded autonomous criminals, already executed once, raised unto new life and freed from their captivity to sin and death… in other word freed form their own deadly autonomy.(from an intellectual/philosophical standpoint)
[/quote]
If and only if their faith is correct. If His resurection is real. If their resurrection is real.
If it is not, then they are still chained by their own autonomy, without them knowing it. And their intellect is still plugged into itself, without them realizing it.
What it tells me is that, in-spite of pat’s insistence that his concept of independent metaphysical existence is objectively true, we’re still talking about subjectivity.[/quote]
It’s true for pat, because pat is a man of faith. Seriously, it’s just about impossible to argue with a man of such strong faith, because, well, they have faith. I’m not saying to this to denigrate, but when someone has faith, they have no need of “proof”. They have faith in their beliefs, because they choose to have faith in their beliefs. Just hard to argue with that.
[/quote]
And yet you cannot come even remotely close to proving me wrong. You cannot disprove the proofs of God’s existence and that’s just logic, it has little to do with faith. … Atheism is faith too homeslice, you only hope your right. You damn sure cannot prove it.
You never have and you never will. Hell, you haven’t even been close.
Okay, you can call me names now and tell me how fucking stupid I am, 'cause that really proves something.
What it tells me is that, in-spite of pat’s insistence that his concept of independent metaphysical existence is objectively true, we’re still talking about subjectivity.[/quote]
It’s true for pat, because pat is a man of faith. Seriously, it’s just about impossible to argue with a man of such strong faith, because, well, they have faith. I’m not saying to this to denigrate, but when someone has faith, they have no need of “proof”. They have faith in their beliefs, because they choose to have faith in their beliefs. Just hard to argue with that.[/quote]
This is amazing. This has nothing to do with arguing against Pat’s arguments. [/quote]
Correct observation, BC. Keeping in mind, they are technically not mine I wish I could take the credit.