Here is Rex's comment in all it's glory:
There are so many logical leaps in this post that I could spend many many paragraphs on them, but since I don't have much time for your nonsense, I will just pick on this one:Meta:let's break it down
God = being itself. that means God is not a being but the basis upon which all be is. "Eternal Necessary Being itself" means this: God is not an individual being but the basis upon which all beings cohere. Does not need cause since "eternal" means no beginning and no end.
Wow! Deep! And totally unfalsifiable! Typical!
So let me get this straight, the reality based thinkers go back only so far toward the big bang, and then they run into a wall with physics and mathematics and theories of how it worked, and you have a problem with that. That is understandable for someone who is frightened of an open ended question. Your answer is the crazy, superstitious mumbo jumbo highlighted above? And you think it makes more sense to believe in your story than to accept the scientific observations and theories that are honest enough to clearly show where we don't yet understand.
I guess it is more important for you to have the definitive indisputable answers now rather than wait for the correct ones, when we, or if, finally get them.
Again, I am sorry for you that you can't accept a view of reality without supernatural causes.
Go ahead and keep your security blanket of god if that is what it takes for you to be able to sleep at night.
I prefer to see the universe as it really is, not as I would necessarily like to see it. I prefer reality even if it means we have unanswered questions and that we have no one to back us up but ourselves.
Rex:
There are so many logical leaps in this post that I could spend many many paragraphs on them, but since I don't have much time for your nonsense, I will just pick on this one:
Meta: You have already demosntated that you don't know logic.
(what Meta said before:)
God = being itself. that means God is not a being but the basis upon which all be is. "Eternal Necessary Being itself" means this: God is not an individual being but the basis upon which all beings cohere. Does not need cause since "eternal" means no beginning and no end.Rex's answer:
Wow! Deep! And totally unfalsifiable! Typical!
Meta: First of all you don't even understand the nature of falsifiability or why or when it should be used. If you did you would know that it's limited to empirical concepts. Being is empirical in the philosophical sense, it's given in sense data and through first had observation, but we don't need the kind of falsifiability used in scinece in order to understand the truth of it becasue since nothing can be outside of being it can't be falsified. It's empirical in one sense but also a priori in another. In that it doesn't require falsification because the truth if it is a priori. Unless on speaks in a specialized sense nothing can be outside of being. The concept of being itself is clear and distinct and logically necessary.
Rex:
So let me get this straight, the reality based thinkers go back only so far toward the big bang, and then they run into a wall with physics and mathematics and theories of how it worked, and you have a problem with that.I think he's referring to reductionists and empiricists all those who hover on the surface of real thought "reality based" because they can muster tangible proof for those few aspects they limit reality to, and he's not well read enough or learned enough to understand their tricks of the consequences of following their jaundice debauched ideas of the trucked mess they define as "reality." That school tries to reduce everything that they can't control to a level that must be doubted a prori, so that reality shrinks to the limit of what they do control. They do that so their concepts define truth and all that is beyond control (God, truth, morality, decency, goodness, love, friendship, social justice) they just defend as "emotional, subjective, unimportant, cant' be proved empirically (by our methods).
The naive unread atheists like trust lambs march to slaughter and give all that makes them human because they don't want to think they want to be accepted by the cult and feel powerful. The basic tricks of reductionism revolve around re-describing/labeling, reducing to nothing that which they can't control, re-defining reality to the limit of their control. In re-describing and labeling they actually reduce reality to a level that concists only of things they control; reduce emotions to supertion, so that one can't sense the falsehood in their deceptions, redefine "the real" as only that which can be proved so therefore, only their control is real. They extend each of these tricks to a point that they never have to face the illogical of their view because any hint that their views are wrong is automatically taken out in the supposition that anything contrary is unreal.
Even when confronted with these diabolical and dishonest tricks, the naive little atheist can't see that this is the way con men argue because they are so desirous of power and so longing to be accepted by the "in" group that they will accept any outrage against humanity and call withering of the human spirit as "humanism" becuase they need so deeply to feel good about themselves, but refuse so steadfastly to obtain that properly form their source of being (clinging to their pet sins).
Rex:
That is understandable for someone who is frightened of an open ended question. Your answer is the crazy, superstitious mumbo jumbo highlighted above? And you think it makes more sense to believe in your story than to accept the scientific observations and theories that are honest enough to clearly show where we don't yet understand.
Here Rex is spouting the propaganda that he's been brain washed into by the cult. He's so entrenched in it that he can't think in a line. We see in this outburst of sloganeering all the basic tricks I've laid bare. First he slanders the motives of real thinkers. Anyone who believes ideas contrary to his world view must be afraid and superstitious. It can't be that they are just taking a different view because they have a different view and thus see the world differently. It has to be that something is wrong with the way they think and in so saying he is actually saying all philosophy, all application of logic to reality, the whole idea that there's more to truth are reality than studying wrote from scinece is all brain washed superstitious lie and all that could be real is the garbage of delusion that the reductionist tell him to think. The reason that's true is because the point he's making is that if I don't see it his way then I'm just afraid and crouching in superstition (which is what being itself is, to him, that means to him any product of philosophical thinking is superstitious) atheists can only accept one form of knowledge and that is their jaundiced reading of science. That doesn't' mean that I think the true reading of scinece is creationist. I am not a creationist! I don't think Rex even knows that. But atheists think the only alternative t their mutilation of scinece is creationism; atheists are as messed up about scinece as creationists are.
Here's where we see that he actaully this say:
And you think it makes more sense to believe in your story than to accept the scientific observations and theories
When he says that he's actually saying that unless you agree with his view (if you take philosophy seriously) then you are at odds with scinece. So not only is there only one from of knowledge that is scinece, but it has to be the atheist bull shit science that seeks to eliminate all other forms of thought.
he says:
that are honest enough to clearly show where we don't yet understand.
Of course I've already demonstrated that empirical knowledge is limited and can't answer the questions raised by religious belief or faith, it can't answer the question of being or the question of God so other types of knowledge are mandated a priori,. Of cousre he's condemning types of thought recognized around the world as major aspect of human knowledge and valued in every major universities in the world, but his intellectual is much greater becasue he is he's doing so without having read any of the major works in those vast sweeping forms of thought that are as diverse and established as philosophy, literature, art, music, religion, and even the study of logic as a discipline.
He claims that the reductionists (science to him) is "honest enough to show where we don't understand" but it's not clearly it's not. Dawkins is trying to reduce God to a level that scinece can eliminate. Rather than be honest to admit that scinece cant' deal with the questions of the major concern to humanity, he tries to reduce the level of concern to one that the atheist cult can control; the atheist ideology is primarily about control. It is the philosophers, apologies, and theologians who are honest enough to admit the limits of their inquiry..
Rex
I guess it is more important for you to have the definitive indisputable answers now rather than wait for the correct ones, when we, or if, finally get them.
The issues of falsifiability and a prori reasoning are way over his head.
Rex
Again, I am sorry for you that you can't accept a view of reality without supernatural causes.
Meta:Of course he's begging the question because he has not the sliest idea what supernatural means. I've demonstrated this time and time again. I've also demonstrated 12 areas where we have empirical evidence of the supernatural..
That is not a matter of empirical limit since there's overlap and we can have some empirical evidence of super nature proper. Of cousre he doesn't understand what that means because he's never willing to read the material the many times I've presented it. You see more of the data here.
Even the atheist Abraham Maslow undestood that sueprnatural is not supersticious and that it is empirically demonsrable:
Now that may be taken as a frank admission of a naturalistic psychological origin, except that it invovles a universal symbology which is not explicable through merely naturalistic means. How is it that all humans come to hold these same archetypal symbols? The "prematives" viewed and understood a sense of transformation which gave them an integration into the universe. This is crucial for human development. They sensed a power in the numinous, that is the origin of religion."
"In Appendix I and elsewhere in this essay, I have spoken of unitive perception, i.e., fusion of the B-realm with the D-realm, fusion of the eternal with the temporal, the sacred with the profane, etc. Someone has called this "the measureless gap between the poetic perception of reality and prosaic, unreal commonsense." Anyone who cannot perceive the sacred, the eternal, the symbolic, is simply blind to an aspect of reality, as I think I have amply demonstrated elsewhere (54), and in Appendix I, from Peak Experience
--Abrham Maslow
Go ahead and keep your security blanket of god if that is what it takes for you to be able to sleep at night.
I prefer to see the universe as it really is, not as I would necessarily like to see it. I prefer reality even if it means we have unanswered questions and that we have no one to back us up but ourselves.
What is really hilarious is that you don't want to see it. Your eyes shut your head is in the sand. You wont even read the link.Ive devastated 200 studies prove my point about the supernatural and religious expedience you wont even go to the trouble to look at the one page and find out the distinction between the wrong idea and the right idea, much less examine the evidence. Not only will he not read a single source that I point to for proof of my view, but he has not one single study to back his view! He would rather just believe what his atheist handlers and brain washers tell him to think then to seek truth for himself!
I have 200 studies.
He has 0 studies
He's quaking about me being afraid to think about the other views (I was an atheist) he wont even read a single page I link to)! you decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment