Saturday, November 14, 2009

More Than A System of Belief

I wonder sometimes if the reality of what I am trying to convey translates as more than a system of belief. I do make an incredible claim, or rather, accept an incredible claim. God incarnated Himself and walked the earth 2000 years ago as a man. The man, Jesus, who is both fully man and fully God, being Himself the eternal Son of God, lived amongst men teaching and performing miracles. He was crucified and buried in a tomb. Three days later, He arose from the dead, appearing to the disciples and 500 other witnesses leaving behind an empty tomb. Forty days later, He ascended bodily to heaven, for as He had descended from heaven, He must also ascend. Just as God once dwelt in a Tabernacle in the Ark of the Covenant, He dwelt in bodily form in the man called Jesus, and now He dwells with each of us who invite Him as Lord and Savior.


The nature of what I speak of isn’t just a proposition of a different way to see the world. It’s a proposition that this is really real and knowable. If I were merely advocating a set of doctrines, or dogma, as what everyone ought to believe there would be no way to prove them as better than another view of the world. However, what I am talking about, while a worldview, is more than a worldview, it is something one can experience as true.


The Bible isn’t a book designed to be dogmatically adhered to, but a book designed to point to something far greater than itself. If one reads it as only pointing to its contents as the end all of truth, one misses the point of the whole book. It is a story that points to a Story. It is a book that points to the Author. It is a narrative of the Narrator.


There is a scene in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader where these children are in a bedroom talking about the land of Narnia. As the two children who have been to Narnia explains it to the third child who disbelieves them they notice the painting on the wall has a ship very much like the ships in Narnia. They see the ship moving and the feel the moist ocean breeze. Looking closer they are swept into the world of Narnia and embark on an adventure on the high seas. The picture wasn’t just a picture of a ship as it was pointing to something greater than itself; a real ship, in a real place, with a real adventure.


Some will only see the Bible as a book of information; some will see it as factual information and others as myth while still sharing the commonality of it being simply informative. Others, however, have experienced it coming alive. Something takes hold in their being and they realize there is something more than information there is something greater being revealed. Then they will see there is another world to explore and they can find their place in the story for the story is more real then anything they have experienced. Moreover, this story doesn’t negate the world they were living in for it enhances it. It’s like seeing the world in HD for the first time.

52 comments:

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

This is a nice rewording of the "it's not religion it's a relationship" argument, but that's all it really is. This is just special pleading.

"If I were merely advocating a set of doctrines, or dogma, as what everyone ought to believe there would be no way to prove them as better than another view of the world."

You still do that, just with less specifics. You don't address individual doctrines, aside from the ones in your fist paragraph, but you have your own brand of dogma, which includes exploring what others believe, but not wavering on your core beliefs and judging theology you don't agree with as "religion" instead of relationship.

Sometimes your posts give me such joy in that it is so refreshing to be truly free of religion instead of just fooling myself.

CyberKitten said...

Mike said: Sometimes your posts give me such joy in that it is so refreshing to be truly free of religion instead of just fooling myself.

Although Karla would probably hate the idea, one of the reasons I frequent this Blog so much is that it confirms my atheism (if it needed any more confirmation) with every post and almost every comment back and forth....

boomSLANG said...

::sigh::

Again, wonderful apologetics.......if you're already convinced.

Karla said...

Mike, what I was trying to get at is that I feel like you guys hear what I say as only intellectual propositions, not really a claim for something or rather Someone to be really real.

It's like we aren't talking about the existence of a real person at all, but instead theories and ideas that never leave that intellectual plane into something real.

I understand none of you agree God is really real, but I often get the idea that you guys are unable to even conceive anymore of God's realness and only see the potential truth as a matter of doctrine and not a matter of reality.

Dogma and doctrine is a tool, not the end all. If it only points to itself it is nothing worth talking about. If the words do not correspond to something real they are rather meaningless gibberish.

My post wasn't an apologetic for the realness, but an appeal to thinking about truth as "what is" rather than just ideas in our heads.

What I propose either "is" or "is not".

Karla said...

Cyber, that is hard to hear, but I appreciate your honesty.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"My post wasn't an apologetic for the realness, but an appeal to thinking about truth as "what is" rather than just ideas in our heads."

I think we already think of truth as "what is". We both agreed on Aristotle's definition of truth. I think my fellow atheists would agree with me when I say that we are the ones who believe in only "what is", and need to be convinced either experientially or intellectually that there is some greater "what is", and then, in your case, that this greater "what is" is YHWH/Jesus.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: It's like we aren't talking about the existence of a real person at all....

Exactly!....."we" aren't. It is you who *believes* you are "talking about a real person", but thus far, your "talking about" it(over and over and over) doesn't amount to evidence that what you believe is "true", let alone, "Truth".

Continues......but instead theories and ideas that never leave that intellectual plane into something real.

Why should we believe something that isn't even conceptually true, can be something "real"? No amount of apologetics; no amount of "faith", can make a "married bachelor" a conceptual possibility.

Monolith Mike: I think my fellow atheists would agree with me when I say that we are the ones who believe in only "what is", and need to be convinced either experientially or intellectually that there is some greater "what is"..

Precisely.

Karla said...

Mike, yes. What I mean is that I wonder if you guys see that I claim that Jesus is Someone real rather than simply discussing ethereal philosophical theories about life.

I fully know we don't accept the same thing as "what is", but I just wanted to be sure there was agreement we were talking about "what is" or "is not" rather than just concepts about life that don't really matter even if they were real.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

I think we all know that you hold a mostly if not completely traditional view of Jesus.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Exactly!....."we" aren't. It is you who *believes* you are "talking about a real person", but thus far, your "talking about" it(over and over and over) doesn't amount to evidence that what you believe is "true", let alone, "Truth".”

Okay, here’s the thing. If we were discussing weather or not George Washington was real or not real we would be discussing the existence or non-existence of a person. But when we talk about Jesus it sounds like many atheists think only in terms of some ethereal construct and not in the reality of does this person exist or not? I know you think, not. But do you think of a person not existing, or of a “belief statement” not being true. Because if you are only thinking in terms of “belief statements” or “doctrines” and not in terms of does this person really exist in reality we can’t ever seem to really deal with any evidence.


BoomSlang “Why should we believe something that isn't even conceptually true, can be something "real"? No amount of apologetics; no amount of "faith", can make a "married bachelor" a conceptual possibility.”


Do concepts precede realness? Do I have to have concepts about someone before meeting them and finding them to be real? How can one have concepts about someone they haven’t met, unless they trust someone else who has met the person? So if you don’t trust people who say they have met someone, then the only thing you could rely on is meeting the person yourself. So in that instance, concepts do not precede the meeting.

I’m not talking about believing in something without merit for its realness. I’m talking about encountering Someone as real. Sometimes I think the practice of apologetics removes the idea of the reality of the subject being defended. I just wanted to bring back the idea that we aren’t just talking in ethereal concepts because if what I am proposing is true is true it is far more than what we believe in our head, but what really is.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Cyber, that is hard to hear, but I appreciate your honesty.

Oh, don't worry about it. It's pretty much my reaction to most encounters with Christians - either IRL or on-line. From my point of view it seems that you operate in another reality where from my point of view I live (mostly) in the real world. To become a Christian it seems that I would have to turn my back on reality and deny so much I consider real. That, I simply cannot do.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: ...when we talk about Jesus it sounds like many atheists think only in terms of some ethereal construct and not in the reality of does this person exist or not?[emphasis added]

That's just it---Atheists don't believe "in the reality" of this supposed "person". Yes, they can discuss things under the *pretense* that said "person" actually exists, but it seems like you are asking for more. I mean, if I, an Atheist, said, "Yes, Karla!...I believe you are talking about a 'real person'!!!!, then I've pretty much just negated my Atheism, because I've just implied that "Jesus" is a "real person".

Boy, if I were talking to some other Christian, I would almost be tempted to believe that he or she were trying to cleverly 'lure' me into a confession of belief via weasle-wording. In this case, however, I know you either misspoke, or don't really know what you're trying to say.

Do I have to have concepts about someone before meeting them and finding them to be real?

No, you don't have to! *However*, if you expect me/want me to believe that said "someone" is real, you'll either need to introduce me to this person in a face-to-face meeting, or describe them in a way that doesn't contradict logic and reason. If you describe this "someone" in a way that is not even conceptually possible, I have no reason to believe you are telling the truth about this "someone".

I’m not talking about believing in something without merit for its realness. I’m talking about encountering Someone as real.

Here you are again being totally redundant.

Please try to follow: We really, really, really do "get" that you *believe* that you are "encountering Someone as real". I don't doubt for one second that you believe "Jesus" is real.

I just wanted to bring back the idea that we aren’t just talking in ethereal concepts because if what I am proposing is true is true it is far more than what we believe in our head, but what really is.

There's that pesky, two-letter word again..."if"...IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF.

"IF" Mormonism is true, then it is true! "IF" Gumby is real, then he is real! In other words, obvious and redundantly true statements.

Karla said...

Cyber "To become a Christian it seems that I would have to turn my back on reality and deny so much I consider real. That, I simply cannot do."

Quite the opposite. In fact, it makes it real, vibrant, meaningful, purposeful, reasonable, etc. You wouldn't be abandoning the reality of the natural world nor the reason you use to understand the world, you would be giving it a firm support.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: You wouldn't be abandoning the reality of the natural world nor the reason you use to understand the world, you would be giving it a firm support.

Really?

I wouldn't have to abandon the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?

I wouldn't have to abandon that the Universe is 13-15 billion years old?

I wouldn't have to abandon the idea that humans evolved from other creatures and did everything else living today?

I wouldn't have to abandon the idea that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago?

You are happy with all of these ideas?

Karla said...

BoomSlang, I'm not trying to deceive anyone into believing something through some contrived backdoor approach.

Such belief wouldn't be productive, nor honest.

I think it would be helpful in fully examining anything as true to look at it as if it were real, rather than if it were not. Sometimes looking at something from without won't yield the fullness of trying to look out from within.

Before you remind me that you were at one time a Christian and did believe and did see the world as a Christian, let me say I do understand that and maybe that does negate what I am saying. But I think every time one truly takes the time to consider whether something is true or not we have to look past our skepticism and only resume the skepticism when it doesn't pan out as true.

Karla said...

Cyber, many Christians see all of those things you mentioned as true and they, and I, don't see them as not being compatible with their relationship with Jesus. The "how" of the universe/nature doesn't change the "Who" or the "why."

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I think it would be helpful in fully examining anything as true to look at it as if it were real, rather than if it were not.

Right, and that's precisely what I mean when/if I say that I look at Christianity "under the pretense that it is true". The next step closer would be to actually believe it, and as I stated, I am unable to do so for the reasons I've delineated throughout these conversations.

Karla: But I think every time one truly takes the time to consider whether something is true or not we have to look past our skepticism and only resume the skepticism when it doesn't pan out as true.

Nonsense. Looking "past our skepticism" defeats the purpose of it. Being skeptical is how we find what is *more likely* true about the world we live in. And BTW, just because an idea "doesn't pan out as true" doesn't mean that I haven't "truly" taken the time to investigate that idea.

Karla: Cyber, many Christians see all of those things you mentioned as true and they, and I, don't see them as not being compatible with their relationship with Jesus. The "how" of the universe/nature doesn't change the "Who" or the "why."

But if I can't trust the bible on the "how"/"when", then why should I trust it on the "Who" and/or "why"?

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Nonsense. Looking "past our skepticism" defeats the purpose of it. Being skeptical is how we find what is *more likely* true about the world we live in. And BTW, just because an idea "doesn't pan out as true" doesn't mean that I haven't "truly" taken the time to investigate that idea.”


If you approach something as not true you don’t give it a chance to be true. If you approach as possibly true, rather than probably false, you can judge it better for you are more open to the possibility of finding truth, but able to judge that it isn’t there if it proves false. A risk is required to seek truth. However, if you have given it a full investigation and find it empty or false then you back away and try a different path to truth. But if you give it a try and find something of substance then you hang on to that and keep going forward.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Cyber, many Christians see all of those things you mentioned as true and they, and I, don't see them as not being compatible with their relationship with Jesus.

Well, it's good to know that if I ever decide to be a Christian that I don't need to put my existing knowledge and my reasoning powers 'on hold'.

I am a little confused though... I thought you said that you were undecided on the whole age of the Earth thing and didn't actually believe in Evolution. Have you changed your mind? That that would be an interesting post to read....

karla said: If you approach something as not true you don’t give it a chance to be true.

Erm, yes you do - but it needs to *show* its true. You can't really start off with an assumption that something is true if you *really* want to find out because you simply won't ask some very important questions. Do you actually start out with the assumption that *everything* is true until proven otherwise?

karla said: However, if you have given it a full investigation and find it empty or false then you back away and try a different path to truth.

But if you start off assuming that something is true before you investigate it you're basically looking for un-proofs or contrary evidence in order to change your mind on the subject. Such un-proofs might not be readily available which means you're basically accepting things without any evidence being required. Its certainly not the way *I* think about things and would classify your approach as deeply irrational and highly suspect.

karla said: But if you give it a try and find something of substance then you hang on to that and keep going forward.

But how can I give Christianity, Islam or Buddhism (for example) a 'try' without believing in them first? Should I just act 'as if' I believe for 6 months and see what happens before moving on to the next belief system and the next before I find one that fits or get bored? Could *you* 'pretend' to be an atheist for 6 months - just to see what its like? I'm guessing not.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"If you approach something as not true you don’t give it a chance to be true."

That would be the Christian, straw man version of skepticism.

Skepticism starts out assuming that something is neither true nor false, not assuming it is false.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: If you approach something as not true you don’t give it a chance to be true.

On the other hand, if one has spent, say, 2/3rds of their life *believing* something is "true", only to later dismiss it as "false", then I think that constitutes "giving it a chance".

Karla said...

Cyber “Well, it's good to know that if I ever decide to be a Christian that I don't need to put my existing knowledge and my reasoning powers 'on hold'.”

Cyber “I am a little confused though... I thought you said that you were undecided on the whole age of the Earth thing and didn't actually believe in Evolution. Have you changed your mind? That that would be an interesting post to read....”

That’s true. No I haven’t changed my mind, it’s just that there are Christians who do believe the earth is billions of years old, even the well known apologist Lee Strobel uses that kind of dating in his book entitled The Case For The Creator. Also, I’m pretty sure when I read Dinesh D’souza’s book he agrees with the theory of evolution and is a Christian. Evolution is a possible “how” and doesn’t negate the existence of a “Who”. I still believe God created man distinct from the rest of creation and that we haven’t evolved from lower life forms. But one could argue for the other and still have relationship with Jesus and all that.

Cyber “Erm, yes you do - but it needs to *show* its true. You can't really start off with an assumption that something is true if you *really* want to find out because you simply won't ask some very important questions. Do you actually start out with the assumption that *everything* is true until proven otherwise?”

No I am not advocating assuming it is true for that draws a conclusion before it is even examined. But approaching it as if it could be true is different than approaching it as if it must be false unless otherwise proven. The later will yield that result every time because the conclusion was made before testing it out.


Cyber “But if you start off assuming that something is true before you investigate it you're basically looking for un-proofs or contrary evidence in order to change your mind on the subject. Such un-proofs might not be readily available which means you're basically accepting things without any evidence being required. Its certainly not the way *I* think about things and would classify your approach as deeply irrational and highly suspect.”

See my response above. Does that clarify what I meant?

Cyber “But how can I give Christianity, Islam or Buddhism (for example) a 'try' without believing in them first?”

I would recommend first examining the claims of each. Find out what those claims are and see what pans out as true or not. When you come in contact with something that sounds reasonable and rings true go a little further, test it out more, talk to people who are on the inside, various people from different inside perspectives.


Cyber “Should I just act 'as if' I believe for 6 months and see what happens before moving on to the next belief system and the next before I find one that fits or get bored”

I wouldn’t recommend that at all. You shouldn’t assent to anything you don’t find truth in, but you could approach things as if they might be true, and then judge them as true or false as the evidence comes in. I really think our mind is sharp enough not to be taken in by falsehood through a less skeptical approach.

Cyber “Could *you* 'pretend' to be an atheist for 6 months - just to see what its like? I'm guessing not.”

No, and I’m not asking you to pretend to be a Christian. I do try to the best I am able to think outside of my view point and try and see the world as an atheist sees it. I’m not very good at it, but I’m trying to learn more and more by talking to you all and learning how you see things. Even though I do not share your presupposition of a God-less world, I do think I can learn valuable things from you guys by trying to see what you see when you look at the world.

Karla said...

Mike “Skepticism starts out assuming that something is neither true nor false, not assuming it is false.”

I don’t think we can be that neutral. Skepticism is ardent doubt and distrust of the proposition. It isn’t a neutral position.

Let’s bring this to a non-religious example. If a friend introduces you to someone do you instantly see them with skepticism and distrust until they have proven themselves trustworthy? Or do you extend good will to them until you have reason to withdraw it?

Karla said...

BoomSlang “On the other hand, if one has spent, say, 2/3rds of their life *believing* something is "true", only to later dismiss it as "false", then I think that constitutes "giving it a chance".”

Maybe. I can’t judge your experiences with Christ. I have noticed that you seem to only equate “belief” as an intellectual exercise and not something akin to knowing God personally.

Can I ask if when you did believe did you think it ought to be something you can experience as true, or just something you had to believe to be okay with some God you haven’t ever any contact with?

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"I don’t think we can be that neutral."

What? Of course we can be neutral. Before I look at the thermometer in the morning I am neutral about the temperature outside.

"Let’s bring this to a non-religious example. If a friend introduces you to someone do you instantly see them with skepticism and distrust until they have proven themselves trustworthy? Or do you extend good will to them until you have reason to withdraw it?"

What does that have to do with skepticism? If skepticism is negative as you say then why did you feel the need to say "skepticism and distrust"?

Karla said...

Mike “What? Of course we can be neutral. Before I look at the thermometer in the morning I am neutral about the temperature outside.”

Good point. But can you be neutral about things that matter more than the temperature? Things like religion, politics, philosophy, morality, ect? Do you approach all these things neutrally? I don’t. I either approach them with the potential of them being true, or with skepticism based on past experience about it. Sometimes I find when I abandon the skepticism I see more of the truth than when I held on to it and sometimes I find confirmation of it being false or empty. I’m talking to you guys about this in regards to Christ, but this is something I need to learn in regards to things I start with skepticism about for whatever reason.


Mike “What does that have to do with skepticism? If skepticism is negative as you say then why did you feel the need to say "skepticism and distrust"?”

I see it as inclusive of “distrust” or as a “defense against being deceived.” Usually those who are afraid of being deceived end up becoming so because they never accept anything solid and to see through all things is the same as not to see at all. I can’t judge where you are at in the spectrum of “skepticism” Mike. You each take a different approach, I haven’t met two atheists that are the same and I don’t plan to put any of you into some box labeled atheists, as if it explains who you are and how you respond to knowledge.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"But can you be neutral about things that matter more than the temperature? Things like religion, politics, philosophy, morality, ect?"

The problem with those subjects is that they each have their own baggage and people tend to pigeonhole others, some assume you are a certain kind of Christian, some assume I am a certain kind of atheist.

Each can be looked at neutrally though sometimes one has to suppress their own baggage.

That's one reason Socrates was always so big on defining the premises of the argument.

Karla said...

yes, defining terms is a good idea, I plan to do that more often and to ask for it more often.

I'm trying to catch up on the comments because I am going to be busy probably until Monday. So in a few minutes I probably won't comment again until Monday, but I might if I get time between now and then.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “On the other hand, if one has spent, say, 2/3rds of their life *believing* something is 'true', only to later dismiss it as 'false', then I think that constitutes 'giving it a chance'.”

Karla responds: Maybe. I can’t judge your experiences with Christ.

Really? That's funny(in the non-humorous way), you just implicitly judged my experiences by suggesting that, "Maybe", I didn't give my previous belief(s) a chance.

Regardless, tell me, how does one believe a proposition to be "true", without "approaching it" as if it is "true"? Again, it seems that you are trying to make a distinction of some sort, when really, all you are doing is attempting an alternate (and slightly more annoying) version of the "True Believer" argument...i.e.."If you no longer believe, then weren't a True Believer!!!".

Karla: I have noticed that you seem to only equate “belief” as an intellectual exercise and not something akin to knowing God personally.

For the same reason that I don't believe that I can know Santa Claus, "personally", I don't believe that I can know "Yahweh", or any of its supposed offspring, "personally". That reason is this: There is no objective evidence for the existence of either one, despite that there might be better reasons to want to believe in the later.

Notwithstanding, I can still believe a proposition to be true, and reject it. So, even if I was convinced that "God" or "Santa" existed, I could still make an intellectual determination that I don't want to adhere to what they have to offer. So, in that sense, I don't "equate 'belief' as an intellectual exercise."

Karla: Can I ask if when you did believe did you think it ought to be something you can experience as true, or just something you had to believe to be okay with some God you haven’t ever any contact with?

You do know that one doesn't necessarily exclude the other, don't you?? I believed that I "had to believe" in, not just "some God", but "Jesus", if I wanted to go to heaven(aka be "saved"), and thus, if I "had to believe", then it was, yes, reasonable that I should be able to "experience" this "Jesus" character if it was in fact real. This is what fueled my formerly-held belief that I was "experiencing Jesus". I believed for many of the same reasons you give as examples. People I loved were "healed!!" via my "prayer". If my own conscience told me to do one thing, and it turned out to be the "right"(or beneficial) thing?... then I attributed that "voice" in my head to being "Jesus".

Welp, I now know that I was self-deceived, *just like I believe that you are deceiving yourself right this second.

*Disclaimer: I firmly believe that you believe that you're having these experiences.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Usually those who are afraid of being deceived end up becoming so because they never accept anything solid...[bold added]

Interesting. With the ad hominem aside, there is some irony here, in that, this could apply to you because you reject the "solid" evidence against your beliefs.

Karla said...

Karla: Usually those who are afraid of being deceived end up becoming so because they never accept anything solid...[bold added]

BoomSlang “Interesting. With the ad hominem aside, there is some irony here, in that, this could apply to you because you reject the "solid" evidence against your beliefs.”

I was talking about solid Truth. Atheist have non-belief correct. They don’t bank on anything as Truth, just knowledge, not Truth. That’s what Cyber tells me. So when I say “never accepting anything solid” I mean never accepting anything as having a substance of Truth.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I was talking about solid Truth.

Unless/until I hear otherwise, I'll take it that by "solid", you mean, "Absolute".

continues...Atheist(s) have non-belief correct.

Since punctuation is up in the air on this one, I'll take it that you didn't mean Atheists are "correct" in their "non-belief", but that they have a "non-belief". While the latter is true, it only applies to deities. Aside from that, Atheists have a lot of beliefs.(excluding religious dogma, of course)

continues...[Atheists] don’t bank on anything as Truth, just knowledge, not Truth.

If, by "Truth"(with an upper-case "T"), you mean, knowledge that is "Absolute", then once more, correct, Atheists don't hold to such "Truth". However, this is not to say that Atheists don't believe that certain aspects of knowledge are "true"(accurate) in a colloquial sense. Nor is it to say that the unknown is unknowable.

If by "bank on" you mean trust, then yes, Atheists *trust* science, logic, and reason to tell us what is *most likely* "true" about the world we live in. Notice that "trust" is something entirely different from "faith", as the former is developed through a proven, testible, repeatable track-record; the latter is not.

continues...That’s what Cyber tells me. So when I say “never accepting anything solid” I mean never accepting anything as having a substance of Truth.

I swear, you make conversation unnecessarily tedious because you are constantly throwing out vague and evasive terms. For instance, what on earth should we conclude you mean by, "substance of Truth"????????????????

Karla said...

“Unless/until I hear otherwise, I'll take it that by "solid", you mean, "Absolute".”

God is absolute. I mean though by “solid” something real and sure and experiential.


continues...Atheist(s) have non-belief correct.

Boom “Since punctuation is up in the air on this one, I'll take it that you didn't mean Atheists are "correct" in their "non-belief", but that they have a "non-belief". While the latter is true, it only applies to deities.”

Yes that atheists take the position not of believing there is no God, but having non-belief of a God.

BoomSlang “Aside from that, Atheists have a lot of beliefs.(excluding religious dogma, of course)”

I thought this to be true, but haven’t heard that said by atheists to my knowledge until now.


Boom “If, by "Truth"(with an upper-case "T"), you mean, knowledge that is "Absolute", then once more, correct, Atheists don't hold to such "Truth". However, this is not to say that Atheists don't believe that certain aspects of knowledge are "true"(accurate) in a colloquial sense. Nor is it to say that the unknown is unknowable. “

Yes that is what I was saying.


Boom “If by "bank on" you mean trust, then yes, Atheists *trust* science, logic, and reason to tell us what is *most likely* "true" about the world we live in.”

So I am demonstrating that I am listening accurately?

Boom “Notice that "trust" is something entirely different from "faith", as the former is developed through a proven, testible, repeatable track-record; the latter is not.”

But do you define what I mean by faith, or should I be doing that, since “faith” comes from my worldview rather than yours?

continues...That’s what Cyber tells me. So when I say “never accepting anything solid” I mean never accepting anything as having a substance of Truth.

Boom “I swear, you make conversation unnecessarily tedious because you are constantly throwing out vague and evasive terms. For instance, what on earth should we conclude you mean by, "substance of Truth"???????????????? “

I apologize for my lack of clarity on this point. By “substance of Truth” I mean what I meant by “solid truth” something more than a dry fact, but something one can experience and connect with. I would say in their spirit and soul, but that does not translate to someone who thinks we have none. But that is what I mean by it. This kind of truth has an ontological source, it is rooted in being, that being is of course God. So when we come in contact with this kind of truth we are in fact experiencing God. (now of course if God does not exist then this kind of Truth does not exist and we have only “accurate, true aspects of knowledge” and nothing beyond that.) But the latter is not the position I hold, as you know.

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boomSLANG said...

Karla: God is absolute.

False. But even if you disagree, it is entirely irrelevant. I'm trying to decipher your terms as we go, in this case, what you meant by "solid", from "solid Truth".

continues...I mean though by “solid” something real and sure and experiential.

A "Truth"(or truth) that can be concluded to be "real" and "sure" can be studied, tested/falsified, and we can make predictions on it. We've been over this.

continues...So I am demonstrating that I am listening accurately?

I have no real way of knowing such things. As it stands, it's a toss-up between not listening, and.... listening, but not being able to retain the information.

If the latter, I also have no way of knowing if it's a legit' deficiency of some sort, or the willful act of putting the information out of your mind because it exposes your beliefs as contradictory/illogical. Sadly, I suspect the latter.

Previously, me: “Notice that 'trust' is something entirely different from 'faith', as the former is developed through a proven, testible, repeatable track-record; the latter is not.”

You respond: But do you define what I mean by faith, or should I be doing that, since “faith” comes from my worldview rather than yours?

You define most of the terms to suit your needs--for instance, "omniscience"--so I don't have any reason to expect that to change, do I? In fact, if memory serves, as part of your rebuttal, you said, "Christians define omniscience as..[yada, yada]"

So, how would you like to define "faith", Karla?....bearing in mind that if you equate it with "trust", then you have the burden of providing a proven track-record for the object of your "faith".

continues...I apologize for my lack of clarity on this point. By “substance of Truth” I mean what I meant by “solid truth” something more than a dry fact..

Is the joke on me? You are leading me on a "term" goose-chase, it seems.

So, in an attempt to explain one ambiguous term, you've invented and injected another: "dry fact".

Okay, can you now tell me what a "dry fact" is?....preferably, without inventing another term to "explain" it? I guess it's really no wonder why these conversations get so convoluted(and side-tracked).

continues...[By “substance of Truth” I mean what I meant by “solid truth” something more than a dry fact,] but something one can experience and connect with.

I can whip up a batch of mushroom tea and "experience" cows break-dancing. That doesn't mean it's a "fact". Perhaps it's a "dry fact", then?

continues...I would say in their spirit and soul, but that does not translate to someone who thinks we have none.

Bravo. You show that you *can* listen, if you really want to.

continues...But that is what I mean by it.

Oops--'spoke too soon. "Bravo", retracted.

continues...This kind of truth has an ontological source, it is rooted in being, that being is of course God.

Yes, "of course". Existential fallacy.

Karla said...

Boom “False. But even if you disagree, it is entirely irrelevant. I'm trying to decipher your terms as we go, in this case, what you meant by "solid", from "solid Truth".”

I understand when I say “God is absolute” you disagree. I am only clarifying what my position is when I hear it misstated. I am not stating it as if repeating it will suddenly cause agreement.

My use of words like “solid truth” or “real truth” or “substance of truth” is my attempt to use non religious words to convey the idea of a truth that is more than “informative true statements such as a mathematical equation or the measurement of the earth’s circumference, etc.” They are not terms that are “religious jargon” but words I am using to describe this kind of truth I speak of.


Boom “A "Truth"(or truth) that can be concluded to be "real" and "sure" can be studied, tested/falsified, and we can make predictions on it. We've been over this.”

Science cannot prove the scientific method. Logic cannot be proven without using logic. Reason cannot be proven without using reason. Many things cannot be tested and falsified or verified, but are accepted as self-evident without any way to test them. We experience logic to be true, but we cannot verify it without using it.


continues...So I am demonstrating that I am listening accurately?

I have no real way of knowing such things. As it stands, it's a toss-up between not listening, and.... listening, but not being able to retain the information.

If the latter, I also have no way of knowing if it's a legit' deficiency of some sort, or the willful act of putting the information out of your mind because it exposes your beliefs as contradictory/illogical. Sadly, I suspect the latter.


Boom “You define most of the terms to suit your needs--for instance, "omniscience"--so I don't have any reason to expect that to change, do I? In fact, if memory serves, as part of your rebuttal, you said, "Christians define omniscience as..[yada, yada]"

Even Socrates started by defining terms. We would have to agree on the definition or use different terms we do agree upon in order to communicate. This is presumably why you are asking me to define the terms I was using above. I have not redefined “omniscience” I defined what Christians mean by “omnipotence.”

Boom “So, how would you like to define "faith", Karla?....bearing in mind that if you equate it with "trust", then you have the burden of providing a proven track-record for the object of your "faith".”

At present I am at a loss on how to explain it in a way that would make sense to someone who does not believe we have spirits and souls and eternal truth. (Does the word choice “eternal truth” work better than “solid” or “substance of truth”?) I will think on it. I was just going to jump in with a response, but I erased it to give it more thought.


Boom “So, in an attempt to explain one ambiguous term, you've invented and injected another: "dry fact".

Okay, can you now tell me what a "dry fact" is?....preferably, without inventing another term to "explain" it? I guess it's really no wonder why these conversations get so convoluted(and side-tracked).”

I am attempting to use every day descriptive words to explain something that you do not have a frame of reference for in your worldview. My attempts are failing. I apologize for being inept at this. I am trying to learn as we go.

Karla said...

Karla “...I would say in their spirit and soul, but that does not translate to someone who thinks we have none.”

Boon “Bravo. You show that you *can* listen, if you really want to.”

Thank you.

Karla “But that is what I mean by it.”

Boom “Oops--'spoke too soon. "Bravo", retracted.”

Do you expect me to conform to your worldview and not refer to anything spirit related when in my worldview there is a spiritual world and my worldview sees both the physical and the spiritual at work in reality?


continues...This kind of truth has an ontological source, it is rooted in being, that being is of course God.

Boom “Yes, "of course". Existential fallacy. “

I said “of course’ because I know you knew that was coming. Should we back up to a philosophical study of ontology and epistemology?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I understand when I say “God is absolute” you disagree. I am only clarifying what my position is when I hear it misstated.

Fine, except that I HAVEN'T MISSTATED your position. We were talking about truth/"Truth", and you have been using ambiguous language..i.e.."solid Truth"/"dry fact", etc., in an attempt to differentiate "truth", in a real-world, colloquial sense, from what you assert to be "Truth", in a metaphysical, absolute sense.

continues...I am not stating it as if repeating it will suddenly cause agreement.

But you don't need to repeat it, period. Again, we're talking about truth/"Truth" and how we arrive at there, and you mindlessly interject "God is Absolute", which again, is IRRELEVANT. True---you can repeat "God is Truth!", "God is Truth!", etc/, etc., etc., until the cows come home. It is meaningless until/unless you can demonstrate it in some objective sense. To date, you have not/cannot.

On the other hand, it is interesting that the truth(lower case "t") that you refer to as "merely knowledge of facts", *can* be demonstrated in many cases. It should be self-evident why the nonbeliever finds the latter more valuable/useful/practical.

continues...Science cannot prove the scientific method.

It is not the burden of "science" to "prove the scientific method". Karla, if you think said method produces flimsy, inadaquate results, then it is YOUR burden to proffer a better method for determining what is more likely "true" about the world we live in. If you know a Truth that is "Absolute"(as opposed to provisional), the onus is on you to provide it.

To my knowledge, thus far, we have your bible, and an over-flux of assertions based on your personal testimony, as "evidence". Let me know if I left anything out.

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boomSLANG said...

Karla: Many things cannot be tested and falsified or verified, but are accepted as self-evident without any way to test them.

Feel free to provide some examples. For the time being and sake of argument, I'll wager that these "many things" you speak of are not being offered with conditions attached, in which case, there would be nothing at stake in not believing them. But we won't know for sure until you provide examples.

continues...We experience logic to be true, but we cannot verify it without using it.

Aside from being a ridiculous remark---'relevance, please? The point, the way I see it, is that logic *can be* verified to produce accurate results. To give benefit of doubt, let's replace one word in your above statement and see if it holds up:

"We experience spiritualism to be true, but we cannot verify it without using it".

So? Assuming Karla can "experience" and use something called "Spirit" or "spiritualism", exactly when/how has it been verified that these things give an accurate rendering of what is true about the world we live in?

continues...I have not redefined “omniscience” I defined what Christians mean by “omnipotence.”

Okay, so admittedly, my memory failed me on that point. It was "omnipotence", not "omniscience". Notwithstanding, you have attached qualifiers on your definition. Unfortunately, none of which overcome the philosophical incompatability of "omniscience"/"omnipotence".

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I am attempting to use every day descriptive words to explain something that you do not have a frame of reference for in your worldview.

You can simply say, "Absolute Truth". And you don't need to "explain" it; you need to show some evidence that it exists.

continues...I am trying to learn as we go.

It would really impress upon me that you want to "learn", if you would admit your errors, or at least, stop defending them.

continues...Do you expect me to conform to your worldview and not refer to anything spirit related when in my worldview there is a spiritual world and my worldview sees both the physical and the spiritual at work in reality?

NO; what I expect is for you to admit when you have no objective confirmation for your assertions. As I've said in the past---if you would simply concede that your "spiritualism" is matter of "faith", where "faith" means believing in lack of evidence, or despite the evidence against, then this could be put to rest, and I could be on my merry way. But you refuse that option, and instead, you obstinately insist that your "spiritual" beliefs are confirmed by things like "logic", "reason" and "evidence". You insist that "Christ is the answer".

Well, I'm sorry, but no, you haven't proven any of this...or at least, you've yet to convince me using the written word. Maybe it's possible that your apologetics have convinced a nonbelieving guest that "Christ is the answer", but I highly doubt it. Again, from where I sit, apologetics are for keeping the already-convinced, convinced.

Karla said...

Boom “On the other hand, it is interesting that the truth(lower case "t") that you refer to as "merely knowledge of facts", *can* be demonstrated in many cases. It should be self-evident why the nonbeliever finds the latter more valuable/useful/practical.”

I am not being dismissive of such truth, but only asserting that there is more to life. There is more than this kind of truth. There is a Truth that satisfies and completes us. We can learn as much “truth” as Einstein and it not do anything, but make us mentally smarter. Or most likely make one realize how ignorant we really are for the wise know that they do not know in contrast to the vast amount of knowledge there is to know.

But I speak of a knowing that is not only mental but spiritual. Yes, I meant to say spiritual. The thing is I cannot speak without reference to the spiritual world for there is not a comparison in a worldview that does not acknowledge a non-physical world.

I have been attempting to shed my language of the metaphysical to try and speak to those who only converse in relation to the physical, but this will not help foster any understanding of which I speak.


continues...Science cannot prove the scientific method.

Boom “It is not the burden of "science" to "prove the scientific method". Karla, if you think said method produces flimsy, inadaquate results, then it is YOUR burden to proffer a better method for determining what is more likely "true" about the world we live in. If you know a Truth that is "Absolute"(as opposed to provisional), the onus is on you to provide it.”

I wasn’t asking for it to be proven. I was only giving it as an example of something accepted by faith. Something trusted in as accurate despite it being proven. If I gave your answer back to you with regard to God, I would say if you can think of a better origin for life and goodness please take a stab at it because until you come up with one that is not flimsy we must stick with the explanation that makes more sense. But I am certain such a response would not be well received.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I am not being dismissive of such truth, but only asserting that there is more to life.

You may not be "dismissive" of it, but it is implicit in your comments that it is lacking in comparison to this supposed "Truth" that you insist is "Absolute" and "Eternal".

For instance, you refer to "truth"(lower case "t") as...

"merely knowledge of facts" ~ Karla[bold added].

I'm sorry, but aside from said statement sounding just plain silly, I fail to see how having a "knowledge of facts" can be improved upon. Isn't it self-evident that if we acquire new information/new knowdledge, that it's better, as in, more useful, to have the freedom to revise our previous erroneous knowledge, as opposed to not having that freedom, which in turn, forces us to do mental back-flips and create bloated rationalizations to defend an old, unchanging "Truth"..aka, "Absolute Truth"?

Well?

continues...There is more than this kind of truth.

PROVE IT. If you cannot do so, then have some integrity, and get honest and admit that you cannot do so.

continues...There is a Truth that satisfies and completes us.

I'm sorry that you've been indoctrinated(brainwashed) into believing that you need a "Truth"(also what you refer to as "God") to feel completed. Personally(because I know me, better than Karla knows me), I don't feel "incomplete" just because I am imperfect by nature.

In other words, you really have no business taking your life experiences - including, all of the areas that make you feel deficient or incomplete - and projecting them onto your fellow human beings. It's unfair, but mostly, it makes you look like a pompous, self-rightous, religious zealot.

continues...We can learn as much “truth” as Einstein and it not do anything, but make us mentally smarter.

Yes, "mentally smarter". That's just so...it's so....it's...it's...it's sooo bad, right?

Tell me something--can you actually keep a straight face and tell me that the reason we've advanced as a human race is because we've used the bible as our guide? If so, this really lessens my hope for humanity. It really does.

continues....Or most likely make one realize how ignorant we really are for the wise know that they do not know in contrast to the vast amount of knowledge there is to know.

Yes, and who claims to know everything? Scientists? Nope. Atheists? Nope. These two groups have zero problem admitting when they're ignorant about a topic. Yet, interestingly, when we look at religious fundamentalists, they use "God" to fill in the gaps in our ignorance, when actually, saying "GOD DID IT!" answers NOTHING at all.

Additionally, if "GOD DID IT!" is supposed to be a satisfying "answer", then we have no reason to be curious or to keep searching, because we supposedly have our "answer". This is one of the many reasons I find your beliefs to be a bane to humanity.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: The thing is I cannot speak without reference to the spiritual world for there is not a comparison in a worldview that does not acknowledge a non-physical world.

Precisely, so ultimately, you have an opinion, in which case, the honest thing to do is to CEASE FROM promoting your opinion as "Absolute Truth".

Me, previously: “It is not the burden of 'science' to "prove the scientific method". Karla, if you think said method produces flimsy, inadaquate results, then it is YOUR burden to proffer a better method for determining what is more likely 'true' about the world we live in. If you know a Truth that is 'Absolute'(as opposed to provisional), the onus is on you to provide it.”

You attempt...I wasn’t asking for it to be proven. I was only giving it as an example of something accepted by faith.

Arrrrg! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!

Karla, your dishonesty is sickening; it is appalling.

Let's go over this AGAIN:

"Science" does not ACCEPT its results/findings on "faith". Science is about what can be tested/falsified and observed. Moreover, science ADMITS WHEN IT'S WRONG, whereas, those who hold religious convictions on "faith", do NOT(and you are a shining example, BTW)

To attempt to put "science" and "faith" on equal (flimsy) ground is dishonest. Just because "science" is admittedly provisional does not detract from its GOAL to seek to find out what is most likely true about the world we live in.

But what's really interesting, is even if you were right, you are more or less saying that "science" is just as flimsy and unreliable as religious "faith"(or if your prefer, "spiritualism").

In other words, when theists spend their time bashing science and evolution, etc., they are wasting time, because they are not bolstering their own position in the slightest bit.

In any event, imagine if scientists said, "Oh boy, we'd better not try to find a cure for leprosy, because the bible says that smearing bird's blood on the patient will cure them!!!!"

Or how about if astronomers said, "Wow, it appears that the sun is geocentric, not the earth. Oooooo, we'd better not tell anyone, because the bible said the earth is geocentric!"

Ridiculous!

continues...If I gave your answer back to you with regard to God, I would say if you can think of a better origin for life and goodness please take a stab at it because until you come up with one that is not flimsy we must stick with the explanation that makes more sense.

The "origin (of) life"? Seriously?? This? Again?

Here's my answer: I DON'T KNOW for certain!

And guess what, Karla? Neither do you, and neither did the redactors of the bible.

"Goodness" is determined by humans. It doesn't come from "God", for if there is no "Goodness" outside of "God", then whatever "God" says/commands as "Good", amounts to pure opinion. In which case, if it felt like it, "God" could decide to reinstate things that were once seen as "Good", such as punishing human beings by throwing ROCKS at them, yet, everybody knows - including YOU, Karla - that in the year 2010, in our society, throwing rocks at "drunkards", defiant teens, and prostitutes is not a "Good", nor a "Just" means of punishment. So much for "Absolute Goodness".

Karla, you should be ashamed of yourself. I'll wager that even some of your Xian constituents are cringing when they read your replies.

Karla said...

Karla: I am not being dismissive of such truth, but only asserting that there is more to life.

Boom “You may not be "dismissive" of it, but it is implicit in your comments that it is lacking in comparison to this supposed "Truth" that you insist is "Absolute" and "Eternal".”

All I mean is that it’s different than the Truth I speak of.

For instance, you refer to "truth"(lower case "t") as...

"merely knowledge of facts" ~ Karla[bold added].

Boom “I'm sorry, but aside from said statement sounding just plain silly, I fail to see how having a "knowledge of facts" can be improved upon. Isn't it self-evident that if we acquire new information/new knowdledge, that it's better, as in, more useful, to have the freedom to revise our previous erroneous knowledge, as opposed to not having that freedom, which in turn, forces us to do mental back-flips and create bloated rationalizations to defend an old, unchanging "Truth"..aka, "Absolute Truth"? “

I am not in any way arguing against acquiring and pursuing this kind of truth. I am only asserting that there is also a metaphysical Truth.



Boom “PROVE IT. If you cannot do so, then have some integrity, and get honest and admit that you cannot do so.”

What would constitute proof to you?



Boom “I'm sorry that you've been indoctrinated(brainwashed) into believing that you need a "Truth"(also what you refer to as "God") to feel completed. Personally(because I know me, better than Karla knows me), I don't feel "incomplete" just because I am imperfect by nature.”

Are you saying in your worldview you are “imperfect by nature?” If so please explain how you could know that humans are imperfect without having an example of a perfect human?


Boom “In other words, you really have no business taking your life experiences - including, all of the areas that make you feel deficient or incomplete - and projecting them onto your fellow human beings. It's unfair, but mostly, it makes you look like a pompous, self-rightous, religious zealot.”

It seems no matter what wording I use you take issue with it.


Boom “Yes, "mentally smarter". That's just so...it's so....it's...it's...it's sooo bad, right?”

Nothing is bad about it, there is just more is all. Do you want to try to see what I am saying or only to criticize it?

Boom “Tell me something--can you actually keep a straight face and tell me that the reason we've advanced as a human race is because we've used the bible as our guide? If so, this really lessens my hope for humanity. It really does.”

What do you mean by advanced? Towards what exactly?



Boom “Yes, and who claims to know everything? Scientists? Nope. Atheists? Nope. These two groups have zero problem admitting when they're ignorant about a topic. Yet, interestingly, when we look at religious fundamentalists, they use "God" to fill in the gaps in our ignorance, when actually, saying "GOD DID IT!" answers NOTHING at all.”

Interesting, that I just addressed this misconception in my last post before reading this statement.

Karla said...

Boom “Precisely, so ultimately, you have an opinion, in which case, the honest thing to do is to CEASE FROM promoting your opinion as "Absolute Truth".”

I do not promote my opinion as Absolute Truth. I only humbly acknowledge that God is that Truth.



Boom “"Science" does not ACCEPT its results/findings on "faith". Science is about what can be tested/falsified and observed. Moreover, science ADMITS WHEN IT'S WRONG, whereas, those who hold religious convictions on "faith", do NOT(and you are a shining example, BTW)”

Accept that science uses the scientific method that cannot be proved by science therefore scientist trust that method as a sure method even though they cannot prove it. I am not arguing that the method ought not to be trusted, but only pointing out that there is faith involved.

Boom “To attempt to put "science" and "faith" on equal (flimsy) ground is dishonest. Just because "science" is admittedly provisional does not detract from its GOAL to seek to find out what is most likely true about the world we live in. “

Why do you denounce things you disagree with as “dishonest.” I have not told a lie. I have only made an argument that you disagree with. And I agree that something may not be proven and yet be right.

Boom “But what's really interesting, is even if you were right, you are more or less saying that "science" is just as flimsy and unreliable as religious "faith"(or if your prefer, "spiritualism").”

No I am saying that science isn’t the absolute proven method people make it out to be. It is a method that often works, but the method used cannot be proven.

Boom “In other words, when theists spend their time bashing science and evolution, etc., they are wasting time, because they are not bolstering their own position in the slightest bit.”

I am not bashing science at all. You really aren’t listening.




Boom “The "origin (of) life"? Seriously?? This? Again?

Here's my answer: I DON'T KNOW for certain! “

Well then you do not have a better answer than mine. That does not make my answer right, but nor does it make it wrong. It originated somehow, and I propose who started it. Science can have a lot to say about what it is and how it works, but does not know how it began. Nor can it defeat the Judeo-Christian answer of God creating it.


Boom “"Goodness" is determined by humans. It doesn't come from "God", for if there is no "Goodness" outside of "God", then whatever "God" says/commands as "Good", amounts to pureopinion. In which case, if it felt like it, "God" could decide to reinstate things that were once seen as "Good", such as punishing human beings by throwing ROCKS at them, yet, everybody knows - including YOU, Karla - that in the year 2010, in our society, throwing rocks at "drunkards", defiant teens, and prostitutes is not a "Good", nor a "Just" means of punishment. So much for "Absolute Goodness".

Karla, you should be ashamed of yourself. I'll wager that even some of your Xian constituents are cringing when they read your replies.”

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “You may not be 'dismissive' of it, but it is implicit in your comments that it is lacking in comparison to this supposed 'Truth' that you insist is 'Absolute' and 'Eternal'.”

Karla responds: All I mean is that it’s different than the Truth I speak of.

Karla, I, and likely anyone else following this conversation, can see that this "Truth" you speak of is "different" from "truth" in the colloqial, day-to-day sense. Just the fact that you capitalize the "T" is a good indicator of that.

continues...I am not in any way arguing against acquiring and pursuing this kind of truth.

But you use the word "merely", as in, "merely the knowledge of facts", which implies that it is insufficient or leaves something to be desired.

Again, I am left wondering---how can a "knowledge of facts" be IMPROVED upon? 'Care to oblige me on this?

continues...I am only asserting that there is also a metaphysical Truth.

Yes, yes, yes!!!...we "get it", Karla. We fully understand what you are "asserting". Now, when will it sink in that asserting something to be true doesn't make it "true"?????

continues...What would constitute proof to you?

Well, you now claim that this "Truth" is a person/being. BOTH a person and a being, by definition, and implication, suggest an actual, material person/being.

So, while producing this alleged person/being would not necessarily constitute "proof", in an absolute sense, it would, however, constitute credible evidence for the existence of this supposed person/being.

Okay, so? Where is that evidence? If you insist that it is unreasonable for me to ask for physical evidence for this person/being because this person/being is NON-physical, then fine, ADMIT then, that no such evidence exists and that it is an inductive argument, and thus, a matter of "faith".

Additionally, since you claim this person/being is also "omnipotent", then logic says that this person/being can certainly prove its own existence if it really, really wants me to be convinced(as you insist it does), in which case, it doesn't need your help. Yet, since I don't see any evidence of a "God" who wants me to know it exists, this is why I ask *you* to provide this evidence. In fact, if this "God" exists, it appears that it's doing everything in its power to make sure I do *not* believe in it.

continues...Are you saying in your worldview you are “imperfect by nature?”

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

continues...If so please explain how you could know that humans are imperfect without having an example of a perfect human?

Easy---the same way that I can know that cats aren't perfect without having an example of a "Perfect Cat" in front of me. "Perfect" is a concept, Karla. The generally accepted meaning of perfect, is not having flaws. I can conceive of a flawless being without there actually existing a "flawless being".

Incidentally, a being who is "repented" that it did something doesn't sound "flawless" to me. Then again, "Christians" probably define "repented" differently, too.

boomSLANG said...

Karla...It seems no matter what wording I use you take issue with it.

I wouldn't take issue with the following(or something similar):

"Christ helps me feel complete. If you feel incomplete, I believe Christ might be the answer, and this blog might be for you".

That is a drastically different(and more honest) wording than, "Christ is the answer".

Me, previously: “Yes, 'mentally smarter'. That's just so...it's so....it's...it's...it's sooo bad, right?”

You respond...Nothing is bad about it, there is just more is all.

Yes, I agree that there is more to life than being smart. I adore my kitty, and it appears to adore me, and this has nothing to do with "smarts".

However, where acquiring knowledge is concerned - namely, what is more likely accurate about the world we live in - using intellect is more reliable, versus things like gut-instinct, superstition, revelation, and "faith". That's what I'm saying, and what I have been saying all along.

continues...Do you want to try to see what I am saying or only to criticize it?

False dichotomy. The suggestion is that if I could see what you were saying, then it wouldn't be deserving of criticism. In other words, it's a fallacious argument.

Me, previously: “Tell me something--can you actually keep a straight face and tell me that the reason we've advanced as a human race is because we've used the bible as our guide? If so, this really lessens my hope for humanity. It really does.”

continues...What do you mean by advanced? Towards what exactly?

My goodness, let's see---"advanced". As in, moving towards. As in, striving to learn more about diseases and other things that make our lives unpleasant. Striving to learn more about how nature works, so we can forewarn and prepare for disasterous weather conditions. Striving to see to it that our children are educated, since there's a link between being uneducated, and poverty.

Now, will you answer the question?

Me, previously: “Precisely, so ultimately, you have an opinion, in which case, the honest thing to do is to CEASE FROM promoting your opinion as 'Absolute Truth'.”

You respond...I do not promote my opinion as Absolute Truth. I only humbly acknowledge that God is that Truth.

Equivocate much?

I'll play along: If you "acknowledge" that "God" is "Absolute Truth", are you acknowledging it as a "fact", or "opinion"? If the former, you should be able to produce some evidence. If you have no evidence, then it seems that you are left "humbly" acknowledging someone's opinion.

continues...[Except] that science uses the scientific method that cannot be proved by science therefore scientist trust that method as a sure method even though they cannot prove it.

Please listen carefully: That science cannot "prove" its results, in an "Absolute" sense, is immaterial to the fact that it can be trusted to be the most accurate method available. That's all I'm arguing---science can be *trusted* to be the >> most reliable << method for determining what is real, and what is not.

As I said before, "trust" and "faith" are two different things. "Trusting" something with a verifiable track-record is different than having "faith" in something with no verifiable track-record.

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boomSLANG said...

Karla...I am not arguing that the method ought not to be trusted, but only pointing out that there is faith involved.

And as I said previously, spending time trying to equate science with "faith" is ultimately a waste of your time, because you are essentially saying that since "science" cannot "prove" itself, it is therefore not "Absolute", and thus, a matter of "faith" >>>>> just like "spiritualism" cannot "prove itself", and is therefore NOT "Absolute", and thus, a matter of "faith".

Yet, when I try to get you to concede that your "spiritual" beliefs are a matter of "faith", you refuse. A rather blatant inconsistancy, I'd say.

continues...Why do you denounce things you disagree with as “dishonest.”

I don't "denounce things" as "dishonest" only because I "disagree" with them. For instance, the proposition that omniscience and omnipotence are mutally compatible is not only something I "disagree" with, it is something that can logically be shown to be a fallacious proposition.

continues...I have not told a lie.

Telling a lie is not the only tactic in a set of things that are "dishonest". Equivocation, question-dodging, weasle-wording, and many more things, are forms of dishonesty, albeit, more subtle.

continues...I am not bashing science at all. You really aren’t listening.

I don't listen? Lol! How ironic, because if you re-read the statement to which you are responding, you'll see that I didn't mention you, specifcially, and I was not speaking of "science", only.

Me, previously: "The 'origin (of) life'? Seriously?? This? Again?

Here's my answer: I DON'T KNOW for certain!"


You respond...Well then you do not have a better answer than mine.

I didn't say "better". I said more honest.

continues...That does not make my answer right, but nor does it make it wrong.

Irrelevant conclusion; you still don't know for certain.

continues....It originated somehow, and I propose who started it.

Propose it all you'd like.

continues...Science can have a lot to say about what it is and how it works, but does not know how it began.

But yet, you don't have a lot to say about how "God did it!", NOR do you know how it began. I'd say science has a leg-up on religion.

continues...Nor can it defeat the Judeo-Christian answer of God creating it.

Defeat the Judeo-Christian answer of God creating it? That's not an "answer" even if you could prove it---it's just another question..i.e..how did "God" do it?

Karla said...

Boom’s suggested wording "Christ helps me feel complete. If you feel incomplete, I believe Christ might be the answer, and this blog might be for you".

That might be better received, but the only problem is the statement isn’t fully accurate. I do not believe that Christ “might be the answer”, but that He is the answer. I do not think everyone feels they need Him, but I do believe that once a person has met Him they will realize they were missing Him before. It’s like when someone doesn’t realize how tired they are until they sit down to rest and then they realize just how much they need to rest. For me to change my wording in this instance, would be dishonest of me and not helpful to others because I wouldn’t be saying what I believe to be true, but would be watering it down to be more palatable to others.


Boom “Yes, I agree that there is more to life than being smart. I adore my kitty, and it appears to adore me, and this has nothing to do with "smarts". “

We do have an innate desire for relationship even with our pets. Maybe we have agreement on that?


Boom “However, where acquiring knowledge is concerned - namely, what is more likely accurate about the world we live in - using intellect is more reliable, versus things like gut-instinct, superstition, revelation, and "faith". That's what I'm saying, and what I have been saying all along.”

Do you think that there is such a thing as a “gut—instinct”? Have you ever had an experience where you felt you knew something that wasn’t quite coming from your mind? That is before analyzing it and deciding it had to have come from the mind.

Karla “continues...Do you want to try to see what I am saying or only to criticize it”

Boom “False dichotomy. The suggestion is that if I could see what you were saying, then it wouldn't be deserving of criticism. In other words, it's a fallacious argument.”

No you could most certainly see what I am saying and still have grounds to critique it or disagree with it. It helps me to know we are talking about the same thing so that I know you are responding to my point rather than how you heard my point. Very often my point needs revising to get to that end where we are actually talking about the same thing.

Karla said...

Boom “Me, previously: “Tell me something--can you actually keep a straight face and tell me that the reason we've advanced as a human race is because we've used the bible as our guide? If so, this really lessens my hope for humanity. It really does.”


My answer: No. I think we advance in the true sense of the word when we align with what is true about reality and we fall back when we deviate from truth. I think science has a true philosophical underpinning that does share components of the Christian worldview.

Do these advances you mention come straight out of Scripture—no. Is the West greatly influenced by Scripture as far as our morals---not so much any more, but there was a day this was true. Go into a culture where there has been no influence of Scripture and you will find a different world.




Boom “I'll play along: If you "acknowledge" that "God" is "Absolute Truth", are you acknowledging it as a "fact", or "opinion"? If the former, you should be able to produce some evidence. If you have no evidence, then it seems that you are left "humbly" acknowledging someone's opinion.”

First of all something my stating something as fact doesn’t make it true. It either is true or isn’t true irrespective of what I say. My opinion could be lining up with what is true or it may fall short of what is true. Either way the truth remains. Just the same, I fully believe that God is Absolute Truth and that that is very much a fact or else I wouldn’t be going around saying it was true.


continues...[Except] that science uses the scientific method that cannot be proved by science therefore scientist trust that method as a sure method even though they cannot prove it.

Boom “Please listen carefully: That science cannot "prove" its results, in an "Absolute" sense, is immaterial to the fact that it can be trusted to be the most accurate method available. That's all I'm arguing---science can be *trusted* to be the >> most reliable << method for determining what is real, and what is not.”

I am not disagreeing with the trustworthiness of science, only that there is unproven aspects to it that are accepted. Scientists may revise theories as they learn more, but they do make assertions even when it is not 100% proven and people trust those assertions.


Boom “As I said before, "trust" and "faith" are two different things. "Trusting" something with a verifiable track-record is different than having "faith" in something with no verifiable track-record.”


“science” is a method of investigation that we trust in that does have a good track record but isn’t infallible. However, God is not a method but a Being who has a recorded track record and a track record with living people today who can tell account after account of encounters with Him and His realm.