I literally said the same thing as you in my previous posts. I don't know why we are talking past each other. I have said God is not your metaphysical principal or your conceptual understanding. Sometimes discourse can be useful, sometimes not. I certainly don't need this discussion to occur in order to find God. Infact yes you're right, this is a mere distraction from the truth. But hey ho, here we are existing in this dualistic world. Discourse tries to rationalize that which can't be rationalized.

Since I’m such a failure, why don’t you go start a successful thread so I can see what one looks like. — Joe Mello

Here's a link to one of my favorite threads in my time on the forum. Take a look and you'll be able to see how real, amateur, collegial philosophy is done.

Can this art work even be defaced? — Bitter Crank

EugeneW,

You make a lot of declarations about God when you admit that you don’t know anything about him and are confused.

The face you see in the mirror is your face not my face, or everyone’s face.

Go to school. — Joe Mello

You’re not even nice to your followers. If finding God turns you in to such a sourpuss I don’t see why anyone would want to find it.

@emancipate

I wasn’t saying that God can’t be known from reason, but to ask someone to provide some sentences to show God is lazy and not how God is known.

From reason alone we can come to a knowledge of God.

Catholicism teaches this, and has many apologists who have written extensively on it.

The discovery of Dark Energy acting unlike a mere physical force is our newest rational possibility for the existence of God.

The discovery of Dark Energy acting unlike a mere physical force is our newest rational possibility for the existence of God. — Joe Mello

That would be more proof of dark demons driving all apart. But it makes room for follow up. And probably we are a follow up too.

@EugeneW

You don’t write cogently.

Dark energy is no proof of gods. It's just as electricity. Of which you said it's no sign of God. It's the existence of the whole universe that is proof. Who else could have blown it in existence? Dark energy is not God blowing us apart.

Alright have fun with your thread.

Gee, this thread has mysteriously disappeared from “All Discussions”.

Seems another moderator has decided what’s best for a forum is groups of confused people acting like experts by Googling their asses off.

I’m gonna guess Srap is involved.

The lounge is where stupid topics go to die. That’s no reflection on you, Joe. You’ve been brilliant. The topic has been trashed because of the lackluster responses to your spiritual insights.

@praxis

Just checked. No, The Lounge is not where stupid topics go.

Your feelings are hurt, I get it.

I was being euphemistic, sure, but don't take my word for it, or trust your ability to assess it objectively, I guess, just do a search for 'moved to the lounge' and you’ll soon see how the lounge is a small step from total topic annihilation. My hurt feelings do not change this fact, Joe. I'm no God and my feelings don't alter reality, nor do I require your love in order to be fulfilled. You might argue that my feelings about people and things do actually alter them to an extent and I would not disagree, in my perception of them. But the fact of the matter is that your good topic ended up in the lounge. Nothing can change that fact. Nothing can change the fact that the lounge is historically used as a dumping ground for topics that are low quality but not quite bad enough to delete entirely.

Try to look on the bright side, your topic was popular and attracted participation from a rather large swath of the membership. Your interests were taken seriously and closely examined. You've received both valuable criticism and lavish praise ("You’ve been brilliant" I've recently observed). Not too shabby for your first topic, no, not too shabby at all, so take some pride in what you've accomplished here, learn from your mistakes, if indeed any mistakes were made, and resolve to do better in the future. That's the best any of us can do, my friend.

Millennia of philosophy down the drain! — baker

Just the portion of it that maintains the status quo, and good riddance.

Hello everyone,
i am also new to this forum and its really impressive how "hardcore" philosophical discussions are.
In some way also understandable as philosophical people should be very self reflected.

great forum

@praxis

This thread was getting a lot of traffic when it got moved to The Lounge.

As I have already outlined, I get on a forum and start a very popular thread because I am a different poster than the groupthink regulars, and then a Moderator steps in to stop it for purely personal reasons.

So, your judgment that this thread was at its end and I had a good run is bogus, and kinda self-serving if you have never been able to start a thread that lasted.

Some moderator arbitrarily moved this thread. There was no critical thinking involved, just panties in a bunch.

I’ve read every moderator here. They are some weird dudes who actually live in books and their intellects.

They must smell musty like books, too.

This thread was getting a lot of traffic when it got moved to The Lounge. — Joe Mello

Irrelevant.

As I have already outlined, I get on a forum and start a very popular thread because I am a different poster than the groupthink regulars, and then a Moderator steps in to stop it for purely personal reasons. — Joe Mello

If identifying yourself as a non-group-thinker means that you're not afraid to say things that are not in sync with a group then I say good for you Joe! But honestly, rebelliousness for the sake of attention isn't all that impressive.

Regarding the move, as I've pointed out, it was done because of low quality. You've pointed out the low-quality posts in this topic more than anyone else. Were you lying about that and actually think that the responses to the OP were generally high-quality?

So, your judgment that this thread was at its end and I had a good run is bogus, ... — Joe Mello

I was trying to be nice and the niceness was genuine, well, somewhat genuine.

... and kinda self-serving if you have never been able to start a thread that lasted. — Joe Mello

I don't follow your reasoning here. No matter.

Some moderator arbitrarily moved this thread. There was no critical thinking involved, just panties in a bunch. — Joe Mello

A moment ago you said it was moved for personal reasons. Purely personal reasons are not arbitrary. They're reasons motivated by resentment or satisfaction rather than whimsy, but whatever the case, again I point out that you appear to judge the topic low-quality yourself, with the exception of your own posts, of course.

If you believe that this topic has value, can you explain its value?

I’ve read every moderator here. They are some weird dudes — Joe Mello

Oh yes. I knew that we could agree on something.

@praxis

Taking a line by line approach to answering someone’s posts is what every skeptic does, by the way.

Skeptics have this idea in their heads that they become the best thinkers by going point by point when attempting to write a good post that can be classified as critical thinking.

It’s not, and they’re not.

The best thinker is talented and experienced, not detailed.

In your post above you say many things that are not motivated by your intelligence but by your desire to correct me.

When a moderator moves a thread because he personally does not like it, he has moved the thread for an arbitrary reason, for arbitrary means a personal whim. You make a distinction between “purely personal” and “personal whim” when there is none.

To ask me to explain what value is in a logical metaphysical principle, which scientists refuse to consider when it is a principle that gives to us an understanding for the unanswered question how the evolution on our planet happened, is to ask a stupid question, and a question I have answered numerous times already.

And you can’t possibly know that this thread was moved because of low quality posts unless you spoke to the moderator who moved it.

Talent and experience, praxis, and a great big dose of love for the Truth.

I have no feelings about or interest in what anyone here says and does towards me after reading the principle I have given to them.

That most persons here didn’t understand it and mostly looked at me instead, like you did, is exactly what I expected to happen.

But I also knew that the hearing of a Truth is worth the telling of it, no matter how it’s received off the top of a person’s head.

In your post above you say many things that are not motivated by your intelligence but by your desire to correct me. — Joe Mello

If you’re suggesting that the smart thing would be to ignore you that’s fair.

You make a distinction between “purely personal” and “personal whim” when there is none. — Joe Mello

It’s true that personal reasons may be whimsical, though you mentioned whimsy and “panties in a bunch”, did you not? It’s a challenge to be whimsical when one’s panties are in a bunch, I imagine. I think you know that, and that you deliberately misconstrued my distinction in order to avoid looking foolish. Well, the ship has sailed on that score and no amount of ever-so-tricky word games can steer it back to shore.

To ask me to explain what value is in a logical metaphysical principle, which scientists refuse to consider when it is a principle that gives to us an understanding for the unanswered question how the evolution on our planet happened, is to ask a stupid question, and a question I have answered numerous times already. — Joe Mello

Obviously, my ever-so-evasive friend, that was not the question that I presented for your consideration. I was clearly asking you to explain the value of the topic as a whole, assuming that you judge it to have any value at all, and that includes all posts and not just the so called metaphysical principal. Different discussions containing the same principle can vary in quality, I should not have to point out. Judging from your posts in this topic, you appear to consider the majority, if not the entirety, of posts in this topic to be low-quality. I assume that you assign high value to your own words and the esteemed metaphysical principle, but they comprise only a small portion of the topic.

But fear not, I withdraw the question.

the hearing of a Truth is worth the telling of it — Joe Mello

Capital T truth is based in faith (in authority), that’s why it requires capitalization, and that’s exactly why you appear so desperate to be regarded as some kind of authority.

@praxis

A True authority on a subject is not only educated in the subject but experienced in the subject.

You fancy yourself a critical thinker, as all skeptics today do first and foremost, yet you can’t understand the simple notion that someone who has only read about God could not possibly know more about him than someone who has both read about and experienced him.

How do you know the stories you here about knowing and loving God, mine and so many others throughout human history, aren’t simply True? And if they are simply True, then I am an authority and you are not, but just someone who reads?

You accuse me of being “desperate” because you are projecting yourself upon me.

Your posts are like so much sand. They have no lasting effect on another person’s life.

A tree is known by its fruit.

And I have a rich harvest of helping others, which I still reap every day.

I am the only possible authority on God and the Truth because I didn’t just study it.

And you could not possibly be.

How do you know the stories you here about knowing and loving God, mine and so many others throughout human history, aren’t simply True? And if they are simply True, then I am an authority and you are not, but just someone who reads? — Joe Mello

You’re missing the point. The point is that the essential building blocks of religion are a unique metaphysics that require special access from someone like yourself, someone with hard won experience, and someone that can therefore be seen as an authority. The faith is in the authority, not in God. There are other signs of your religious inclinations, such as the way you stress the division between skeptics and believers, your rather extreme arrogance, and even the way you write with isolated sentences for dramatic effect. The curious thing is how openly blatant you are about all this, practically undressing yourself without any assistance from skeptics like myself. That makes it hard for me to believe that you’re for real, because you’re obviously not a complete idiot, and this is all just a simple game you’ve designed for amusement.

It has been amusing.

@praxis

So now you’re an expert on religion.

Religious people don’t think metaphysically when they become religious or stay in a religion the rest of their lives.

They become religious because something far more profound than their intellectual thoughts takes hold of them, i.e., the Spirit of God already within them.

You don’t even understand yourself, and how you have limited your vocabulary by excluding “spirit” and “God” when you pontificate what motivates religious people.

Your dry and rattling thoughts are leading you towards ignorance and nonsensical ramblings you make up on the fly,

And your adolescent jabs at me are because you actually think you’re the one with knowledge and experience, so you lash out at me, who is obviously pummeling your intellectual delusions.

Read your last post again with an eye on what proof you have to support any of your regurgitations of other skeptics who taught you that becoming religious is merely an intellectual decision of fearful and dumb people.

who taught you that becoming religious is merely an intellectual decision of fearful and dumb people. — Joe Mello

No one taught me that.

Read your last post again with an eye on what proof you have to support any of your regurgitations of other skeptics — Joe Mello

Do you know of any religion that relies on empirical validity and therefore doesn't require faith in any authority figures? I don't, but I'm no expert.

@praxis

“empirical validity”

You do not know or understand what it means.

If I have experienced the existence of God through both direct special revelations and general revelations, then I have experienced God “empirically”, not merely theoretically. I didn’t have to look up the definition of “empirical” to know this, but you need to.

And I don’t have to empirically verify the existence of God to you for my experiences of God to be empirical. Verification of our experiences to others is not a mandatory requirement for our experiences to be empirical. Again, look it up.

And philosophical empiricism is logical empiricism, to which my principle is an elegant and profound example.

Today’s skeptics are in an intellectual cult populated by untrained intellects redefining words and concepts to fit their ignorance and inexperience.

Why don’t you test your theory about religion and do some empirical research?

Go to church this weekend to see for yourself the joy and love present, and not the blind loyalty to religious authority you ignorantly project onto religious people gathering together to celebrate the spiritual joy and love that renews them.

And, while you’re at it, if that church has a group of selfless volunteers giving of their time and monies to help those of us less fortunate, see for yourself how your intellectual ramblings don’t give to you the inspiration or power to join them.

So yeah, I took your advice this morning and drove around the neighborhood until I found a church that was open for business. The Church of The Lady From Guadaloupe was having a bake sale for South American refugees. Dia Del Pastel they called it, which means 'Day of the Cake'. My Spanish is not so bueno, but from what I could make out their motto was something like "Baking towards a better future, one cake at a time." I thought it was really sweet and selfless of them to work for the benefit of others in this way.

They were selling cupcakes under a big tent on the lawn in front of the church. It was very windy this morning and as I walked past the tent on the way to the church one of the tent support pegs popped out of the ground and the tent partially collapsed. The collapsed part of the tent caught the wind like a sail and knocked people, tables, and cakes tumbling to the grass. It was a mess. I watched a kid get up from the ground who had two chocolate cupcakes stuck to his head. They were positioned like horns and he looked kinda like Hellboy. I tried my best not to laugh at the whole spectical but it was impossible so I ran the rest of the way up to the church in order to not offend those covered in buttercream frosting and lemonade.

The church was magnificent with huge marble columns on the inside and countless giant stained glass windows. I took a seat and opened myself to whatever love and joy could find me. The sunlight, multi-colored beams of it cascading down from the colorful windows, danced around my head as I stared at a depiction of the Virgin Mary in one of the windows. I kept staring. After a while she seemed to move. At first I thought it was the light moving and reflecting through the glass, but it eventually became clear that she was moving. She turned slightly and looked directly at me. She then began to speak.

"Are you ready?"

More than a little freaked out I managed to meekly ask, "Ready for what?"

"Love."

"What kind of love?"

"There is only one kind of love you fool."

Not sure what to say, after an uncomfortable pause I finally said, "I guess I don't know."

"Come back when you know."

"Okay," I agreed.

I hesitantly got up, saying "Okay, see ya later," and walked out.

@praxis

I have a Graduate degree in Professional Writing.

I write screenplays, short stories, nonfiction quotes, etc.

And I was a journalist at my city’s paper for two years.

So what do you think I think of your writing?

So what do you think I think of your writing? — Joe Mello

That my little story is empirically verifiable, of course.

Spare me the literary criticism, please. :pray: :lol:

@praxis

If your story actually happened, it would be empirical to you, not empirical to someone who wasn’t there.

You really can’t understand even simple philosophical language.

And your writing doesn’t qualify for literary criticism. But you qualify for all sorts of criticism.

If your story actually happened, it would be empirical to you, not empirical to someone who wasn’t there. — Joe Mello

I forgot to mention that as I was exiting the church yesterday a nun suddenly appeared from behind one of the marble pillars to confront me as I walked down the aisle. Dressed in a habit, she was quite old and frail looking, though her gaze was intense. Those intense eyes that flanked a large hooked nose could stop a buffalo in its tracks, and indeed I paused as if not by my own volition.

She looked me up and down and with a sweet voice said, “We welcome you to commune with our Lord whenever you wish, however, we have a strict policy of no cell phones and no phone conversations in this sacred sanctuary.”

Still deeply flustered by what had occurred only moments ago, I quickly replied, “I don’t have a phone.”

“Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you were speaking to someone a moment ago.”

Curious, I asked, “Did you hear anyone else speaking?”

“Why no, I thought you were using one of those ear gadgets.”

“Did you happen to notice that I was looking at the Virgin Mary in the window?”

“Yes.”

“Did you noticed anything unusual?”

“No. Should I have?”

“Oh no, it was nothing. I’ll remember what you said about no phones. Thank you.” I said while heading back towards the door.

So what do you think I think of your writing? — Joe Mello

Tell us what you think of his writing.

If God is actually playing hand puppets, Praxis on one hand and Joe Mello on the other, I'm stoked for this gladiatorial theater. One hand is feigning outrage. One hand is arrogant. Both hands like to write fiction. One hand paints. The hands do so many things.

I’ll be the first to admit that Mr. Mello is far better at writing fiction than I.