Brother Mario

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Joining molecules together to create a different thing, but still a thing made up of only molecules, is not to create a greater thing but only a different thing.

Strawman.  The example given was joining elements to form a molecule.  This was further elucidated as joining hydrogen atoms with an oxygen atom to form a water molecule.

[Brothermario]

Josh, I had many experiences of God over a span of seven years 40 years ago that were not merely subjective, but included tangible connections to exterior reality. I’ve written about a couple on this forum, for these are the only experiences of God I bring up on forums such as these.

 

I also had many inner spiritual experiences of God that I completely agree can never be more than subjective.

 

Therefore, it is the existence of only tangible experiences of God we should be debating.

 

So we need to climb out of this one-spirit-fits-all rabbit hole first.

[Brothermario]

Redneck, thanks for the demonstration of an untrained intellect attached to a human personality that fell in love with logical fallacies in its first year of college.

 

Stick around. I still have use for you here.

[Brothermario]

Warrior, see my response to Wertbag.

 

And I meant to tell you that I wasn’t dogging on your name, but have actually called myself a warrior many times. See my response to Margee a few days ago.

[midniterider]

15 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Therefore, it is the existence of only tangible experiences of God we should be debating.

 

 

Let's see one.

 

edit:

Or better yet, God can visit. He has that power of visitation, right? Maybe gather up all us skeptics and you and take us all to a monastery and do a miracle. If not, then it's just you full of hot air. 

[Brothermario]

To correct my example for Redneck:

 

Joining atoms together with physical forces to make a molecule is just a different placement of atoms, not a greater thing than atoms and physical forces.

[Brothermario]

Midnite, don’t go hunting. You can’t stop shooting yourself in the foot.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Redneck, thanks for the demonstration of an untrained intellect attached to a human personality that fell in love with logical fallacies in its first year of college.

 

Stick around. I still have use for you here.

The reason we studied logical fallacies was so that we could avoid using them.  You obviously skipped that semester.  Or failed the class.  Either way, the result is the same.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

To correct my example for Redneck:

 

Joining atoms together with physical forces to make a molecule is just a different placement of atoms, not a greater thing than atoms and physical forces.

You have a limited understanding of science.

[Brothermario]

Nope. Got a very good grade in Rhetorical Theory.

 

One day in class, our secular Jewish professor was discussing the Immaculate Conception with a couple of Catholic girls. They kept talking about it as Jesus’ conception. I raised my hand and corrected them that it was Mary’s conception. They burst out laughing at me, as did most of the class, and the professor said to the girls, “That’s something you can easily research and set him straight on.”

 

When the next class came, the girls and the professor never mentioned it.

 

Academia isn’t really the place for honesty and humility, now is it?

[Joshpantera]

25 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Josh, I had many experiences of God over a span of seven years 40 years ago that were not merely subjective, but included tangible connections to exterior reality. I’ve written about a couple on this forum, for these are the only experiences of God I bring up on forums such as these.

 

Thank you. If you will, I need to be brought up to speed on what these evidences or experiences are. I've just come back from vacation. 

 

27 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

I also had many inner spiritual experiences of God that I completely agree can never be more than subjective.

 

Therefore, it is the existence of only tangible experiences of God we should be debating.

 

So we need to climb out of this one-spirit-fits-all rabbit hole first.

 

Well, hey, that's getting somewhere. We have an agreement up front that subjective experience can not be used (whether true or not) to prove the existence of something. To prove the existence of god in this case. I don't want to have some yelling match or cursing contest with you or anyone else about god. I appreciate a level headed, intellectually honest discussion that can demonstrate that both parties ARE willing to do their best to remain objective throughout the discussion. 

 

I'm going to post this orienting video which covers 6 extremely popular ways of trying to argue for the existence of god. Along with some following negation of each popular claim. Please watch through the short video and let me know if you agree with these 6 claims or disagree: 

 

 

[Brothermario]

No, Josh, I don’t agree with a Protestant Carl from some Bible school.

 

The skeptic was better intellectually than Carl, but did exactly what I said skeptics do—find a Protestant to argue against, and display an inability to understand philosophical principles.

 

He was wrong to say that the universe could exist without being an effect of a cause.

 

One of Aristotle’s best philosophical principles is that “it is impossible for there to be an infinite line of finite things”.

 

Aristotle’s mistake of the origin of life is completely understandable, for we still don’t know how life began.

 

The skeptic is wrong to say that the theory of abiogenesis has been proven true.

 

So I disagree with both guys.

 

Abiogenesis needed a greater thing than life itself to make dead organic material into a living organism.

 

A lesser thing than life would have been impossible. And an equal thing to life would have been redundant.

[WalterP]

Very well Brothermario, let's talk only about experiences and leave religion out of it.

 

 

I came here and told you a true story from experience about God.

 

But you, like all skeptics, equated God with religion.

 

Your experience of god.  How can I possibly verify your claims for it to be (A) true and (B) about god?

 

We can forget the possibility of me sharing my true experience of god with you, here in this forum.  Because how could you possibly know, just from what I write here, that I had exactly the same true experience of god that you did?

 

What's subjective for me is closed to you and vice versa.

 

I can't see a way past this impasse.  Can you?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

44 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Nope. Got a very good grade in Rhetorical Theory.

Sure.  But how did you do in basic college chemistry?

[Brothermario]

Hi, Walter.

 

Get your Google machine out and see if you can read the book “My Other Self” by Clarence Enzler, and the chapter A Foretaste of Heaven. I got one of those about 40 minutes before reading about it when I opened the book to my bookmark at that chapter. It says in the chapter that God will give to certain people such a foretaste of our eternal life.

 

I’m not telling you that you will experience one, too, just that such an experience is also tied to the tangible realities of time and a book.

 

But how cool is it to know with certainty that God isn’t restricted by time today, and we won’t be tomorrow?

 

If all you can appreciate is the cup of Joe in your hand, and the taste of coffee, then that’s okay.

 

But don’t judge too harshly someone who has learned to appreciate a bit more.

[WarriorPoet]

To make a blanket statement that life is greater than non-life seems to me to be nothing more than arrogance on the part of the living.  I don’t understand how one could simply make that claim when there are such things as hurricanes, volcanoes, gamma ray bursts, or super-massive black holes.  I’m sure you would agree with me that none of those things are alive, and I would not classify myself or any other living thing that we know of as greater than them.

[WalterP]

I'm sorry Brothemario, but your reply does not address the core problem of the impasse of subjectivity that exists between us.

 

Even if I did what you say I would still have no objective way of verifying that any subjective experience of god that I had was the same subjective experience of god you had.

 

Your subjective experiences are forever closed off to me, just as mine are to you.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Brothermario]

Redneck, I have a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, and a Master of Arts in English.

 

I haven’t peered through an electron microscope at atoms, but would like to.

 

Getting science degrees is cool, but doesn’t prepare us to judge reality beyond our senses.

 

In the middle of the last century there was a scientific/philosophical movement in Europe, especially in France. I’ve read extensively from the scientific community at that time.

 

There was a famous scientist at that time—Pierre Lecomte du Nouy—who wrote a book, “Human Destiny”.

 

I’ve relied on his understanding of chemistry to support my claims of greater and lesser things.

 

It’s an amazing book written from both the scientific and philosophical viewpoints.

 

He has many brilliant moments, but I particularly liked when he explained how life first increased through the splitting up of itself, so was virtually eternal, but when genders came into the picture, death became an inevitability of life.

 

(The story of Adam and Eve seems more scientific now.)

[Brothermario]

Walter, you’re always apologizing for disagreeing.

 

Try to see yourself truthfully.

 

Maybe if you took the time to humble yourself, find the book, and read the chapter God would give to you what he gave to me.

 

You sitting there moving your fingers and demanding me to give you something so amazing that only a divine God could give it is ridiculous.

 

God gave to me tangible proof of his existence and personality.

 

It must have pleased him to do so somehow.

[freshstart]

1 hour ago, Brothermario said:

Academia isn’t really the place for honesty and humility, now is it?

Oh please do instruct us on honesty and humility. How do you demonstrate or define these concepts?

[Brothermario]

Hey, Warrior, would you change places with a Super Nova in the largest and most beautiful galaxy in the universe?

 

Of course not.

 

Isn’t it GREAT to be us?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

In the middle of the last century there was a scientific/philosophical movement in Europe, especially in France. I’ve read extensively from the scientific community at that time.

 

There was a famous scientist at that time—Pierre Lecomte du Nouy—who wrote a book, “Human Destiny”.

 

I’ve relied on his understanding of chemistry to support my claims of greater and lesser things.

And I have relied on harvesting Oak's Child with a golden sickle, like the ancient Celtic druids did, to cure stomach tumors, because it's a lot easier to comprehend than modern pharmaceuticals.

[Brothermario]

freshstart ... never mind, I’ve got nothing for the likes of you.

[Brothermario]

Redneck, you know you’re kind of a ridiculous person, right?

[WalterP]

3 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Walter, you’re always apologizing for disagreeing.

 

Try to see yourself truthfully.

 

Maybe if you took the time to humble yourself, find the book, and read the chapter God would give to you what he gave to me.

 

You sitting there moving your fingers and demanding me to give you something so amazing that only a divine God could give it is ridiculous.

 

God gave to me tangible proof of his existence and personality.

 

It must have pleased him to do so somehow.

 

Brothermario,

 

Simply repeating your claims does nothing to address the impasse that exists between us.

 

My asking you reasonable and rational questions is in no way a demand.

 

That which is reasonable and rational is not ridiculous.

 

If you cannot see a way to break the impasse between us, then please just say so.

 

Or, if you believe that the impasse does not exist, then please share your subjective experience of god with me in your next reply.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.