The lack of a concrete referent troubled me, so I could not proceed to the level of abstraction required because I was unwilling to accept the articles on faith alone, I needed to understand through concrete reference. — Metaphysician Undercover
What does it mean to "come and see for yourself"? Try what out?So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know. — Agustino
Have you read the Bible from cover to cover?People call the Christian God loving, yet the Bible shows otherwise. — Harry Hindu
Depends. According to Christianity, the gates of hell are locked from within. God cannot force people out of hell against their own will - at least He can't if He is loving and respects their free will.If hell exists, that also shows that it isn't loving. — Harry Hindu
Same thing. I made no reference to you when I said non-believers can receive salvation.Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by experiencing things the way I experience them. — Harry Hindu
Saying that virtually 90%+ of people (an estimate of the religious) who have ever lived were deluded is indeed a form of grandiose delusion.If that's not a symptom of a grandiose delusion, I don't know what is. — Harry Hindu
You're not a believer, you used to be one. So you don't understand, at least anymore (maybe you never have, I wouldn't know that) how the term "God" is best to be used, and what it refers to. I, who am a believer, am more likely, by the fact that I devote more time to study and understand this than you do, to understand what "God" refers to. — Agustino
You said atheists can even receive salvation. I consider myself an atheist. The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them.Same thing. I made no reference to you when I said non-believers can receive salvation. — Agustino
I didn't say all atheists will receive salvation or can receive salvation.You said atheists can even receive salvation. I consider myself an atheist. — Harry Hindu
I don't see how the last part follows.The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu
In order to know what "water" means, you must experience water no? That's no delusion, that's quite sensible.What you are saying is no different than fundamentalists Muslisms, who say that you have to experience things the way the do in order to receive salvation. What you are saying is that you have the truth in your experiences - and that in order to get at the truth, you have to experience what I experience - a symptom of a delusion. — Harry Hindu
What age will we be when ressurected? Bodies age, will we continue to age?Yes, until the bodily resurrection of the dead. — Agustino
Exactly. My point is that in order to receive salvation, one must experience things the way you experience them. In other words, we must simply accept your own understanding of your own experiences and hope that ours is like yours without fully knowing what your experience is.I didn't say all atheists will receive salvation or can receive salvation. — Agustino
Sure, now try that with god. What kind of experience should I have to know that it is god?In order to know what "water" means, you must experience water no? That's no delusion, that's quite sensible. — Agustino
Then you need to explain your distinction between seeing and experiencing.The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu
I don't see how the last part follows. — Agustino
I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it.The problem is that you assume superiority in your position. It would make as much sense to argue that you should open your mind to the enlightenment of atheism by someone who insists they have had ineffable experiences of the lack of a supreme being as it makes for you to argue the opposite. — Hanover
I, personally, made no mention of a "higher power" as of yet, as that is another thing that requires definition and must be sought for within experience.higher power — Hanover
What actually happened in this thread was that the secular crowd rejected the definitions (and understandings) of transubstantiation offered by the theistic crowd, and therefore they've been off-topic all along. The statement transubstantiation happens and the statement transubstantiation doesn't happen are both true at the same time, since there is an equivocation on the word transubstantiation.It was the outlandish attempts to defend transubstantiation to a secular crowd that generated the discussion. — Hanover
A symptom of a grandiose delusion.The problem is that you assume superiority in your position. — Hanover
It looks like he still doesn't see his problem, Hanover. He knows better what the word "God" refers to, you ignorant dolt.I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it. — Agustino
Bodies age in this world, as things stand now. We don't know how it will be in the afterlife.What age will we be when ressurected? Bodies age, will we continue to age? — Harry Hindu
We don't remember anything, so I take that as we didn't exist. Scripture makes no reference to this state.What about what happened before we were born? — Harry Hindu
Who said just to be resurrected? The point was to live in communion with God, and be an image of God on Earth. But man sinned, and things spiralled out of control. God was faithful to mankind and has kept saving and protecting man, and ultimately guiding him towards redemption. That is our history.What is the point of being born and to die just to be ressurected? — Harry Hindu
Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, personal revelation (experience) and reason.How did you come by this information? — Harry Hindu
Sure.Have you asked any of these questions of yourself, or do you simply believe in this stuff unquestioningly? — Harry Hindu
What makes you think you or Hanover know better what "God" refers to? I cited reasons for making this claim, so that's by all means not a delusion. Do you disagree that the fact that I spend more time than both of you combined studying this topic likely means I know more about it than both of you combined, at least with reference to what "God" refers to?It looks like he still doesn't see his problem, Hanover. He knows better what the word God refers to, you ignorant dolt. — Harry Hindu
Citing reasons doesn't mean that it isn't a delusion. Delusional people cite reasons for the beliefs all the time in order to maintain the delusion.What makes you think you or Hanover know better what "God" refers to? I cited reasons for making this claim, so that's by all means not a delusion. Do you disagree that the fact that I spend more time than both of you combined studying this topic likely means I know more about it than both of you combined? — Agustino
Whether it's real knowledge or not doesn't change the fact that they do know better than those who don't study astrology what astrology-specific terms mean or refer to.You might say that they know more about astrology, but is it real knowledge? — Harry Hindu
So you disagree with the reason given? Based on what considerations?Citing reasons doesn't mean that it isn't a delusion. Delusional people cite reasons for the beliefs all the time in order to maintain the delusion. — Harry Hindu
That didn't answer my question about what age we will be when ressurrected. Why wouldn't it be different, if our bodies are still the same, just ressurrected - whatever that actually means?Bodies age in this world, as things stand now. We don't know how it will be in the afterlife. — Agustino
A contradiction.Whether it's real knowledge or not doesn't change the fact that they do know better than those who don't study astrology what astrology-specific terms mean or refer to. — Agustino
It will very likely be different, since creation is in a fallen state now, and after the Resurrection it won't be. How it will be different, it hasn't been revealed to us. Some people, including in the Church, do have opinions, but those are just opinions. I'm personally of the opinion that bodies will not age in the afterlife. If you want, I can explain to you why I think so.Why wouldn't it be different, if our bodies are still the same, just ressurrected - whatever that actually means? — Harry Hindu
Know WHAT better than others? What the field-specific terms refer to? They know that better than others because they frequently use those terms and try to understand them (while others don't).A contradiction.
If it's not real knowledge, then how can you say that they know better than others? — Harry Hindu
So, they know what the terms mean, which is to say that what they refer to, but the things that they refer to aren't real, wouldn't you agree? So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life?Know WHAT better than others? What the field-specific terms refer to? They know that better than others because they frequently use those terms and try to understand them. — Agustino
And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? Your argument suggests that they know better what the term, "God" refers to. You seem unwilling to admit that there are others that have studied "God" more than you and have come up with a different idea of God, or that it doesn't exist at all - a symptom of a grandiose delusion.I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it. — Agustino
Open a dictionary, try using language on an everyday basis. No faith involved. Although admittedly your language use is getting increasingly idiosyncratic. — Benkei
Algebra and trigonometry do in fact have concrete references, and I agree that it's a poor way to teach to simply itemize the steps the students are to perform without offering an understanding as to why those steps must be performed. — Hanover
The problem I have with transubstantiation is not that the teacher has failed to provide the underlying concrete basis for it, but it's that the teacher has specifically told me that it's a mystery. — Hanover
The argument is a resort to humility, to argue I should just accept there are certain things beyond my comprehension, and instead of smugly rejecting them, I should take pause and recognize it is my limitations that keep me from understanding it. — Hanover
Correctness in language use is totally faith. The fact that I can remove myself from good faith and get idiosyncratic if I want, demonstrates the reality of this. You seem to already recognize this so I don't see why I need to tell you. — Metaphysician Undercover
Depends what the terms are in question are.So, they know what the terms mean, which is to say that what they refer to, but the things that they refer to aren't real, wouldn't you agree? — Harry Hindu
That's not non-existent things. I imagine they must make predictions based on the planets and stars that the state of my life. Those predictions can be verified, once you understand what they are and what they mean.So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life? — Harry Hindu
Depends on the particular person. Study time is necessary to know better, but not also sufficient.And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? — Harry Hindu
I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. — Agustino
I don't agree with this. We've all been relying upon the Catholic definition of the term throughout.The statement transubstantiation happens and the statement transubstantiation doesn't happen are both true at the same time, since there is an equivocation on the word transubstantiation. — Agustino
If you think that the reasons for making the particular steps which are made, in these mathematical proceedings having concrete references, then I think you are hallucinating. The reasons why the steps are performed, are complex, often ambiguous, and in no way constitutes a concrete reference; just like the Church's reasons for performing their rites cannot constitute a concrete reference. In mathematics, the reasons for the steps of procedure being as they are, are extremely vague, and sometimes completely arbitrary. That the circle has 360 degrees for example, is completely arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover
That these symbols, 1,2,3, etc., are the symbols which are used, to signify what they do, is just as much of a mystery, or more, as the mystery of transubstantiation. — Metaphysician Undercover
The argument is that your rejection is unjustified. If you are so smug in your rejection, that demonstrating this to you requires humility, then the blame for this humility is your smugness, not the argument. — Metaphysician Undercover
We can try to ascertain whether they correspond with reality or we can ascertain that the convention exists. — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.