I'm a Theist

[gaffo]

Where do 'you', people, think the misconception that "the ability to know for sure that God exists or not" IS LACKING comes from exactly?

Humility Sir.

and the genuine form of it - living life and knowing as you age and gain Wisdom via life's travails, you know the "more you know the less you actually know" (in youth you assume a knowledge that life beats out of you - for the better BTW, at the time it does not seem nice, but decades later you understand the beating gave you some more measure of Wisdom (and Humility)) both virtues IMO).

I ignore the phony "Humility" that too many use for self grandstanding. "Hey look at me i'm Humble"

but of course i do claim to be Humble, though not one of that sort - via my self claim.

its up to you to determine which sort i am, i honesty do not care.

i do care that you do value honest (real=true) Humility as a virtue in and of itself worth striving for.

But WHY the insecurity, lack of self-esteem, or lack of self-knowledge to KNOW that the NATURE within human beings ALLOWS them to discover, learn, and understand absolutely ANY and EVERY thing?

your above showd you lack Wisdom to understand the nature of Humility(the real form not the malligant egosist type - which is not humble in any way).


I'm not insecure - nor does Humility demand i be so.

I do not lack Self Esteem - nor does Humility demand i do.

I can do better than i currently am (so i am partially insecure and lack some esteem)).

speaking Humbly. but not using humility as equal to such!

you figure it out Bubba.

This Nature is what separates human beings from ALL other (known to them) creatures.

carefull

Pride, one of the seven not virtues.

Pride is worth nothing. less then in fact. being the opposite of Humility.

The human animal is the only known (to them) animal with True Intelligence, and a Truly amazing brain to capture and store the knowledge that they obtain.

and? so? your point? - i'm lost here.

BTW Dolphin's may be our equal - via dissection of their brains (their "world experience" excepted).



again do you have a point?

is it?

Man is the smartest (assumping Dolphines are dumpshits) and so being smart knows the mind of God!!!!!!!!!!!


if so, proclaim your view on man knowing the mind of God, and will just take you as a nutter and ignore anything you have to say on the matter.

as i do for anyone that claims to know of God/s and he/their nature/s.

Just because one human being, or one generation of human beings, does not YET know some thing, that then does NOT mean forever more that thing thing will NEVER become known.

ya sure bubba, whatever

I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.

not sure, since that was a few days ago, if you are honest in inquiry i will retrace my replies to re-remember my point WRT yo Jesus and the old prophets and get back to you.

assuming you are not a troll (and i assume the best about you - and vise versa (if you are not a troll)

??? dont follow, tell me more if willing .

I'll get back to ya - 1-2 weeks hence assuming you are not troll.

never if you are.


just being honest/putting on notice here.

[gaffo]

What does "too low of nature to know" actually mean?

Does the ant know of or even see the sidewalk man made?

the ant makes the anthill next the sidewalk.

as the ant made the same anthill before man even existed (or sidewalks!)

does the ant ponder the nature of the sidewalk? (no nor do they ponder the maker of............FUCK!!!!!!!!!!! they - by their lack EVEN SEEING THE SIDEWALK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! have a limited nature.

we are ants Sir.

become Humble (and so Wise also)



so ya, the whole fucking "does/do God/s exist, and "knowing Him" is bullshit.



I'm just humble, i know i exist, and offer no knowledges beyond that.

[Age]

Any group that end in "ist", or any religious group, or ANY group at all for that matter...are just separat-ist groups

A lot of the time, this is true. Sometimes, though, an ist or an ian is just a descriptor, not a statement of affiliation or separation.

Will you provide some examples?

[henry quirk]

Any group that end in "ist", or any religious group, or ANY group at all for that matter...are just separat-ist groups

A lot of the time, this is true. Sometimes, though, an ist or an ian is just a descriptor, not a statement of affiliation or separation.

Will you provide some examples?

Here's two...

Deist: easier to say than 'guy who thinks the creator of Reality is indifferent'.

Natural rights libertarian: easier to say than 'guy who thinks the individual owns himself; has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property; and who forfeits, in part or whole, his life, liberty, or property only when he willingly, knowingly, without justification, deprives another, in part or in whole, of his life, liberty, or property'.

Two nice little placeholders to stand-in for points of view. As far as I know: there's no real community of deists (I'm the only one I know of), and pretty much all Libertarians are consequentialists makin' me (a natural rights guy) damned rare. Neither placeholder is overtly or primarily separatist or affiliative; both just act as descriptors.

[Age]

Where do 'you', people, think the misconception that "the ability to know for sure that God exists or not" IS LACKING comes from exactly?

Humility Sir.

Is the word "Humility" in "Humility Sir" because it is:

The answer to the question, or for some other reason?

If you used the word "humility" here for some other reason, then what is that reason?

If, however, the word "humility" is the answer to the question, then where exactly does your, supposed, inability to know things for sure, like whether God exists or not, come from "humility"?

If 'you' do NOT YET know some thing, then that is just thee Truth of things. But if you want to claim that 'you', human beings, have an inability to know the accuracy of some thing, then first 'you' NEED to prove that this is an actual FACT, and then, 'we' can LOOK AT and SEE if that inability to learn and thus know actually comes from "humility" or some other thing.

IF 'i', a person, discovered or learned, and thus KNOW that God exists or not, then people do HAVE an ability to KNOW, for sure, things like whether God exists or not.

What I have found, and which happens quite regularly, is that if a person does NOT YET know some thing, and has not yet seen any "other" person knowing the answer also, then they have a tendency to say that it can NEVER be known. And it is this continual saying and repeating of the same thing, which is what leads these people to start BELIEVING that people have an "inability" to know certain things. What makes this BELIEF stronger is when "others", especially influential, to them, people say the exact same thing.

and the genuine form of it - living life and knowing as you age and gain Wisdom via life's travails, you know the "more you know the less you actually know" (in youth you assume a knowledge that life beats out of you - for the better BTW, at the time it does not seem nice, but decades later you understand the beating gave you some more measure of Wisdom (and Humility)) both virtues IMO).

I found IF human beings, of any age, ASSUME any knowledge, without KNOWING the actual Truth, then then have a chance of being completely and utterly WRONG.

I have come to understand that it is much better to NEVER ASSUME and to NEVER BELIEVE/DISBELIEVE any thing at all, EVER. That way a person can NEVER be WRONG. That person instead will just be remaining OPEN to keep learning, and thus to keep becoming ALWAYS wiser.

I ignore the phony "Humility" that too many use for self grandstanding. "Hey look at me i'm Humble"

but of course i do claim to be Humble, though not one of that sort - via my self claim.

So what I have just learned here is 'you', "gaffo", say that you "ignore the phone "Humility" but of course you DO claim to be Humble. Okay, now that you have SHARED that and made it KNOWN, I have noted it down.

its up to you to determine which sort i am, i honesty do not care.

WHY would I even want to determine such a thing for anyway? I also honestly do not care.

i do care that you do value honest (real=true) Humility as a virtue in and of itself worth striving for.

Why do 'you' care what 'I' value, and what is worth striving for?

I find if some thing is 'worth striving for', then it is NOT some thing that obviously just comes naturally. I have found that if a virtue is wanted, but not yet obtained, then questioning what am I doing wrong that I am not like 'that', which I want to be, and answer them Truly Honestly and OPENLY, THEN I found out HOW to be 'that', what I want to BE.

But WHY the insecurity, lack of self-esteem, or lack of self-knowledge to KNOW that the NATURE within human beings ALLOWS them to discover, learn, and understand absolutely ANY and EVERY thing?

your above showd you lack Wisdom to understand the nature of Humility(the real form not the malligant egosist type - which is not humble in any way).

So, if what I wrote here SHOWS you that I lack wisdom to understand the nature of 'Humility', then go right ahead and explain the nature of 'Humility'. SHOW us that 'you', "gaffo", HAVE the Wisdom to understand the nature of 'Humility'.

Also, WHY do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' lack the ability to KNOW whether God exists or not. BUT, HAVE the ability (or Wisdom) to understand the nature of 'Humility'? And, how EXACTLY did 'you' gain the Wisdom, to understand the nature of 'Humility'? When, and IF, you do that, then I might also gain the same Wisdom, which you say I lack.

I'm not insecure - nor does Humility demand i be so.

I do not lack Self Esteem - nor does Humility demand i do.

'you' have really turned this discussion about some so called "lack of ability to KNOW things for sure" into being about "humility", itself, correct?

I can do better than i currently am (so i am partially insecure and lack some esteem)).

Okay, so 'you' are not insecure and you do not lack Self Esteem, BUT, 'you' are partially insecure and in fact do lack some esteem. I will note this down also.

speaking Humbly. but not using humility as equal to such!

you figure it out Bubba.

Who is "Bubba" and what exactly do 'you' want them to figure out here?

From my perspective, there is NOTHING at all to figure out here.

This Nature is what separates human beings from ALL other (known to them) creatures.

carefull

Pride, one of the seven not virtues.

Pride is worth nothing. less then in fact. being the opposite of Humility.

You are really tied up with, and in, Humility here now, correct?

By the Humility, from my perspective, has NOTHING at all to do with 'human nature', which is what is being discussed here.

I am saying that the ability to KNOW things comes from a NATURAL perspective within human beings, which hitherto ONLY human beings SHOW signs of having this NATURE.

To me, this 'nature' is what separates human beings from ALL other animals/things/beings.

The human animal is the only known (to them) animal with True Intelligence, and a Truly amazing brain to capture and store the knowledge that they obtain.

and? so? your point? - i'm lost here.

Well this discussion WAS about some supposed "inability to KNOW things for sure" AND 'human nature'. That WAS until 'you' turned it around to being about "Humility".

From my perspective, you have been lost since you first answered my first question in this post of yours.

BTW Dolphin's may be our equal - via dissection of their brains (their "world experience" excepted).

How exactly is the dissection of the dolphin's brain may be 'your', human beings, equal?

And, does this some how lead to 'you' concluding that this relates to 'human nature' HOW EXACTLY?

again do you have a point?

My point IS, just like it has been all along here; you CLAIM human beings have an inability to KNOW some things, for sure. I, however, disagree and say that human beings do have an ability to learn, understand, and reason ANY thing/Everything.

I say this ABILITY is what ALLOWS human beings to KNOW things, for sure.

I also say, humans having this ABILITY is what separates humans from all other KNOWN things.

Can you now SEE I have a point?

If yes, then can you now SEE what the point IS?

If yes, feel free to comment on it ANY way you feel like.

is it?

Is 'what' it?

I have NO idea what this is in relation to exactly.

Man is the smartest (assumping Dolphines are dumpshits) and so being smart knows the mind of God!!!!!!!!!!!

Is this what 'YOU' have concluded from what I have said, or from some thing else? Because I have certainly NEVER even imagined any thing like this, let alone wrote in a way that alluded to any thing like this, let alone at all wrote absolutely any thing like this.

Also, is there a "mind" OF God?

if so, proclaim your view on man knowing the mind of God, and will just take you as a nutter and ignore anything you have to say on the matter.

Besides the very FACT that I do NOT proclaim any such thing, WHY would you INSTANTLY proclaim some one is a "nutter" just because they say they have a view on how hu/man KNOW some thing?

If 'you' NEVER even get a chance to HEAR some thing, then WHY do you BELIEVE you KNOW the Truth of things ALREADY?

as i do for anyone that claims to know of God/s and he/their nature/s.

Keep BELIEVING and proclaiming that some people are "nutters", just because they claims, which you ABSOLUTELY and WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE is untrue, as much as you like. BUT, BELIEVING some thing is True BEFORE you even LISTEN SHOWS more about who is ABLE to become wiser and who is NOT.

Just because one human being, or one generation of human beings, does not YET know some thing, that then does NOT mean forever more that thing thing will NEVER become known.

ya sure bubba, whatever

Your INABILITY to remain OPEN, and just ask some clarifying questions, SPEAKS LOUDLY HEAR. And, some people WONDER WHY 'you', human beings, have an INABILITY to LEARN and KNOW some particular things.

Your ABILITY to remain completely CLOSED, in the light of things here, is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of the human brains complete lack of being able to even just LOOK AT any thing other than what it ALREADY BELIEVES is the truth of things.

not sure, since that was a few days ago, if you are honest in inquiry i will retrace my replies to re-remember my point WRT yo Jesus and the old prophets and get back to you.

assuming you are not a troll (and i assume the best about you - and vise versa (if you are not a troll)

I do not recall writing any of this.

??? dont follow, tell me more if willing .

I'll get back to ya - 1-2 weeks hence assuming you are not troll.

never if you are.


just being honest/putting on notice here.

I do not recall writing this also. In fact I think 'you' are replying to "yourself" here now?

[Age]

What does "too low of nature to know" actually mean?

Does the ant know of or even see the sidewalk man made?

I am NOT sure.

Does an ant know of, or even see, the sidewalk humans made?

Considering ants have eyes I can imagine they see the sidewalk humans made, that is, if they are close enough to see it.

the ant makes the anthill next the sidewalk.

as the ant made the same anthill before man even existed (or sidewalks!)

Okay. Is there a point to your question and statements here?

does the ant ponder the nature of the sidewalk?

Is there a nature of the sidewalk?

If yes, then do human beings ponder the nature of the sidewalk?

In fact, do human beings AND ants ponder the nature of the sidewalk?

(no nor do they ponder the maker of............FUCK!!!!!!!!!!! they - by their lack EVEN SEEING THE SIDEWALK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! have a limited nature.

What is this limited nature of ants exactly?

Is there any limited nature of 'you', human beings"

If yes, then what is this "limited nature" EXACTLY?

we are ants Sir.

Are 'we' really? I think you might find most human beings will disagree with this.

But 'I' am NOT ants nor an ant. Therefore, 'we' are NOT ants. Unless, of course, thee 'I' is NOT included in the 'we'.

Also, when did ants become capable of creating computers and being able to transfer their thoughts all around the world using the internet?

become Humble (and so Wise also)

Okay. Are you going to provide any actual way of doing this, or do I just have to work it all out alone?

Also, WHY did we come back to the 'Humble' word for?

What and how do the words 'become Humble' have to do with the answer to the question; What does "to low of nature to know" actually mean?

so ya, the whole fucking "does/do God/s exist, and "knowing Him" is bullshit.

Where exactly were the premises that led up to this conclusion?

Also, why do you think or believe that God is a "he"?

If there is absolutely NO such thing as God, as is what appears that 'you' BELIEVE wholeheartedly is ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct, then WHY label God as a "him"?

I'm just humble, i know i exist, and offer no knowledges beyond that.

Except the knowledge that ANY God existing, and "knowing Him", is bullshit, correct?

[Dontaskme]

What does "too low of nature to know" actually mean?

Does the ant know of or even see the sidewalk man made?

the ant makes the anthill next the sidewalk.

as the ant made the same anthill before man even existed (or sidewalks!)

does the ant ponder the nature of the sidewalk? (no nor do they ponder the maker of............FUCK!!!!!!!!!!! they - by their lack EVEN SEEING THE SIDEWALK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! have a limited nature.

we are ants Sir.

become Humble (and so Wise also)



so ya, the whole fucking "does/do God/s exist, and "knowing Him" is bullshit.



I'm just humble, i know i exist, and offer no knowledges beyond that.

The Ants

2 mins 41 seconds duration.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et6itTuJSYY



''I'm just humble, i know i exist, and offer no knowledges beyond that.'' ....very true sir.

...all the rest is imagination.

[Age]

A lot of the time, this is true. Sometimes, though, an ist or an ian is just a descriptor, not a statement of affiliation or separation.

Will you provide some examples?

Here's two...

Deist: easier to say than 'guy who thinks the creator of Reality is indifferent'.

Natural rights libertarian: easier to say than 'guy who thinks the individual owns himself; has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property; and who forfeits, in part or whole, his life, liberty, or property only when he willingly, knowingly, without justification, deprives another, in part or in whole, of his life, liberty, or property'.

Two nice little placeholders to stand-in for points of view. As far as I know: there's no real community of deists (I'm the only one I know of), and pretty much all Libertarians are consequentialists makin' me (a natural rights guy) damned rare. Neither placeholder is overtly or primarily separatist or affiliative; both just act as descriptors.

Both descriptors 'trying to' separate 'that', which essentially can NOT be.

[henry quirk]

Will you provide some examples?

Here's two...

Deist: easier to say than 'guy who thinks the creator of Reality is indifferent'.

Natural rights libertarian: easier to say than 'guy who thinks the individual owns himself; has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property; and who forfeits, in part or whole, his life, liberty, or property only when he willingly, knowingly, without justification, deprives another, in part or in whole, of his life, liberty, or property'.

Two nice little placeholders to stand-in for points of view. As far as I know: there's no real community of deists (I'm the only one I know of), and pretty much all Libertarians are consequentialists makin' me (a natural rights guy) damned rare. Neither placeholder is overtly or primarily separatist or affiliative; both just act as descriptors.

Both descriptors 'trying to' separate 'that', which essentially can NOT be.

All language has the aspect of separation. That's one of the functions of language. But language is also about signifying, defining. When I say say I or call myself Henry Quirk obviously there's a separative quality but it's secondary to signification, to (self) defintion.

As to what is discrete (and how such discreteness cannot be): obviously, you are not me, I am not you. We are apart from one another, not a part of one another. We exist together in Reality, but Reality is not a seamless whole. Reality, in fact, is a big, mostly empty, box which discrete things inside it.

[Sculptor]

Could God exist as NOT real?

So real like the God of Herbert Mullin's who obeyed his very real God to kill 13 people?

Herbert Mullin's God
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27867

Either answer the actual question asked, or do not. Deflecting does nothing for me.

Could God exist as NOT real?

If no, then there is NO use adding the words 'as real' after you use the words 'God exists'.

If yes, then HOW?

Gandalf exists as a fiction; in the minds of people who have read TLOTR, and have seen the films of the book. He exists as an idea. So he exists as NOT real.
So, yes, God does, in fact exist in exactly that way.

[Sculptor]

The Ants

2 mins 41 seconds duration.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et6itTuJSYY

Large Round Ones.
It assumes that there is a big sky daddy that has made the world!
That's about as stupid as a talking ant, or that an ant knows how to use words but can't understand that a mark on paper could be a representation of one.

[Age]

Here's two...

Deist: easier to say than 'guy who thinks the creator of Reality is indifferent'.

Natural rights libertarian: easier to say than 'guy who thinks the individual owns himself; has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property; and who forfeits, in part or whole, his life, liberty, or property only when he willingly, knowingly, without justification, deprives another, in part or in whole, of his life, liberty, or property'.

Two nice little placeholders to stand-in for points of view. As far as I know: there's no real community of deists (I'm the only one I know of), and pretty much all Libertarians are consequentialists makin' me (a natural rights guy) damned rare. Neither placeholder is overtly or primarily separatist or affiliative; both just act as descriptors.

Both descriptors 'trying to' separate 'that', which essentially can NOT be.

All language has the aspect of separation.

Not all language has the aspect of separation, obviously.

That's one of the functions of language.

Another function of language is to point out and SHOW the actual REAL Truth of things.

But language is also about signifying, defining. When I say say I or call myself Henry Quirk obviously there's a separative quality but it's secondary to signification, to (self) defintion.

Obviously.

As to what is discrete (and how such discreteness cannot be): obviously, you are not me, I am not you. We are apart from one another, not a part of one another. We exist together in Reality, but Reality is not a seamless whole.

Is it NOT?

If there IS a separation, then where EXACTLY is the "seam"?

Reality, in fact, is a big, mostly empty, box which discrete things inside it.

Are 'you' absolutely positively 100% SURE that this is an irrefutable and unambiguous FACT?

[Age]

So real like the God of Herbert Mullin's who obeyed his very real God to kill 13 people?

Herbert Mullin's God
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27867

Either answer the actual question asked, or do not. Deflecting does nothing for me.

Could God exist as NOT real?

If no, then there is NO use adding the words 'as real' after you use the words 'God exists'.

If yes, then HOW?

Gandalf exists as a fiction; in the minds of people who have read TLOTR, and have seen the films of the book. He exists as an idea. So he exists as NOT real.
So, yes, God does, in fact exist in exactly that way.

Thank you for providing an answer to the actual OPEN,
clarifying question.

Therefore, God CAN and DOES exist, in fiction. So, this s settled, once and for ALL.

God DOES EXIST.

Now, whether the already, acknowledged (and accepted?), EXISTING God is non fiction, and thus a REAL thing, just needs to be discussed, peacefully, AND resolved, which, by the way, is A very simple and very easy thing to do as well.

[Age]

The Ants

2 mins 41 seconds duration.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et6itTuJSYY

Large Round Ones.
It assumes that there is a big sky daddy that has made the world!
That's about as stupid as a talking ant, or that an ant knows how to use words but can't understand that a mark on paper could be a representation of one.

Agree.

To ASSUME any thing is just plain STUPID.

[henry quirk]

"Not all language has the aspect of separation, obviously."

Of course all language has the aspect of separation. It just that separation is not always the primary purpose of language.

#

"Another function of language is to point out and SHOW the actual REAL Truth of things."

To point the way, yes.

#

Reality is not a seamless whole.

"Is it NOT? If there IS a separation, then where EXACTLY is the "seam"?"

Well, one example: 'me' and my skin.

#

Reality, in fact, is a big, mostly empty, box which discrete things inside it.

"Are 'you' absolutely positively 100% SURE that this is an irrefutable and unambiguous FACT?"

As I reckon things: yes.