[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< What are you going on as evidence he exists, exactly? >>>[/quote]What are you going on again as evidence that there can possibly be evidence for anything at all exactly? What ultimately? How do you know ANYTHING? At all? Exactly? Before you spout off, do yourself a favor and actually think. Nothing else you say has any substance until this question is settled. You cannot possibly know WHAT you know until you KNOW HOW you know anything at all. Unless you’re a baptized unshakable member of the first church of universal uncertainty like Elder Forlife.
[/quote]
Yo dawg, I heard you like knowing things, so I put some knowledge in your knowledge so you can know what you know!
Seriously though, does this question not also apply to you? How do you “know things”?[/quote]
Actually, tirib has a point, if not a mucked up wordy way of putting it. Most everything you consider ‘knowledge’ is mere belief and faith. Understanding the very basic core fundamentals of logic and reason dictate that you cannot prove anything ‘physical’ exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. At best you can only infer it. Hence the only things you can actually ‘know’ are truths that are established by deductive reasoning.
Descarte, Locke and Berkeley really expounded on why this is necessarily true and came up ‘subjective idealism’ where all physical reality cannot be trusted because epistemologically speaking, it’s impossible to know. [/quote]
Descarte, Locke, and Berkeley were obviously deceitful sinners looking to rationalize their evil ways, don’t ya know? ;)[/quote]
Yeah I know, real Christianity started only 500 years ago.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
The thing is, I know what he’s getting at. I have an answer but he’s just going to reject it, so I figure I might as well just let him tell me where my cognition comes from and we can take it from there =/[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Your attempt to disparage my position as a cheap tactic for excusing my sexual orientation falls flat, >>>[/quote]Nope, wasn’t doing that. Sorry if it read that way. [quote]forlife wrote:<<<< unless of course you’re contending that every philosopher throughout history that has held the same epistemological position was dishonest, disingenuous, and similarly trying to rationalize his sins. I actually wouldn’t be surprised to hear that you believe this too. >>>[/quote] Then I’m happy to leave you unsurprised. Once again, for 10,000th time. Everybody claims belief in… whatever, to avoid confronting what I believe. That being the universally self evident truth of the "invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature, (Romans 1 again) of the God to whom they are morally responsible. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< Does that sound like the position of someone dishonestly trying to cover up his sins? >>>[/quote] Yep. [quote]forlife wrote: (I hope)you will at least acknowledge my sincerity.[/quote]Why do you care if I do this or not? Acknowledging your sincerity here, on your terms, would be to declare my God a liar which I would prefer being slowly boiled alive to doing.
[/quote]
Your first sentence seems to contradict everything else you wrote. Can you clarify?
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Your attempt to disparage my position as a cheap tactic for excusing my sexual orientation falls flat, >>>[/quote]Nope, wasn’t doing that. Sorry if it read that way.
[/quote]
Wha???
That’s exactly what you did. You said this:
“It is a self induced, self inflicted, self sustained immoral deception of which homosexuality is but one sinful manifestation. To protect yourself from moral responsibility to your very own creator who is revealed in every single fact of existence and ESPECIALLY in His image staring back at you in your own mirror, you simply deny that ANYTHING is certain.”
And you wonder why you are so supposedly “misunderstood”? You say crap like this, then you deny you meant what it says. When called on it, you explode in to fiery rants about worshiping Satan crap like that. If you don’t mean something, don’t say it. That’s the best way to not be ‘misunderstood’.
[quote]Elder forlife wrote:<<< Your attempt to disparage my position as a cheap tactic for excusing my sexual orientation falls flat, >>>[/quote]Nope, wasn’t doing that. Sorry if it read that way. Homosexuality has nothing to do with what I was saying which was my apparently poorly stated point. I was making clear, or trying to, that by “morality” I was not zeroing in on you as an individual. The faithful upright middle class husband and father does the same thing.[quote]Elder forlife wrote:<<< unless of course you’re contending that every philosopher throughout history that has held the same epistemological position was dishonest, disingenuous, and similarly trying to rationalize his sins. >>>[/quote]Yep, was saying exactly that for the ten thousandth time. I’m not picking on you. [quote]Elder forlife wrote:<<<Calvin may be right, after all. So could Joseph Smith, the Pope, or any other fundamentalist religious leader claiming that homosexual behavior is sinful. If even one of them is right, I’m screwed. <<<>>> Does that sound like the position of someone dishonestly trying to cover up his sins? >>>[/quote]Yep, sure does. Anytime words like “could” or “if” come out of somebody’s mouth they are at that moment hiding from the God who most certainly is and who is the merciful savior of some and righteous judge of others. [quote]Elder forlife wrote:<<< I hope that despite disagreeing with my perspective, you will at least acknowledge my sincerity.[/quote]Why do you hope this? You do though don’t you and not just me. You seek the approval of religious people all the time. I acknowledge what the Word of almighty God declares about men in general, you included. Myself included too. He says you suppress the truth in unrighteousness to escape responsibility to Him. What particular sins participate in is irrelevant to that point. The apostle James says that breaking even one point of the law makes one guilty of violating the whole law. I agree.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< The thing is, I know what he’s getting at. I have an answer but he’s just going to reject it, so I figure I might as well just let him tell me where my cognition comes from and we can take it from there =/[/quote]Please? I insist. Let’s start here. (I think I recognize that tree over there folks) Why do you believe 2+2=4?
[/quote]
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< The thing is, I know what he’s getting at. I have an answer but he’s just going to reject it, so I figure I might as well just let him tell me where my cognition comes from and we can take it from there =/[/quote]Please? I insist. Let’s start here. (I think I recognize that tree over there folks) Why do you believe 2+2=4?
[/quote]
Oooooh I know, I know!
[quote]Elder forlife wrote:<<< Your attempt to disparage my position as a cheap tactic for excusing my sexual orientation falls flat, >>>[/quote]Nope, wasn’t doing that. Sorry if it read that way. Homosexuality has nothing to do with what I was saying which was my apparently poorly stated point. I was making clear, or trying to, that by “morality” I was not zeroing in on you as an individual. The faithful upright middle class husband and father does the same thing.[quote]Elder forlife wrote:<<< unless of course you’re contending that every philosopher throughout history that has held the same epistemological position was dishonest, disingenuous, and similarly trying to rationalize his sins. >>>[/quote]Yep, was saying exactly that for the ten thousandth time. I’m not picking on you. [quote]Elder forlife wrote:<<<Calvin may be right, after all. So could Joseph Smith, the Pope, or any other fundamentalist religious leader claiming that homosexual behavior is sinful. If even one of them is right, I’m screwed. <<<>>> Does that sound like the position of someone dishonestly trying to cover up his sins? >>>[/quote]Yep, sure does. Anytime words like “could” or “if” come out of somebody’s mouth they are at that moment hiding from the God who most certainly is and who is the merciful savior of some and righteous judge of others. [quote]Elder forlife wrote:<<< I hope that despite disagreeing with my perspective, you will at least acknowledge my sincerity.[/quote]Why do you hope this? You do though don’t you and not just me. You seek the approval of religious people all the time. I acknowledge what the Word of almighty God declares about men in general, you included. Myself included too. He says you suppress the truth in unrighteousness to escape responsibility to Him. What particular sins participate in is irrelevant to that point. The apostle James says that breaking even one point of the law makes one guilty of violating the whole law. I agree.
[/quote]
In other words, anyone who disagrees with you automatically MUST be insincere, dishonest, and disingenuous. And if they dare ask for respect, not for agreement mind you, but simply for respect that their perspective is sincere, it MUST mean that they are looking for approval from true believers.
Damn, that is an awfully big hat to wear, and no cattle to back it up.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< The thing is, I know what he’s getting at. I have an answer but he’s just going to reject it, so I figure I might as well just let him tell me where my cognition comes from and we can take it from there =/[/quote]Please? I insist. Let’s start here. (I think I recognize that tree over there folks) Why do you believe 2+2=4?
[/quote]
Because it follows logically.[/quote]
What follows logically? How do you ‘know’ it’s true. Things can ‘follow logically’ and still not be true.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< In other words, anyone who disagrees with you automatically MUST be insincere, dishonest, and disingenuous. >>>[/quote]Every single human being in all of history since father Adam, save for Jesus of Nazareth alone, was conceived that way (another familiar tree) and remains so until being resurrected from that state in the new birth provided by the risen Christ Himself. Nobody who does not know this has happened to them has in fact had it happen to them regardless of anybody’s biblical butchery to the contrary. Their disagreement is not with me. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. Everybody says that right? [quote]forlife wrote:<<< And if they dare ask for respect, not for agreement mind you, but simply for respect that their perspective is sincere, it MUST mean that they are looking for approval from true believers. >>>[/quote] More familiar trees. Definitely the same forest we’ve been through before. A person for whom certainty is a self professed impossibility cannot by definition have ANYTHING proven to them. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< Damn, that is an awfully big hat to wear, and no cattle to back it up. >>>[/quote]My Father’s hat. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills. 50th Psalm v.10
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< In other words, anyone who disagrees with you automatically MUST be insincere, dishonest, and disingenuous. >>>[/quote]Every single human being in all of history since father Adam, save for Jesus of Nazareth alone, was conceived that way (another familiar tree) and remains so until being resurrected from that state in the new birth provided by the risen Christ Himself. Nobody who does not know this has happened to them has in fact had it happen to them regardless of anybody’s biblical butchery to the contrary. Their disagreement is not with me. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. Everybody says that right? [quote]forlife wrote:<<< And if they dare ask for respect, not for agreement mind you, but simply for respect that their perspective is sincere, it MUST mean that they are looking for approval from true believers. >>>[/quote] More familiar trees. Definitely the same forest we’ve been through before. A person for whom certainty is a self professed impossibility cannot by definition have ANYTHING proven to them. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< Damn, that is an awfully big hat to wear, and no cattle to back it up. >>>[/quote]My Father’s hat. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills. 50th Psalm v.10
[/quote]
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< The thing is, I know what he’s getting at. I have an answer but he’s just going to reject it, so I figure I might as well just let him tell me where my cognition comes from and we can take it from there =/[/quote]Please? I insist. Let’s start here. (I think I recognize that tree over there folks) Why do you believe 2+2=4?
[/quote]
Because it follows logically.[/quote]
What follows logically? How do you ‘know’ it’s true. Things can ‘follow logically’ and still not be true.[/quote]
Are you taking over for Tirib here?
Since none of these numbers have been rooted in reality they are merely concepts. The concept of 2 doubled is 4. Unless you want to prescribe a different value to the word “two”, then 2^2 will equal 4 in a tautological manner.
Interesting that to argue for the Christian God you actually have to call into question the validity of logic.
It seems the Christian method isn’t to make their proposition more believable, but rather to make everything else in reality equally as unlikely. I’m looking forward to see exactly how you guys go about doing this.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< The thing is, I know what he’s getting at. I have an answer but he’s just going to reject it, so I figure I might as well just let him tell me where my cognition comes from and we can take it from there =/[/quote]Please? I insist. Let’s start here. (I think I recognize that tree over there folks) Why do you believe 2+2=4?
[/quote]
Because it follows logically.[/quote]
What follows logically? How do you ‘know’ it’s true. Things can ‘follow logically’ and still not be true.[/quote]
Are you taking over for Tirib here?
Since none of these numbers have been rooted in reality they are merely concepts. The concept of 2 doubled is 4. Unless you want to prescribe a different value to the word “two”, then 2^2 will equal 4 in a tautological manner. [/quote]
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Interesting that to argue for the Christian God you actually have to call into question the validity of logic.
It seems the Christian method isn’t to make their proposition more believable, but rather to make everything else in reality equally as unlikely. I’m looking forward to see exactly how you guys go about doing this. [/quote]
it’s not about making everything more unlikely.
It’s about finding one (absolute, infinite, single) thing that would be immune to uncertainty in order to make all other (finite, relative, diverse) things simply “knowable”.
in other words :
either you choose (or accept) to believe in one thing (God), then, you can (believe you) KNOW all other things in the world.
or you refuse (or are unable) to believe in it, and then you will (know you) only BELIEVE in all other things in the world.
in a way, there is MORE (practical, daily) belief in the agnostic/sceptic epistemology than there is in the religious epistemology.
