Neon Genesis Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Why did LNC wait to respond to a post that AM made over two months ago to let us know he can't keep up with all the posts while at the same time, being somehow magically able to respond to newer posts people make elsewhere? And there he goes again denying he's whining and claiming that he enjoys the discussion but whining about name calling while claiming this is not a persecution complex. But he really enjoys it here, really, seriously! And is LNC saying we're a cancer and we're diseased because we don't accept his delusions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Now, it seems in your second paragraph that you contradict yourself by defining God as nature or principle, while rejecting theologies that involve blood and sacrifice. Maybe it is not the defining of God that you find troublesome, but the definition given of God that doesn't sit well with you. For to even consider God to be symbolic is to give definition to God, a more limiting one at that. Which is more limited so say that something exists or to say that something is only symbolic? I would say that the latter is more limiting than the former for to exist in reality is greater than to exist as mere symbol. What say you? You have totally got that screwed up LNC. Your use of the words "only" and "mere" in regards to symbols shows that you don't understand any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 You have totally got that screwed up LNC. Your use of the words "only" and "mere" in regards to symbols shows that you don't understand any of this. I think that a 28 billion l.y. wide Universe, with 70 sextillion stars, is not big enough for LNC. He needs something more, and it has to be magical (it has to be kind'a sparkly and pretty to think about). Both you and I believe Nature is awe inspiring enough. No need for a Santa Claus to make it better (or worse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Now, it seems in your second paragraph that you contradict yourself by defining God as nature or principle, while rejecting theologies that involve blood and sacrifice. Maybe it is not the defining of God that you find troublesome, but the definition given of God that doesn't sit well with you. For to even consider God to be symbolic is to give definition to God, a more limiting one at that. Which is more limited so say that something exists or to say that something is only symbolic? I would say that the latter is more limiting than the former for to exist in reality is greater than to exist as mere symbol. What say you? You have totally got that screwed up LNC. Your use of the words "only" and "mere" in regards to symbols shows that you don't understand any of this. Comes from having a mind that is already locked in to the conclusions it MUST come to before ever embarking upon a study of important matters. Only a freethinking mind with a healthy dose of skepticism can truly be free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Why did LNC wait to respond to a post that AM made over two months ago to let us know he can't keep up with all the posts while at the same time, being somehow magically able to respond to newer posts people make elsewhere? And there he goes again denying he's whining and claiming that he enjoys the discussion but whining about name calling while claiming this is not a persecution complex. But he really enjoys it here, really, seriously! And is LNC saying we're a cancer and we're diseased because we don't accept his delusions? To be spoon-fed answers by his minister or his "brothers and sisters in Christ"? That is the only thing I can think of. I didn't pay much attention to being a cancer or disease for not accepting his delusions. Somehow that goes in one eye and out the other with me. Not sure why he enjoys it here. He's not listening anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 He's not listening anyway. Yeah, I enjoy pudding too. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Now, another error that I believe that you make is to consider all knowledge to be subject to "scientific dissection." I am not sure if you are merely speaking metaphorically or if you mean that all evidence and knowledge is subject to scientific inquiry. If the latter is the case, then I believe that you are mistaken. Scientific first principles themselves are not subject to scientific dissection and therefore would have to be jettisoned. For example, the principle of causality cannot be scientifically dissected, nor can the principle of uniformity; yet, these are foundational to science and to jettison them would be to jettison the whole scientific enterprise. There is knowledge that is true knowledge, yet not subject to such scientific dissection, including the foundations for logic and mathematics, also critical to scientific investigation. If this isn't presuppositionalist logic, I don't know what else is. Why aren't non-believers allowed to claim a natural basis for the existence of foundational principles. The undefined precepts for Euclidean geometry (the point, the line and the plane) exist first in nature because our senses pick them up. The principles were first discovered by man before and THEN attributed to a Creator after the fact, therefore the logical starting place for such things is the mind of man. If God revealed this in holy text, then the case would exist. To claim that any foundational set of principles relies on God is first culturally biased and second denies man his rightful place as the foundation of ALL knowledge. The scientific method I feel can verify itself thanks to the records left by successful scientists. From the modern computer to the atom bomb, man is the foundation for that specific principle. To give God that glory moves the goalposts from the rightful spot and it just engages your specific preference for Yahweh. Should the credit go to Yahweh for the developments made by the Arab scholar who names is the boilerplate nomenclature for algebra? The Christian that says God is the objective basis for all founding principles is engaging in deception because MAN had to come up with (or "discover") those principles Himself. If it isn't found in your holy book, then you have no right to move the goal posts. This is why the skeptic is allowed to subject religion to scientific study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Scientific first principles themselves are not subject to scientific dissection and therefore would have to be jettisoned. Well, even if they can't be dissected, they are assumptions. Both homogeneity and isotropy of space are considered assumptions, and not laws. For example, the principle of causality cannot be scientifically dissected, nor can the principle of uniformity; yet, these are foundational to science and to jettison them would be to jettison the whole scientific enterprise. The problem with causality is that you assume non-temporal, supernatural, and simultaneous cause-effects, which you have to prove to exist, and you can't. Secondly, anything below Planck time and space are still very confusing in science, and cause and effect are not working the way they expect. But I know what you're saying, science--in general--would not be able to do research if they disregarded all these basic premises. But not all science is the traditional science, and theoretical physics do in fact question these basic premises; they have to, and they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 ... Even if it's 2 week delays, at least the dialog is stopped there while waiting for your response. There's part of me that believe meaningful discussion is possible, but the circumstances frustrate that. Yes, sorry for the delay in responding... Yikes! I'll keep this response brief... Regarding the proper interpretation, I think we can both agree that there can only be one proper interpretation which means that others are false. No we can't agree on that. I don't. You think there can only be one proper interpretation and that's why you will forever be stuck where you are. Black and White thinking. How's that for brief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Regarding the proper interpretation, I think we can both agree that there can only be one proper interpretation which means that others are false. No we can't agree on that. I don't. You think there can only be one proper interpretation and that's why you will forever be stuck where you are. Black and White thinking. How's that for brief? Antlerman, I happen to love your briefs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Antlerman, I happen to love your briefs! So now we finally know. Antlerman does not wear boxers and NBBTB likes briefs. I think I still got some speedos in the drawer. You want them? I can give them to A-man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Antlerman, I happen to love your briefs! So now we finally know. Antlerman does not wear boxers and NBBTB likes briefs. Yes, but not the black and white ones. I love all different colors. Metaphors are so much fun! Shatters that black and white thinking into little pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Wait, did you say speedos? That's a little too fast for me. Briefs are so much better. You can model them if you wish though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Metaphors are so much fun! Shatters that black and white thinking into little pieces. The piece isn't so little. Well, you started it! You can model them if you wish though. O-o, what have I got myself into now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Regarding the proper interpretation, I think we can both agree that there can only be one proper interpretation which means that others are false. No we can't agree on that. I don't. You think there can only be one proper interpretation and that's why you will forever be stuck where you are. Black and White thinking. How's that for brief? I second what you said, Antlerman. There is not just one interpretation or even a proper one at that. The only one that is false is the one being claimed as the one and only proper interp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Regarding the proper interpretation, I think we can both agree that there can only be one proper interpretation which means that others are false. No we can't agree on that. I don't. You think there can only be one proper interpretation and that's why you will forever be stuck where you are. Black and White thinking. How's that for brief? I second what you said, Antlerman. There is not just one interpretation or even a proper one at that. The only one that is false is the one being claimed as the one and only proper interp. This is why LNC's entire structure of apologist argument is pointless. He's speaking to the wrong crowd. That sort of thinking is behind me. There's a word I came across recently that captures how I see things. Aperspectival. It allows many interpretations, many points of view, each of which offers some new way of looking at things. Not that all are of equal value necessarily, as postmodernism may overextend the notion to, but that it is legitimate to recognize the validity of multiple interpretation. Hermeneutics is an art, not a science. LNC gets an F on that post. BTW, I don't wear briefs NotBlinded. I'm a boxers guy, if any at all... since you asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Metaphors are so much fun! Shatters that black and white thinking into little pieces. The piece isn't so little. Well, you started it! You can model them if you wish though. O-o, what have I got myself into now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 This is why LNC's entire structure of apologist argument is pointless. He's speaking to the wrong crowd. That sort of thinking is behind me. There's a word I came across recently that captures how I see things. Aperspectival. It allows many interpretations, many points of view, each of which offers some new way of looking at things. Not that all are of equal value necessarily, as postmodernism may overextend the notion to, but that it is legitimate to recognize the validity of multiple interpretation. Hermeneutics is an art, not a science. LNC gets an F on that post. I must agree with what you say here. His way of thinking undermines all of basic reality. Does he not see all the different churches that claim to worship the One True Lord, Jesus Christ. Roman Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran, Missouri Synod Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Independent Baptist, Southern Baptist, etc... Different biblical interpretations lead to different theologies. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 BTW, I don't wear briefs NotBlinded. I'm a boxers guy, if any at all... since you asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 BTW, I don't wear briefs NotBlinded. I'm a boxers guy, if any at all... since you asked. Oh, get a room, you two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Oh, get a room, you two. Hey! This is our room, how did you get in here? No wait... wrong door... oops! (slowly closing the door... creaking sound...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 BTW, I don't wear briefs NotBlinded. I'm a boxers guy, if any at all... since you asked. Oh, get a room, you two. I can't. I don't have the keys to the sex forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 I can't. I don't have the keys to the sex forum. Ask, and it will be given to you. Do you want it? Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 I can't. I don't have the keys to the sex forum. Ask, and it will be given to you. Do you want it? Do you? I have always assumed that if I was good, and really believed in the mission of this site, and wished really hard that it would automatically be given to me. But if not, then I am manifestly unworthy, and that shall be my lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 I can't. I don't have the keys to the sex forum. Ask, and it will be given to you. Do you want it? Do you? You know I want it! OMG, now I'm embarrassing myself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts