On Oct 27, 2:57 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > what we see is what exists.
> Rather, what exists is independent of its observation.If Archimedes
> understood the truth of the principle that bears his name[1], its
> truth preceded his knowledge of it.
that's irrelevant. he can not legitimately claim something as being
the case if he doesn't discern it even if it is the case. there is no
"rather" here. what we see is what exists. that's not a claim that
everything we see is all there is to the world. "seeing" doesn't just
entail seeing with eyes but the use of instrumentality to detect
things & it also entails getting a deeper understanding at what is
detected through time by building on previous knowledge with new
knowledge.
the bible is not a reflection of a god phenomena. it's a reflection of
a belief phenomena you question beg is inspired by some actual being.
there is no necessary connection between an actual god & a set of
beliefs abt a god. also consider other scriptures & lit. sources. why
should we discount them for the sake of yours? on what grounds? your
mere claim that your source has an objective basis?! cultural
chauvinism?! there is no doubt that the bible is inspired by *notions*
abt god. to say that it is inspired by god as if directly by god is
poetic license when no such evidence independent of your belief
apparently exists. & if all your basing your suppositions on is an
assessment of possibilities then you're just playing around with a
conceptual object which doesn't exist at all.
> > 2. an infinite consciousness can not possibly comprehend itself.
> God is not limited by what you fail to comprehend.
infinity limits everyone. why? because it's immeasurable. you might as
well argue that god can make a square circle.
you've got to at least make an argument which deals with this
contradiction, not merely assert that your sky daddy can do anything.
> >> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> > that's too bad because there's errors in it.
> I consider that you confuse the indictment with the conviction. :)
evidently you confuse sheer denial for an argument.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:01 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 2:57 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > what we see is what exists.
>> Rather, what exists is independent of its observation.If Archimedes >> understood the truth of the principle that bears his name[1], its >> truth preceded his knowledge of it.
> that's irrelevant. he can not legitimately claim something as being > the case if he doesn't discern it even if it is the case.
It is not that the measurement establishes the objective truth of a matter, rather, the objective truth of the matter establishes the measurement. :)
> there is no > "rather" here. what we see is what exists. that's not a claim that > everything we see is all there is to the world. "seeing" doesn't just > entail seeing with eyes but the use of instrumentality to detect > things & it also entails getting a deeper understanding at what is > detected through time by building on previous knowledge with new > knowledge.
But the objective nature of reality is not limited by your perception of it.
>> >> > god doesn't exist, & omniscence & infinite consciousness is >> >> > oxymoronic.
>> >> Do you have an objective basis for such a conjecture, besides personal >> >> sensibility? ;D
> the bible is not a reflection of a god phenomena. it's a reflection of > a belief phenomena
It's objective and specific evidence regarding specific propositional truths of God's existence, attributes and nature. :)
> you question beg is inspired by some actual being.
Haven't begged the question yet. :)
> there is no necessary connection between an actual god & a set of > beliefs abt a god.
Its nice to see you catching up to what I said months ago:
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
Of course, it simply means that a humanistic epistemology is neither adequate nor competent.
> also consider other scriptures & lit. sources.
Why? The inability of humanistic verification-ism to competently discern between any competing beliefs is a clear demonstration of its inadequacy.
> your > mere claim that your source has an objective basis?! cultural > chauvinism?! there is no doubt that the bible is inspired by *notions* > abt god. to say that it is inspired by god as if directly by god is > poetic license when no such evidence independent of your belief > apparently exists. & if all your basing your suppositions on is an > assessment of possibilities then you're just playing around with a > conceptual object which doesn't exist at all.
Nope, just noting:
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>> > 2. an infinite consciousness can not possibly comprehend itself.
>> God is not limited by what you fail to comprehend.
> infinity limits everyone. why?
I don't agree with such a vague and ill-formed analysis. Certainly humanistic reasoning is limited by unbounded quantities, consider for specific example:
But this just means that a humanistic verificationism is not adequate. :)
> because it's immeasurable. you might as > well argue that god can make a square circle. > you've got to at least make an argument which deals with this > contradiction,
I've noted that the inability of humanistic reasoning to competently serve epistemologically is not a limitation on the objective attributes, existence and nature of God. :)
>> >> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true >> > that's too bad because there's errors in it.
>> I consider that you confuse the indictment with the conviction. :)
> evidently you confuse sheer denial for an argument.
Instead, I've logged months of patient response to such over simplifications. Your claims have not borne scrutiny.
I do not know if you are sinner, but you are very persistent in
avoiding direct questions. The question you are avoiding for a couple
of months is, if human methods are so inadequate, how you, Brock
Organ, know that whatever you believe is true and correct.
Please do not refer to bible.cc, because it immediately triggers the
question how you, Brock Organ, know that whatever is there is true and
correct. And please do not refer to the Holy Ghost, because it
immediately triggers the question how you, Brock Organ, know that
whatever you learn from the Holy Ghost was for real and not your
fantasy, hallucinations, dreams, or tricks your brain played with you.
Grisha
On Oct 28, 10:06 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:05 PM, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Or alternatively, God has seen fit to share such knowledge with
> >> humankind. For example, consider:
> >> "The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His
> >> commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring
> >> every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good
> >> or evil."
> > And you, Brock Organ, know that for the same reason, because you are
> > God?
> No, I am only a sinner, saved by Christ's grace. I am so thankful for
> God's mercy and pardon, and I praise, worship and adore Him for His
> love! :)
> Brock Organ; - may be a year back,- landed exactly to the same
> situation !!!
> enjoy
> cheers
> st13
> On Oct 28, 5:25 am, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 2:59 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:54 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 27, 8:44 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
> > > >> > And you know that because you are God?
> > > >> Or alternatively, God has seen fit to share such knowledge with
> > > >> humankind. For example, consider:
> > > > so brock sees fit to share "knowledge" with "humankind". this guy is a
> > > > hoot.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not know if you are sinner, but you are very persistent in > avoiding direct questions. The question you are avoiding for a couple > of months is, if human methods are so inadequate, how you, Brock > Organ, know that whatever you believe is true and correct.
I've been much more careful in addressing the issue. I simply note that the objective truth of the Bible is independent of any particular person's humanistic verification. For example, if Archimedes understood the truth of the principle that bears his name[1], its truth preceded his knowledge of it.
> Please do not refer to bible.cc, because it immediately triggers the > question how you, Brock Organ, know that whatever is there is true and > correct.
That's a bit forced. In particular, I note a contrasting position:
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief
> And please do not refer to the Holy Ghost, because it > immediately triggers the question how you, Brock Organ, know that > whatever you learn from the Holy Ghost was for real and not your > fantasy, hallucinations, dreams, or tricks your brain played with you.
Not true, it simply makes clear that any humanistic standard of demonstration is not adequate. Of course, this is simply epistemology 101, as Aristotle noted thousands of years ago:
"Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of demonstration. ... and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions."
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:15 AM, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know. It is now kind of game to me.
> On Oct 28, 3:41 am, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Brock Organ; - may be a year back,- landed exactly to the same >> situation !!!
I'm patient, and don't hold it against you and student13 that you've not caught up with what Aristotle said so well:
"Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of demonstration. ... and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions."
You need to read more carefully - I did not ask you about objective
truth of the Bible, I have little doubts on this matter – I asked you
about process you, Brock Organ, used to come to all conclusions above
and below.
I already explained your mistake with Archimedes a couple of times –
you may want to read my posts again.
And finally, with all you contempt to humanistic methods and
perceptions why all the sudden you have so much reverence to
Aristotle’s position? Besides, how long it was since he lived? There
were plenty of development in science and philosophy since.
Keep, avoiding, Grisha
On Oct 29, 6:49 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do not know if you are sinner, but you are very persistent in
> > avoiding direct questions. The question you are avoiding for a couple
> > of months is, if human methods are so inadequate, how you, Brock
> > Organ, know that whatever you believe is true and correct.
> I've been much more careful in addressing the issue. I simply note
> that the objective truth of the Bible is independent of any particular
> person's humanistic verification. For example, if Archimedes
> understood the truth of the principle that bears his name[1], its
> truth preceded his knowledge of it.
> > Please do not refer to bible.cc, because it immediately triggers the
> > question how you, Brock Organ, know that whatever is there is true and
> > correct.
> That's a bit forced. In particular, I note a contrasting position:
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief
> > And please do not refer to the Holy Ghost, because it
> > immediately triggers the question how you, Brock Organ, know that
> > whatever you learn from the Holy Ghost was for real and not your
> > fantasy, hallucinations, dreams, or tricks your brain played with you.
> Not true, it simply makes clear that any humanistic standard of
> demonstration is not adequate. Of course, this is simply epistemology
> 101, as Aristotle noted thousands of years ago:
> "Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the
> contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of
> demonstration. ... and in addition we maintain that besides scientific
> knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to
> recognize the definitions."
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote: > You need to read more carefully - I did not ask you about objective > truth of the Bible, I have little doubts on this matter – I asked you > about process you, Brock Organ, used to come to all conclusions above > and below.
And you've been answered: Process and/or method is not adequate for what is the personal action of God's Holy Spirit. :)
> I already explained your mistake with Archimedes a couple of times – > you may want to read my posts again.
Make no mistake, It's quite a specific and qualified statement:
"Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."
and the specific and qualified behaviour is not dependent upon humanistic synthesis.
> And finally, with all you contempt to humanistic methods and > perceptions why all the sudden you have so much reverence to > Aristotle’s position?
I've been pleased to share relevant quotes from Aristotle for a while. :)
> Besides, how long it was since he lived? There > were plenty of development in science and philosophy since.
That first principles are axiomatic is part of Aristotle's arch[1]. Its a very classical starting point for epistemology, and for clarity's sake I'm happy to relate positions to it.
On Oct 28, 1:16 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But the objective nature of reality is not limited by your perception of it.
perception is a part of objective reality.
> > the bible is not a reflection of a god phenomena. it's a reflection of
> > a belief phenomena
> It's objective and specific evidence regarding specific propositional
> truths of God's existence, attributes and nature. :)
it's objective evidence of beliefs abt god; it's not god. that's the
point.
> > there is no necessary connection between an actual god & a set of
> > beliefs abt a god.
> Its nice to see you catching up to what I said months ago:
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
(2) can not justify your (1) beliefs so what's the point of signifying
this? you can't use (2) to refute
atheism nor other theisms.
> Of course, it simply means that a humanistic epistemology is neither
> adequate nor competent.
well, that would mean that your beliefs are neither adequate nor
competent. this is a totally self-defeating line you've
taken up.
> > also consider other scriptures & lit. sources.
> Why? The inability of humanistic verification-ism to competently
> discern between any competing beliefs is a clear demonstration of its
> inadequacy.
yeah? what abt other religions? they're wrong because you're right &
you're right because you assume
that your beliefs have an objective basis? & merely because you give
lip service to objectivism?
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 28, 1:16 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> But the objective nature of reality is not limited by your perception of it.
> perception is a part of objective reality.
In the context of our discussion, that's certainly inadequate. It is not the case that the measurement establishes the truth of a matter, rather, it is the truth of the matter that establishes the measurement.
>> > the bible is not a reflection of a god phenomena. it's a reflection of >> > a belief phenomena
>> It's objective and specific evidence regarding specific propositional >> truths of God's existence, attributes and nature. :)
> it's objective evidence of beliefs abt god; it's not god. that's the > point.
Its much more than that, as the Statement puts it:
"Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning."
>> > there is no necessary connection between an actual god & a set of >> > beliefs abt a god.
>> Its nice to see you catching up to what I said months ago:
>> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> (2) can not justify your (1) beliefs so what's the point of signifying > this? you can't use (2) to refute > atheism nor other theisms.
I just note that humanistic demonstration or verificationism is not adaquate. As Aristotle put it:
"Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of demonstration. ... and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions."
>> Of course, it simply means that a humanistic epistemology is neither >> adequate nor competent.
> well, that would mean that your beliefs are neither adequate nor > competent. this is a totally self-defeating line you've > taken up.
Its not so simple. Humanistic verification is quite inadequate to the challenge, as Bertrand Russell (no Christian he!) similarly noted:
"Another conclusion which was forced upon me was that not only science, but a great deal that no one sincerely doubts to be knowledge, is impossible if we only know what can be experienced and verified."
>> > also consider other scriptures & lit. sources.
>> Why? The inability of humanistic verification-ism to competently >> discern between any competing beliefs is a clear demonstration of its >> inadequacy.
> yeah? what abt other religions?
What about them? Certainly humanistic verification ism lacks an objective basis with which to object to any competing beliefs. But this is to the detriment of humanistic verification.
> they're wrong because you're right & > you're right because you assume > that your beliefs have an objective basis?
I don't believe that's a position I've articulated:
On Oct 29, 1:51 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But the objective nature of reality is not limited by your perception of it.
> > perception is a part of objective reality.
> In the context of our discussion, that's certainly inadequate.
no, it's not *certainly* inadequate. it's objective reality that
conscious beings have perceptions of things & yet you claim this
aspect of objective reality is "inadequate". so, it's your idea of
reality that's inadequate. see below.
It is
> not the case that the measurement establishes the truth of a matter,
> rather, it is the truth of the matter that establishes the
> measurement.
that's stupid. a rock doesn't establish the scale used to measure it.
the scale is used by the observer & the measurement's accuracy is
relative to the rock's actual dimensions in length. all knowledge is
relative to the truth
of whatever matter. the problem is that you want absolute knowledge &
find that relative knowledge is inadequate
but that's absurd. reality is virtually inexhaustible so knowledge is
always going to be incomplete. so now what?
> > it's objective evidence of beliefs abt god; it's not god. that's the
> > point.
> Its much more than that, as the Statement puts it:
> "Holy Scripture, being God's own Word...
that's a belief. where's the real evidence?
> >> > there is no necessary connection between an actual god & a set of
> >> > beliefs abt a god.
> >> Its nice to see you catching up to what I said months ago:
> >> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> > (2) can not justify your (1) beliefs so what's the point of signifying
> > this? you can't use (2) to refute
> > atheism nor other theisms.
> I just note that humanistic demonstration or verificationism is not
> adaquate.
you're missing the point here. THERE IS NO NECESSARY CONGRUENCE
BETWEEN YOUR BELIEFS ABT
THE BIBLE & THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE. don't pass go & don't
collect $200. aristotle isn't
going to help you here. you need to address this. anybody can state
any belief or disbelief & still hold (2)!!!!!!
> >> Of course, it simply means that a humanistic epistemology is neither
> >> adequate nor competent.
> > well, that would mean that your beliefs are neither adequate nor
> > competent. this is a totally self-defeating line you've
> > taken up.
> Its not so simple. Humanistic verification is quite inadequate ...
that's a genetic fallacy. & how is verification inadequate if you
apply it yourself in whatever way? if you don't apply it then that
raises the distinct possibility that you're just making things up.
> >> > also consider other scriptures & lit. sources.
> >> Why? The inability of humanistic verification-ism to competently
> >> discern between any competing beliefs is a clear demonstration of its
> >> inadequacy.
> > yeah? what abt other religions?
> What about them? Certainly humanistic verification ism lacks an
> objective basis with which to object to any competing beliefs. But
> this is to the detriment of humanistic verification.
you didn't answer the question. & what you hold to be certain isn't
demonstrably self-evident. (iow, more question-begging from you.)
your notions abt god can be wrong & these other religions right.
haven't you ever consider that?
> > they're wrong because you're right &
> > you're right because you assume
> > that your beliefs have an objective basis?
> I don't believe that's a position I've articulated:
well fuck what you believe or disbelieve. your articulations are
contradictory.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 1:51 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> But the objective nature of reality is not limited by your perception of it.
>> > perception is a part of objective reality.
>> In the context of our discussion, that's certainly inadequate.
> no, it's not *certainly* inadequate. it's objective reality that > conscious beings have perceptions of things & yet you claim this > aspect of objective reality is "inadequate".
No, I simply claim that:
Humankind is not the measure of all things. :)
> It is >> not the case that the measurement establishes the truth of a matter, >> rather, it is the truth of the matter that establishes the >> measurement.
> that's stupid.
Not at all. If Archimedes understood the truth of the principle that bears his name[1], its truth preceded his knowledge and measurement of it.
> of whatever matter. the problem is that you want absolute knowledge & > find that relative knowledge is inadequate
Nope, I just note that humanistic verification is epistemologically inadequate.
> but that's absurd. reality is virtually inexhaustible so knowledge is > always going to be incomplete. so now what?
Now the humanist concedes defeat. :)
>> Its much more than that, as the Statement puts it:
>> "Holy Scripture, being God's own Word...
> that's a belief.
Rather, it's objective truth is independent of belief. :)
>> > (2) can not justify your (1) beliefs so what's the point of signifying >> > this? you can't use (2) to refute >> > atheism nor other theisms.
>> I just note that humanistic demonstration or verificationism is not >> adaquate.
> you're missing the point here. THERE IS NO NECESSARY CONGRUENCE > BETWEEN YOUR BELIEFS ABT > THE BIBLE & THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE.
Its nice to see you articulate my very own position:
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
Of course, it simply means that a humanistic epistemology is neither adequate nor competent.
>> >> Of course, it simply means that a humanistic epistemology is neither >> >> adequate nor competent.
>> > well, that would mean that your beliefs are neither adequate nor >> > competent. this is a totally self-defeating line you've >> > taken up.
>> Its not so simple. Humanistic verification is quite inadequate ...
> that's a genetic fallacy. & how is verification inadequate if you > apply it yourself in whatever way?
Ok. To the degree its helpful, I'll share a bit of why humanism is untenable from a previous conversation. An OP on a forum said to me recently:
> mankind is the only measure. we may only know what we experience. and > we may only judge by the concepts that we allow to matter. YOU ARE THE > ONLY MEASURE OF REALITY THAT WILL EVER MATTER TO YOU!!
and I responded to their position:
Humanistic methods fail because of epistemological first principles that are limited by their subjectivity and incompetence:
"Humanism refers to a philosophy centered around humankind. The word dates from the nineteenth century and refers to a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity of humankind, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to rationality, while tending to reject the supernatural or the divine authority of religious texts."
In particular, I articulate a contrasting position:
Humankind is not the measure of all things.
> if you don't apply it then that > raises the distinct possibility that you're just making things up.
Or that it is true even though humanistic verification is not adequate to so measure or evaluate. :)
>> >> Why? The inability of humanistic verification-ism to competently >> >> discern between any competing beliefs is a clear demonstration of its >> >> inadequacy.
>> > yeah? what abt other religions?
>> What about them? Certainly humanistic verification ism lacks an >> objective basis with which to object to any competing beliefs. But >> this is to the detriment of humanistic verification.
> you didn't answer the question.
You didn't ask anything specific. Of course, I was clear to note:
Certainly humanistic verification ism lacks an objective basis with which to object to any competing beliefs. But this is to the detriment of humanistic verification, not to the competing beliefs.
> & what you hold to be certain isn't > demonstrably self-evident.
I just understand what a red herring the issue of humanistic verification is, and note the limitations of such "demonstration.". As Aristotle put it:
"Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of demonstration. ... and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions."
On Oct 30, 10:39 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > but that's absurd. reality is virtually inexhaustible so knowledge is
> > always going to be incomplete. so now what?
> Now the humanist concedes defeat. :)
now the absurdist claims false victory. knowledge is always going to
be incomplete if reality is inexhaustible. that's true for god as
well. so now what? you dismiss humanists because they dismiss the gods
& yet a humanist could uphold your proposition (2), (that is, the
objective truth of the bible is independent of belief), regardless.
your first proposition states a belief abt the bible which may not be
true. are you wise enough to concede that? there is no difference if
the first proposition is the opposite of yours. (2) is a recognition
that the objective truth is the absolute truth whatever it is &
regardless of any belief. so what is your point here? that you
disagree with somebody else & want to lord over them when there is no
more grounds for you than it is for anybody else when it comes to
belief vs. reality?
On Oct 30, 10:39 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Holy Scripture, being God's own Word...
> > that's a belief.
> Rather, it's objective truth is independent of belief. :)
there it is: truth begging!!!! the objective truth is not necessary
congruent with the belief that the bible is the word of god!
> Humanistic methods fail because of epistemological first principles
> that are limited by their subjectivity and incompetence:
but you haven't demonstrated any failure other than the failure to
presume that your beliefs are objectively true. disproving humanism
can not prove your brand of theism.
> > your notions abt god can be wrong & these other religions right.
> > haven't you ever consider that?
> I've been quite clear:
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief
but the objective truth of the bible may be contrary to your belief.
did you ever consider that?
if other people see you wrap yourself up in these transparent & absurd
equivocations, can they *clearly* see yr nuts?
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:02 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 10:39 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> "Holy Scripture, being God's own Word...
> > > that's a belief.
> > Rather, it's objective truth is independent of belief. :)
> there it is: truth begging!!!! the objective truth is not necessary
> congruent with the belief that the bible is the word of god!
> > Humanistic methods fail because of epistemological first principles
> > that are limited by their subjectivity and incompetence:
> but you haven't demonstrated any failure other than the failure to
> presume that your beliefs are objectively true. disproving humanism
> can not prove your brand of theism.
> > > your notions abt god can be wrong & these other religions right.
> > > haven't you ever consider that?
> > I've been quite clear:
> > 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief
> but the objective truth of the bible may be contrary to your belief.
> did you ever consider that?
> if other people see you wrap yourself up in these transparent & absurd
> equivocations, can they *clearly* see yr nuts?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Let me say this my post have been very shall we say right onl the nose--but
for some unseen reason they disappear-or put on other threads that don't
pretain to the tread --uhmmmmm
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 11:02 AM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 10:39 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> "Holy Scripture, being God's own Word...
> > > that's a belief.
> > Rather, it's objective truth is independent of belief. :)
> there it is: truth begging!!!! the objective truth is not necessary
> congruent with the belief that the bible is the word of god!
> > Humanistic methods fail because of epistemological first principles
> > that are limited by their subjectivity and incompetence:
> but you haven't demonstrated any failure other than the failure to
> presume that your beliefs are objectively true. disproving humanism
> can not prove your brand of theism.
> > > your notions abt god can be wrong & these other religions right.
> > > haven't you ever consider that?
> > I've been quite clear:
> > 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief
> but the objective truth of the bible may be contrary to your belief.
> did you ever consider that?
> if other people see you wrap yourself up in these transparent & absurd
> equivocations, can they *clearly* see yr nuts?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 6:59 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 10:39 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > but that's absurd. reality is virtually inexhaustible so knowledge is
>> > always going to be incomplete. so now what?
>> Now the humanist concedes defeat. :)
> now the absurdist claims false victory.
Nothing false about noting that humanistic verification is objectively
not tenable. :)
> knowledge is always going to
> be incomplete if reality is inexhaustible. that's true for god as
> well.
Or rather, God is not limited by the crippling limitations of humanism.
> so now what? you dismiss humanists because they dismiss the gods
Humanism fails because of its clear and specific limitations.
> & yet a humanist could uphold your proposition (2), (that is, the
> objective truth of the bible is independent of belief), regardless.
That's because it is objectively true that:
2) the objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief
> your first proposition states a belief abt the bible which may not be
> true.
2) the objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief
> there is no difference if
> the first proposition is the opposite of yours. (2) is a recognition
> that the objective truth is the absolute truth whatever it is &
> regardless of any belief. so what is your point here?
That I believe the Bible is objectively true. :)
> that you
> disagree with somebody else & want to lord over them when there is no
> more grounds for you than it is for anybody else when it comes to
> belief vs. reality?
2) the objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:02 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 10:39 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "Holy Scripture, being God's own Word...
>> > that's a belief.
>> Rather, it's objective truth is independent of belief. :)
> there it is: truth begging!!!!
I don't think you can support the accusation.
> the objective truth is not necessary
> congruent with the belief that the bible is the word of god!
Rather, the objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief.
>> Humanistic methods fail because of epistemological first principles
>> that are limited by their subjectivity and incompetence:
> but you haven't demonstrated any failure
As I've noted before:
Humankind is not the measure of all things is a position that
contrasts with a famous statement ("man is the measure of all things")
attributed to the philosopher Protagoras:
"Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase has been passed
down to us without any context, and its meaning is open to
interpretation. Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and uses his
predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to objective
and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes to
Protagoras an early form of phenomenology, in which what is or appears
for a single individual is true or real for that individual."
I reject relativism as a valid axiomatic first principle.
I reject phenomenology as a valid axiomatic first principle.
I reject Hume's "the science of man is the only solid foundation for
the other sciences" argument as a valid axiomatic first principle.
I reject Sartre's "existence precedes essence" argument as a valid
axiomatic first principle.
I reject Berkeley's "To be is to be perceived" argument as a valid
axiomatic first principle.
I reject Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" argument as a valid
axiomatic first principle.
I reject the application of existential premises as articulated in
works by Philip K Dick (such as "A Scanner Darkly" and "Blade Runner")
as a valid axiomatic first principle.
I reject the application of existential premises as portrayed in
"Objects in Space", (From Joss Whedon's Firefly) as a valid axiomatic
first principle.
And of course, though no one sound bite accurately captures all the
subtle distinct nuances of these positions, "humankind is not the
measure of all things" and "existential premises" are useful references to them.
> other than the failure to
> presume that your beliefs are objectively true. disproving humanism
> can not prove your brand of theism.
The standard that measures the standard is the standard.
>> > your notions abt god can be wrong & these other religions right.
>> > haven't you ever consider that?
>> I've been quite clear:
>> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief
> but the objective truth of the bible may be contrary to your belief.
On Nov 2, 2:12 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Holy Scripture, being God's own Word...
> >> > that's a belief.
> >> Rather, it's objective truth is independent of belief. :)
> > there it is: truth begging!!!!
> I don't think you can support the accusation.
the objective truth of the "holy scripture, being god's own word" may
be that it's no such thing. so your assertion that it is is a belief.
merely going on abt the objective truth of something doesn't prove a
thing abt it. if you think it does that's truth begging.
You keep and keep avoiding my questions. Adequate or not what was
your method? Did you think about that? Did you find any evidences
besides the Bible? Did you wake up one morning and decided this is
it?
On Oct 29, 8:58 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You need to read more carefully - I did not ask you about objective
> > truth of the Bible, I have little doubts on this matter – I asked you
> > about process you, Brock Organ, used to come to all conclusions above
> > and below.
> And you've been answered: Process and/or method is not adequate for
> what is the personal action of God's Holy Spirit. :)
> > I already explained your mistake with Archimedes a couple of times –
> > you may want to read my posts again.
> Make no mistake, It's quite a specific and qualified statement:
> "Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by
> a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."
> and the specific and qualified behaviour is not dependent upon
> humanistic synthesis.
> > And finally, with all you contempt to humanistic methods and
> > perceptions why all the sudden you have so much reverence to
> > Aristotle’s position?
> I've been pleased to share relevant quotes from Aristotle for a while. :)
> > Besides, how long it was since he lived? There
> > were plenty of development in science and philosophy since.
> That first principles are axiomatic is part of Aristotle's arch[1].
> Its a very classical starting point for epistemology, and for
> clarity's sake I'm happy to relate positions to it.
On Nov 2, 2:08 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing false about noting that humanistic verification is objectively
> not tenable. :)
there's no such thing as "humanistic verification". are you trying to
say that the scientific method is not tenable because it doesn't, so
far, confirm the existence of gods? evidently the proper tool, as far
as you're concern, is a leap of faith in this particular matter. so
the solipsism you deem is untenable is really your own.
> > knowledge is always going to
> > be incomplete if reality is inexhaustible. that's true for god as
> > well.
> Or rather, God is not limited by the crippling limitations of humanism.
that's irrelevant. if god is immeasurable then god couldn't comprehend
the totality of his own being because that would be logically
impossible. an infinite being would be an inexhaustible reality.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:37 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2:12 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "Holy Scripture, being God's own Word...
>> >> > that's a belief.
>> >> Rather, it's objective truth is independent of belief. :)
>> > there it is: truth begging!!!!
>> I don't think you can support the accusation.
> the objective truth of the "holy scripture, being god's own word" may
> be that it's no such thing.
That is not my testimony, nor is it the Statement's.
> so your assertion that it is is a belief.
> merely going on abt the objective truth of something doesn't prove a
> thing abt it. if you think it does that's truth begging.
I'm clear to note 2) in the context of humanistic verification's
failure, and that 1) does not articulate such a basis.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:01 AM, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You keep and keep avoiding my questions.
Not true, I've been patient and specific with my answers. :)
> Adequate or not what was
> your method?
Method is not adequate to evaluate what is the personal and specific
action of God's Holy Spirit. :)
> Did you think about that? Did you find any evidences
> besides the Bible? Did you wake up one morning and decided this is
> it?
I've been clear to note the Confession:
"yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work
of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our
hearts."
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:52 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2:08 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nothing false about noting that humanistic verification is objectively
>> not tenable. :)
> there's no such thing as "humanistic verification".
Any method or process of evaluation that relies upon humanistic
principles as an epistemological standard fails.
> are you trying to
> say that the scientific method is not tenable because it doesn't, so
> far, confirm the existence of gods?
As Dr Gordon Clark noted:
"Science, the history of science, and the philosophy of science are
... so inextricably fused or confused that it is impossible to draw
definite boundaries between them. Yet some people believe that the
boundaries are most distinct and obvious. ... Scientists frequently
think that their results spring directly and solely from
experimentation quite apart from philosophic speculation and
metaphysics."
So a scientism that presumes existential or humanistic premises by
which to give meaning and value to observations and results is not
tenable, and simply masks an invalid secular humanism "hiding" behind
observational data.
> evidently the proper tool, as far
> as you're concern, is a leap of faith in this particular matter.
That's not a phrase I've articulated, I've just simply noted that
humanistic verification is not tenable.
> so
> the solipsism you deem is untenable is really your own.
Nothing solipsistic about noting as Russell did similarly:
"Another conclusion which was forced upon me was that not only
science, but a great deal that no one sincerely doubts to be
knowledge, is impossible if we only know what can be experienced and
verified."
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:01 AM, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You keep and keep avoiding my questions.
> Not true, I've been patient and specific with my answers. :)
> > Adequate or not what was
> > your method?
> Method is not adequate to evaluate what is the personal and specific
> action of God's Holy Spirit. :)
> > Did you think about that? Did you find any evidences
> > besides the Bible? Did you wake up one morning and decided this is
> > it?
> I've been clear to note the Confession:
> "yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
> infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work
> of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our
> hearts."
|
