I'm a Theist

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 5127
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 am
DMT wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:24 am
So do you still believe God exists as real?
Do you believe love exists? If yes then "belief" is a nonsensical application to the term god. It contradicts.
Love exists as an emotion that can be empirically inferred via structure of the brain, the chemicals, the human behavior, etc. Love is a justified true belief.

Belief [personal conviction of truth] can still be applied to the word 'God' but it is not a justified true belief, i.e. not verifiable, testable, falsifiable and the likes.
How many times do 'you' have to be told that if God exists or not, this is testable, thus verifiable AND falsifiable, BEFORE you can comprehend this FACT?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 amNot sure what is your main point.
DMT
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:09 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by DMT »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 am
DMT wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:24 am
So do you still believe God exists as real?
Do you believe love exists? If yes then "belief" is a nonsensical application to the term god. It contradicts.
Love exists as an emotion that can be empirically inferred via structure of the brain, the chemicals, the human behavior, etc. Love is a justified true belief.

Belief [personal conviction of truth] can still be applied to the word 'God' but it is not a justified true belief, i.e. not verifiable, testable, falsifiable and the likes.

Not sure what is your main point.
Indeed love is sperm meets egg nothing more.


Never mind that as soon as you reductively approach neurology your understanding and logic and thoughts are merely noting more than neurology. You use a circular statement to justify your circular reasoning. We can reduce all experiences to neurology. So saying neurology is saying nothing.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8861
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Age

Post by henry quirk »

In other words, there is ALWAYS some thing connected to, and, in a sense, 'you' are NOT really a completely separate thing?

No. There's always sumthin' rubbin' up against you, not connected to you.


Or maybe from the perspective of EVERY tree I am LOOKING AT and SEEING the WHOLE forest, and I am NOT 'trying to' do at all what 'you' see I am doing.

That's the thing: you're not lookin' at the whole forest. You're a singular perspective, a finite point of view. By defintion, yiu can't see it all. That you believe you can is the problem.


The very FACT that I do NOT 'believe' any thing reveals that 'you' are WRONG, at least, in this regard.

You believe all kinds of things (you bein' sumthin' other than human, that there are no discrete things, that you have an open mind, that you see Reality as a whole: these are beliefs, beliefs with no basis in fact, by the way.


If 'you' figured that I OUGHT to explain myself first, then WHY did you NOT ask me to explain myself first?

I'll ask and answer questions as obliquely as I like, thank you very much.


I have now explained exactly what I see as 'you' NOT being open to. So, will 'you' now explain what you see that I am NOT open to exactly?

II did that. Again: you're not open to the idea that Reality is a big, mostly empty, box with discrete things in it.


I am VERY OPEN to this. Where have I supposedly written any thing, which would SHOW otherwise.

Well, since you keep talkin' about ONE I figured you thought there was no discrete separation between things, in which case Reality isn't a mostly empty box but is a delightful love fest of unity and whatnot. If I'm wrong, oh well, it ain't the first time.


How are 'you' as OPEN as I am, as I am COMPLETELY OPEN, and thus NOT closed at all?

That's the thing: I don't think you're open at all. I think your mind, like mine, is made up and locked up tight like a bank safe.


'you' BELIEVE; "That the Universe is NOT separated into separate things", and, "All language has the aspect of separation", correct?

The universe, again, is a big, mostly empty box, with discrete SEPARATE things in it, and, all language has an aspect of separation, though separation is often not the primary purpose of language use.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by gaffo »

Age wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:18 am
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am
Age wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:32 am
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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amand 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"
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 ambut 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amits 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 ami 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am
Age wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:32 am 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amI'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?
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amI 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!
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amyou 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am
Age wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:32 am 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am
Age wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:32 am 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amBTW 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?
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amagain 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amis it?
Is 'what' it?

I have NO idea what this is in relation to exactly.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amMan 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?
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amif 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?
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amas 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.

gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am
Age wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:32 am 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am
Age wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:32 am ??? 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?
you make some smart points about "stuff", i will only say i'm a solipsist (and if you exist outside of me as an actual sentient being (and of higher nature than me (more power to ya! - my nature is too low to know you (or your god/s) exist, so cannot know you know the mind of God (nor know you exist - per my limited nature and empirism you are just me talking to myself.....me talking to me trying to afirm knowadge that of God and knowing the mind of.................and per me (not you (you may be a being orders higher than me - i just do not know you exist per my limited nature - only that i do) - if you actually exist, as a higer being claim and KNOW god/s exist, per myself I'm an ant, i cannot know you exist, yet alone your knowledge of your god, whom you know per your higher nature than myself.
Age
Posts: 5127
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:59 pm In other words, there is ALWAYS some thing connected to, and, in a sense, 'you' are NOT really a completely separate thing?

No. There's always sumthin' rubbin' up against you, not connected to you.

Okay, so WHAT IS the separating point?

To be able to KNOW and EXPLAIN what SEPARATES 'you' from the rest of the Universe 'you' NEED to be able LOOK AT this at the quantum level. So, 'what' IS 'it' that SEPARATES. Until 'you' can SEE and EXPLAIN this, then all 'you' are expressing in just 'your' BELIEFS here, which OBVIOUSLY could be completely WRONG, correct?

Or, is what 'you' say NOT able to be WRONG or incorrect?


Or maybe from the perspective of EVERY tree I am LOOKING AT and SEEING the WHOLE forest, and I am NOT 'trying to' do at all what 'you' see I am doing.

That's the thing: you're not lookin' at the whole forest.

YES, I AM. I am LOOKING AT what IS from EVERY things perspective, which is OBVIOUSLY NOT what 'you' do.

You're a singular perspective, a finite point of view.

Once again, 'you' are COMPLETELY WRONG. 'you' might LOOK AT and FROM the singular perspective of one singular human being. But to make it CLEAR, that is EXACTLY NOT WHAT I DO. Comprehend?


By defintion, yiu can't see it all. That you believe you can is the problem.

But I do NOT believe any thing. REMEMBER it is 'you' who BELIEVES.

AND, 'I' am NOT a 'you'. COMPREHEND?


The very FACT that I do NOT 'believe' any thing reveals that 'you' are WRONG, at least, in this regard.

You believe all kinds of things (you bein' sumthin' other than human, that there are no discrete things, that you have an open mind, that you see Reality as a whole: these are beliefs, beliefs with no basis in fact, by the way.

'you' could NOT be MORE WRONG even if 'you' WANTED and TRIED TO BE. COMPREHEND.

Besides the FACT that I do NOT even THINK these things, which you just said and BELIEVE I do, I do NOT believe any thing AT ALL.

HOW and WHY 'you' are so CONFUSED and MISTAKEN is so OBVIOUSLY CLEAR to me. BUT, as 'you' are now 'you' will NEVER be able to UNDERSTAND nor COMPREHEND this.

If 'you' STOP BELIEVING and STOP 'trying to' TELL ME what I do, then 'you' will become a bit MORE OPEN, and NOT so CLOSED as 'you' are now.

Trying to TELL ME what I do or do NOT do, is ONLY making 'you' look rather foolish here.

If 'you' figured that I OUGHT to explain myself first, then WHY did you NOT ask me to explain myself first?

I'll ask and answer questions as obliquely as I like, thank you very much.

You can ask any thing anyway you want. ALL the words 'you' use REVEALS the actual Truth.

I have now explained exactly what I see as 'you' NOT being open to. So, will 'you' now explain what you see that I am NOT open to exactly?

II did that. Again: you're not open to the idea that Reality is a big, mostly empty, box with discrete things in it.

Again; I am OPEN to this. That is WHY I ask 'you' how it could be POSSIBLE.

But if you NEVER explain how it could EVEN be POSSIBLE, then WHY do you BELIEVE it is even true and right?

I am VERY OPEN to this. Where have I supposedly written any thing, which would SHOW otherwise.

Well, since you keep talkin' about ONE I figured you thought there was no discrete separation between things,

Well 'you' once again OBVIOUSLY thought WRONG.


in which case Reality isn't a mostly empty box but is a delightful love fest of unity and whatnot. If I'm wrong, oh well, it ain't the first time.

Well let me inform 'you', 'you' were WRONG.

Suggestion; Instead of TELLING me what 'you' BELIEVE I think and/or do, which COULD BE WRONG anyway, and 'you' just first ASKED me for clarification, then 'you' will NEVER be WRONG.

How are 'you' as OPEN as I am, as I am COMPLETELY OPEN, and thus NOT closed at all?

That's the thing: I don't think you're open at all. I think your mind, like mine, is made up and locked up tight like a bank safe.

'Thinking' I am NOT open at all is PERFECTLY FINE. But expressing this in a way that SHOWS 'you' BELIEVE it to be absolutely true, is self-destroying for 'you'.

What part of; "I do NOT have a mind" is NOT understood and NOT comprehended here?

I do NOT recall how many times I have said this, here in this forum, YET not one of 'you' has even come close to just asking me, "What do you mean by this?" YET, I am continually TOLD 'you' do have a "mind".

So, If 'i' do have a mind, then what/who am 'i', what is the 'mind', and how do 'i' supposedly have one of those things?

Until 'you', any one, EXPLAINS that in detail, which is unambiguous and irrefutable, then PLEASE resist from TELLING me that I have some thing, which none of 'you' even KNOW what 'you' are talking about YET?

I AGREE that 'you', the thinking/emotional person, IS locked up extremely tight, I have also already explained HOW and WHY, but the reason the 'you' IS locked up tight and 'I' am NOT at all, is EXACTLY why 'you' and 'I' are DIFFERENT.

'you' BELIEVE; "That the Universe is NOT separated into separate things", and, "All language has the aspect of separation", correct?

The universe, again, is a big, mostly empty box, with discrete SEPARATE things in it, and, all language has an aspect of separation, though separation is often not the primary purpose of language use.
Does a language that contains and explains HOW and WHY there is NO separation ALSO have an aspect of separation?

If yes, then HOW?

IF the Universe HAS discrete SEPARATE things in It, then HOW? What is the thing, which causes things to be SEPARATED?

For one BELIEVING this so STRONGLY and INSISTING this so consistently, then it should AND would be a very simple and very easy for 'you' TO TELL us what THEE Answer IS.

If 'you' can NOT tell us what thee Answer IS, then WHY NOT?

Thee Answer IS very OBVIOUS, that is; WHEN and IF 'you' KNOW how to LOOK AT EVERY thing, from the perspective of Everything, and NOT just from that very little "individual" 'self'.
Age
Posts: 5127
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

gaffo wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:00 pm
Age wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:18 am
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am

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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amand 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"
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 ambut 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amits 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 ami 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am
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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amI'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?
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amI 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!
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amyou 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am
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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am
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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amBTW 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?
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amagain 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amis it?
Is 'what' it?

I have NO idea what this is in relation to exactly.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amMan 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?
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amif 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?
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 amas 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.

gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am
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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am 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.
gaffo wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:09 am

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?
you make some smart points about "stuff", i will only say i'm a solipsist (and if you exist outside of me as an actual sentient being (and of higher nature than me (more power to ya! - my nature is too low to know you (or your god/s) exist, so cannot know you know the mind of God (nor know you exist - per my limited nature and empirism you are just me talking to myself.....me talking to me trying to afirm knowadge that of God and knowing the mind of.................and per me (not you (you may be a being orders higher than me - i just do not know you exist per my limited nature - only that i do) - if you actually exist, as a higer being claim and KNOW god/s exist, per myself I'm an ant, i cannot know you exist, yet alone your knowledge of your god, whom you know per your higher nature than myself.
But the thing is 'you' CAN learn and understand, and thus CAN 'know' things, in a sense.

The actual Truth IS the ONLY thing that can ever be Truly KNOWN, for sure, are the thoughts and feelings within a body. Absolutely EVERY thing else could just be a "figment of the imagination", as they say. (If the thoughts and/or feelings, themselves, within a body, however, are true, right, and/or correct or not, then this is a completely other matter. But the ONLY things that can be Truly KNOWN, for sure, are those thoughts and feelings that come and go within a body.)

It is these thoughts and/or feelings of and about the "Universe" is what gets shared between body to body. Of ALL the thoughts (and feelings) that are shared what IS agreed with by EVERY "body" is, to me anyway, what IS the closest to absolute knowledge, if it is not thee absolute knowledge. KNOWING this knowledge is done through completely OPEN sharing.

To learn AND understand 'knowledge', all 'you' have to really do is just have a SERIOUS Want to learn AND understand. However, to get to thee actual Truth of things, there NEEDS to also be absolutely Honest and OPEN discussions/shared thoughts taking place.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8861
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Age

Post by henry quirk »

"Okay, so WHAT IS the separating point?"

As I up-thread: my skin.

#

"To be able to KNOW and EXPLAIN what SEPARATES 'you' from the rest of the Universe 'you' NEED to be able LOOK AT this at the quantum level."

Of course not. I just have to know where I end, which, as I say, is my skin.

#

"YES, I AM. I am LOOKING AT what IS from EVERY things perspective"

No, you're not. You can't. You're just 'you', a single human being with a single perspective. That is: you're just like the rest of us (finite, discrete, imperfect).

#

"Once again, 'you' are COMPLETELY WRONG."

Nope, I'm right.

'#

"But I do NOT believe any thing."

Yeah, you do.

#

"REMEMBER it is 'you' who BELIEVES."

Absolutely. I believe all manner of things. So do you. So does everyone. We don't believe the same things, but we, each of us, believe things.

#

"AND, 'I' am NOT a 'you'."

No, and thank Crom for that. We're not the same, but we are similar. We're both human.

#

"WHY do you BELIEVE it is even true and right?"

It seems obvious and frankly unremarkable that Reality is a big, mostly empty box with discrete things in it. I'm a discrete thing surrounded locally by discrete things. Seems to me wherever I go it's just space with discrete things all over. Since Reality seems to be consistent and coherent, it makes sense that no matter where I go (other side of the solar system, galaxy, galactic cluster, universe) what i'll find is space with discrete things in it.

#

"Does a language that contains and explains HOW and WHY there is NO separation ALSO have an aspect of separation?"

Language can be used to lie (there is no separation) or to tell the truth (every thing is discrete and separate from every other thing).
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4247
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by attofishpi »

.
Last edited by attofishpi on Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

DMT wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 am
DMT wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:38 am Do you believe love exists? If yes then "belief" is a nonsensical application to the term god. It contradicts.
Love exists as an emotion that can be empirically inferred via structure of the brain, the chemicals, the human behavior, etc. Love is a justified true belief.

Belief [personal conviction of truth] can still be applied to the word 'God' but it is not a justified true belief, i.e. not verifiable, testable, falsifiable and the likes.

Not sure what is your main point.
Indeed love is sperm meets egg nothing more.

Never mind that as soon as you reductively approach neurology your understanding and logic and thoughts are merely noting more than neurology. You use a circular statement to justify your circular reasoning. We can reduce all experiences to neurology. So saying neurology is saying nothing.
Nope there is no 'love' when the sperm meet egg.

Note;
The sperm-production gene is apparently so critical to life that it hasn't changed since every animal's common evolutionary ancestor—likely just a blob of cells—arose some 600 million years ago, the researchers conclude.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... l-science/
With the earliest "sperm meet egg" there was no love at all.
The eggs are left on their own and the born are left to survive and fend for themselves.
Even now, turtles lay their eggs [after conception with the sperm] on the beach and there is no evident of love between the parents and the child.

Thereafter, some animals evolve to nurture their youngs up to a certain age.
This is control by oxytocin which promote bonding up the necessary period of nurturing.
  • Oxytocin (Oxt) is a peptide hormone and neuropeptide. Oxytocin is normally produced in the hypothalamus and released by the posterior pituitary.[3] It plays a role in social bonding, sexual reproduction, childbirth, and the period after childbirth.
    -wiki
But oxytocin driven bonding is not love.

'Love' as an emotion developed noticeably in humans [maybe in higher primates] within the limbic system which promotes bonding for a longer period and extending to other humans and living things.

So, "love" is NOT when sperm meets egg.

Obvious everything can be reduced to neurology. I have not emphasized on this point.

There is a range of hierarchy of complex systems and algorithms within the brain's 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapses].

What is pertinent here is not merely neurology but the whole system of neurons that support the emotion of 'love' and its interactions with other emotions and functions within the brain.
Once we understand the algorithms that express love we can manage and optimize the love impulses and mitigate whatever negativity that blind-love leads to.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4247
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by attofishpi »

BardoXV wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:43 pm More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows. Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God. I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.
Oh you silly billy - what is parabel? :twisted:

Jesus had to learn something did he?

Here is your evidence of God www.androcies.com
BardoXV
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:29 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by BardoXV »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:40 am
BardoXV wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:43 pm More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows. Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God. I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.
Oh you silly billy - what is parabel? :twisted:

Jesus had to learn something did he?

Here is your evidence of God www.androcies.com
A parabel is a made up story to illustrate a point.
DMT
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:09 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by DMT »

Ok so you want to theologicalize nature intellectually and narrcisistically. My degree is theology btw it's self deluding behavioralism.
I poke a sea anenome it reacts predictibly. Since you need predictibity I ask what is love you predictibly state neurology. Of course every thought including your " Its neurology" is nothing more than reactive neurology I one particular region of homo sapien brain the intellect. Nothing more. It's circular and.self referencing.

Well in such cases I must say the religious folk are brilliant
" I believe x to be true therefore x is true because I believe x to be true"

You have said zero sofar. Oh wait" I know this to be true therefore it is true, because I know it to be true"

Very advanced beyond southern Baptist religion I must say. Stating what is self evident without awareness that your own statements are just neurological responses predictibly, and nothing more, is bad science and not remotely Germain to the original question.
Age
Posts: 5127
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:23 am "Okay, so WHAT IS the separating point?"

As I up-thread: my skin.

Of course it IS, that is; IF 'you' ONLY LOOK FROM the human being perspective.

But obviously the skin is made up of other things.

When 'you' LOOK FROM the perspective of EVERY thing, then 'you' SEE that there is NO separation.

I will NEVER dispute that from the adult human being perspective, in the days of when this is written, most of 'you', people, WILL SEE separation.

But just what 'you' people SEE does NOT prove any thing nor is it actual proof of any thing.

#

"To be able to KNOW and EXPLAIN what SEPARATES 'you' from the rest of the Universe 'you' NEED to be able LOOK AT this at the quantum level."

Of course not. I just have to know where I end, which, as I say, is my skin.

'you' are then ONLY "knowing" and explaining from an OBVIOUSLY very narrowed field of view AND perspective.

#

"YES, I AM. I am LOOKING AT what IS from EVERY things perspective"

No, you're not. You can't. You're just 'you', a single human being with a single perspective.

Remember it is 'you', "henry quirk", who can NOT answer the somewhat "old" question, "Who am 'I'?", properly AND correctly?

Until then who/what 'I' am MIGHT NOT actually be "a single human being", with a single perspective.

So, please refrain from saying who/what 'I' am UNTIL you KNOW, for sure, 100% WITH PROOF AND EVIDENCE.

That is: you're just like the rest of us (finite, discrete, imperfect).

This is what the one known as "henry quirk" assumes, thinks, and/or believes. But just remember what the one single individual known as "henry quirk", with its own single little perspective, IS NOT necessarily absolutely True, Right AND Correct.

#

"Once again, 'you' are COMPLETELY WRONG."

Nope, I'm right.

I can NOT show NOR explain what is WRONG, if the opposite is BELIEVED and being HELD as to be True.

Also, remember 'you' were talking about 'Me'. So, telling 'Me' what 'I' am and what 'I' DO, and expecting that 'you' are absolutely right or even just right is an absurd and ridiculous thing to propose from the outset

'you' can talk about 'you' and what 'you' do, and be right. BUT, talking about 'Me' and telling 'Me' what I actually DO, when I tell 'you' that 'you' are WRONG, then the chances of 'you' being right are far less likely.

'you' do NOT have to accept any thing I say about 'Me' but do NOT expect that 'you' know more about 'Me' than I do. If 'you' do, then 'you' will inevitable be WRONG.

'#

"But I do NOT believe any thing."

Yeah, you do.

List the things that 'you' BELIEVE I believe, then we can LOOK AT them, and then discuss the point.

Until then 'you' are just providing ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED human beings ARE when they start BELIEVING things to be true.

#

"REMEMBER it is 'you' who BELIEVES."

Absolutely. I believe all manner of things. So do you. So does everyone. We don't believe the same things, but we, each of us, believe things.

LOL

What do new born human babies supposedly BELIEVE?

What do 'I' supposedly BELIEVE?

#

"AND, 'I' am NOT a 'you'."

No, and thank Crom for that. We're not the same, but we are similar. We're both human.

LOL

If 'you' just KNEW how WRONG 'you' COULD BE?

#

"WHY do you BELIEVE it is even true and right?"

It seems obvious and frankly unremarkable that Reality is a big, mostly empty box with discrete things in it.

What do 'you' mean by 'box'?

Is the definition of 'Reality' REALLY a 'box'? which is supposedly 'big', in relation to 'what' EXACTLY?, that is mostly empty, what does 'mostly empty' actually mean? with discrete things in it? what do 'you' mean by discrete? And, what is this supposed big, mostly empty BOX bounded by EXACTLY, and what is on the outside of this supposed "box"?

If things are supposedly OBVIOUS, and frankly unremarkable to 'you', then 'you' should be ABLE to FULLY explain THIS is very simple and easy to understand terms. So, go right ahead and ANSWER my clarifying questions.

But do NOT feel to ashamed or embarrassed if 'you' can NOT. No other of 'your' other human counterparts have even come close to answering these, very easy and simple to answer, clarifying questions.

I'm a discrete thing surrounded locally by discrete things. Seems to me wherever I go it's just space with discrete things all over.

Is what SEEMS to 'you' actually what is absolutely what IS True, Right, and Correct?

Have any of 'you' human beings actually got things WRONG previously?

Since Reality seems to be consistent and coherent, it makes sense that no matter where I go (other side of the solar system, galaxy, galactic cluster, universe) what i'll find is space with discrete things in it.

Fair enough, this is what 'you' SEE from one single human being perspective. I would NOT expect an adult human being in the days of when this is written to be able to see much more than this. But what is the 'space', 'you' see, made up of exactly? What is the 'box's' boundary made up of exactly?
How could a 'box' with is mostly made up of empty space have straight lines and square corners? What is the 'big box' big relative to, exactly?

#

"Does a language that contains and explains HOW and WHY there is NO separation ALSO have an aspect of separation?"

Language can be used to lie (there is no separation) or to tell the truth (every thing is discrete and separate from every other thing).
LOL

So, just one singular human being, who has only existed for about 57 years, KNOWS what the Truth IS and what IS a Lie, correct?

Or, could the case just be that this one human being just BELIEVES they KNOW what the Truth is, but actually could be WRONG? Or, is this just NOT possible to this one human being?

In fact could the language that this one uses to its own "self" actually be a LIE in and of itself, but that one just can NOT YET SEE this FACT?
Age
Posts: 5127
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

DMT wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:22 pm Ok so you want to theologicalize nature intellectually and narrcisistically. My degree is theology btw it's self deluding behavioralism.
I poke a sea anenome it reacts predictibly. Since you need predictibity I ask what is love you predictibly state neurology. Of course every thought including your " Its neurology" is nothing more than reactive neurology I one particular region of homo sapien brain the intellect. Nothing more. It's circular and.self referencing.

Well in such cases I must say the religious folk are brilliant
" I believe x to be true therefore x is true because I believe x to be true"
I say this so called "logic" does not just able to those "religious folk" but to ALL 'folk', human beings, who BELIEVE things.

Either proof backs up and supports the Truth of some thing, which then means that NO 'belief' at all is NEEDED.

If some thing is True, then it just becomes knowledge, and hopefully commonly KNOWN knowledge, and therefore does NOT need to be believed to be true at all.
DMT wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:22 pmYou have said zero sofar. Oh wait" I know this to be true therefore it is true, because I know it to be true"

Very advanced beyond southern Baptist religion I must say. Stating what is self evident without awareness that your own statements are just neurological responses predictibly, and nothing more, is bad science and not remotely Germain to the original question.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8861
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

age

Post by henry quirk »

"could the case just be that this one human being just BELIEVES they KNOW what the Truth is, but actually could be WRONG?"

oh, absolutely I could be wrong, about everything

just like you
Post Reply