matthew wrote:

nihil wrote:

matthew wrote:

nihil wrote:How? Where?

Reread my post. Then view this, for starters.

Of course you're lost. You have obviously not grasped what your favorite philosopher stood for...

Jesus Christ is not a philosopher.

Then what is he to you? Santa Clause? Dad? Casper? I want to know, but I predict a cowardly/politician response such as: "I can't respond to this because you are so ridiculous."

Give me more than that. If not, good luck not breaking your neck while trying to fellate yourself.

Just for the record I will say again what I said in the other thread: You are being antagonistic for its own sake. I have nothing further to say to you at this point. Good night.

Thanks for answering the questions at hand. Your frank, brave and honest replies are inspiring. No one can deny your integrity. I have never encountered a more profound and articulate individual. I will always keep an eye on your posts. They are truly an inspiration.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:I propose the use of blue text for jokes.

nihil wrote:Thanks for answering the questions at hand. Your frank, brave and honest replies are inspiring. No one can deny your integrity. I have never encountered a more profound and articulate individual. I will always keep an eye on your posts. They are truly an inspiration.

For Your Pleasure.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:I propose the use of blue text for jokes.

nihil wrote:Thanks for answering the questions at hand. Your frank, brave and honest replies are inspiring. No one can deny your integrity. I have never encountered a more profound and articulate individual. I will always keep an eye on your posts. They are truly an inspiration.

For Your Pleasure.

Actually forget what I typed here before. Just don't be his apologist. I am quite clear as to what he said.


Uggghhhh.....

Hmmm, you guys wont be able to convince each other of anything. Might as well stop.

After 17 pages, has anyone changed anyone elses views? Do you really think that some posts on an internet bulletin board will cause the other person to say, "Fuck....you know what.......I was wrong all along! Thank you for showing me the error of my ways."

No.

- Chet

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:
All I'm trying to say is that science has limits...

Then how can we know anything? Science is only an extention of our senses? If this God is beyond our senses then...

Science is much ore than an extension of our senses. Our senses are just the delivery of qualia. Science includes:

* The condition/limitation that any proposition under consideration must be falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, science can't even think about it.

* The condition/limitation that any proposition under consideration must be duplicatable and verifiable by thrid parties.

There is more i think, but those are two huge ones. What gives science its rigor also defines a subset of questions, and it is in this sense I'm saying science is limited.

But, as foreign seeming as the idea is, there is no logical contradiction in concluding that if God is God then by definition he can selectively communicate or provide insight or raw data to individuals. Holy spirit, revelation, and all that come next.

In other words by definition God is beyond us in everyway imaginable, and an infinity of ways we can't imagine...but God can't be limited, and so he has to have any ability imaginable, including making it so that we can know him.

The differences between our positions (the above is *not* my position by the way...I just recognize that it resists disproof) are axiomatic. It's not like one of us can't think.

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:
All I'm trying to say is that science has limits...

Then how can we know anything? Science is only an extention of our senses? If this God is beyond our senses then...

Science is much ore than an extension of our senses. Our senses are just the delivery of qualia. Science includes:

* The condition/limitation that any proposition under consideration must be falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, science can't even think about it.

* The condition/limitation that any proposition under consideration must be duplicatable and verifiable by thrid parties.

There is more i think, but those are two huge ones. What gives science its rigor also defines a subset of questions, and it is in this sense I'm saying science is limited.

But, as foreign seeming as the idea is, there is no logical contradiction in concluding that if God is God then by definition he can selectively communicate or provide insight or raw data to individuals. Holy spirit, revelation, and all that come next.

In other words by definition God is beyond us in everyway imaginable, and an infinity of ways we can't imagine...but God can't be limited, and so he has to have any ability imaginable, including making it so that we can know him.

The differences between our positions (the above is *not* my position by the way...I just recognize that it resists disproof) are axiomatic. It's not like one of us can't think.

Thanks Galanter...

Gramsci and I do indeed subscribe to different, as you put it, "axioms". But the fundamental axioms I subscribe to are superior to his...historically,philosophically, theologically, biologically and otherwise. There's nothing personal, nothing prideful nor anything ad hominem in me saying that. It's just me stepping up to the plate and swinging at the curve balls that Mr. Harrison-Smith likes to pitch....whereas you are merely an umpire who is neither here nor there....at least from what I can tell.

Ahahahahhahaha

Intersting thread.

I can't vote, given the range of choices.

Darwinism is logical, easy to understand, and very possible. Awaiting it's explanation of "The Spark"...

However, several things summise my hunch in a greater intelligence either collecting/coding/creating life on Earth as we know it today:

1. The astounding beauty, self-sufficiency, and resilience in all codes of DNA, simple and complex.

2. The astounding similarity in structure and function between the smallest perceptible particle(atom), and the largest perceptible(Solar systems)

3. The ridiculously abundant presence of altruism in nature.

I have a strong hunch there is something greater than humankind who is aware of our doings, likes us very much, and is far different/greater/more interesting than any current divine theory/religion/x-file has guessed.

matthew wrote:Gramsci and I do indeed subscribe to different, as you put it, "axioms". But the fundamental axioms I subscribe to are superior to his...historically,philosophically, theologically, biologically and otherwise. There's nothing personal, nothing prideful nor anything ad hominem in me saying that. It's just me stepping up to the plate and swinging at the curve balls that Mr. Harrison-Smith likes to pitch....whereas you are merely an umpire who is neither here nor there....at least from what I can tell.

matthew wrote:you are merely an umpire who is neither here nor there....at least from what I can tell.

reminds me of the scene in the movie Bartleby in which everyone can't stop saying "I'd prefer not to." only you, Matthew, are playing all the parts, and you're no where nearly as amusing or charismatic as Maury Chakin or Crispin Glover.

but that's niether here nor there.

i suppose.