Meta: 1. "That is no contradiction. One can always move
toward the infinite even if one never adhesives it. Besides that's not
counting what happens after death. Once we are with God face to face (so
to speak) we might told everything."
SM--First of all, I don't get
your first sentence. Or rather I understand the spirit of what your
saying, I don'think you have the proper verbage. Second, you answer is a
non answer. You still haven't proven an "after life".
what "architect" thing in my spell check that rewrites posts. I don't
always catch it.Instead of "adhesives" it should say "advances." We can
advance toward an infinitely distant goal and never achieve it.
"He can tell us.All talk of God is analogical. Even if we don't really
know it works to follow the course of the saints and mystics.It's
empirically proven by psychology studies to work in that it produces a
SM---WHAT? You make no sense here.
Meta: what I
said makes perfect sense. If we don't know for sure that X is true of
God but it works to follow it then it's ratioanl to follow it. It makes
sense to do what works. Many empirical psychological studies show that
having religious experiences, if one is blessed to have them, do affect
people in ways that make their lives better than the lives of those who
don't have them.
SM: "My question was how do you know what
an unknowable (beyond your understand) diety wants. Your statement
doesn't answer that."
Meta: Yes it does:
(1) We now by special revelation. God tells us so through the prophets and Apostles..
People have experiences that are taken to be experiences f the divine.
there are various reason to take them s such. I can go into that but I
wont now. Given those reasons, look at what became of them as a result
we see those experiences are very good for us. So ti works to follow the
assumption that such experiences are those of the divine.
The claims to underestimating are place holders. That's what we are
saying when we say "they are analogical." They are analogy to the divine
by comparing we know to what we don't know.
(4) obviously we can
know somethings of the divine but not exhaustively. I've made this
analogy before. Nuclear physics is beyond my understanding; but I do it
exits and basically what its about. what I know about it is so
elementary it's not false to say it's beyond my understanding.
what are the freaked out by this concept?
SM:"And what has been proven by psychological studies? Patients given
sugar pills for diseases have worked as well. It's called a placebo
effect. This does nothing to strengthen your stance."
Meta: that is hardly the summum bonum
of psychology of religion.Placebo requires expectation; religious
experiences are often totally unexpected. so that doesn't explain them
what they prove is that experiences of a type historically
associated with God, aka "Mystical" are good for you and the result of
having is it radically transforms one's life. 3. Your third
and fourth answers to my comments run hand in hand. you state, "that is
doesn't follow. Not even a logical statement. That's like saying "If we
don't know what started the big bang expansion then we can't know
anything about big bang." There are lots of things we know something
about even though we don't know all.
that part that you don't put in quotes was the gist of my comment. you said: "If one aspect of your God is unknowable, then all aspects are unknowable."that
is what I'm saying is BS. If one aspect is unknowable that certainly
doesn't mean the whole is unknowable and did not say that.
SM:"---The big difference between your big bang anology and god are horribly incorrect."
"I will sum up the rest of your answers to my questions simply because
they run together. Your example is incorrect simply becasue at no point
have I said that the universe is a sentient being."
Meta: come on
screw your head on straight. that has to do with an analogy. no analogy
has to be totally correspondent in every single way with the thing it
SM:"So yes, in that sense, we can know
somethings about something but not everything. When it comes to the xian
god (or any god for that matter), you are talking about a living
thinking being. They problem that presents itself is that your gods who
it is and what it is are tied together. As a being made of matter, I
have my physical self and my abstract self that is based on the physical
aspect. I.e. my mind is a product of my brain. What you are trying to
pass off as truth is a mind existing without any physical entity."
a totally different matter. that's a totally separate issue form the
analogies above. Now you have backpedaled dropping the assertion that to
fail to know one this is to fail to know the anything.
SM:"This is impossible. I say impossible not with absolute knowledge, but functional practical knowledge."
is? your statement is unclear. Are now back to saying that if we don't
know everything single thing about something we can't know everything?
that's ludicrously wrong. I've illustrated in many ways that it's wrong.
I do not know much about physicist but I do what it is that it exits.
ditto theory of m1 and m2
ditto string theory, ect ect
SM:"Ever see a disembodied mind? I don't think so. You said my
statement is illocical, ( if one part of god is unknowable, then all of
him is). This is a valid and logical argument."
Meta: No it's not. It's what atheists call "arguemnt from ignorance." I've answered in previous blog pieces.
you are basing that entirely upon our sample of reality. Our sample of
reality is based upon this plant and a bit of the moon and finds from
long distances done by different types of telescopes. In other all
scheme of things we are totally ignorant.
the rest of reality is
huge evne if it' just our space/time. If it also consists of a
multiverse infinite space/time continuum each one separate from the
others we can never know what's out there. To then say that our little
limited perspective is all here can be is absurd.
(2) you are
begging the question to assume that just becuase biological life is that
way that all forms fo thought would be that way too.
(3) God is not a biological life form so why expect him to be that way?
(4) there is evident of universal mind in panpsychism and the problem of temporal beginning and other areas.
SM:"You are just sidestepping the question by saying I am wrong or don't understand."
Meta: LOL. Saying your wrong is not side stepping it's direct clash. Try to learn something about argumentation!
SM: "Once again, god's what he is is the same as who he is. There is no
difference. You cannot claim knowledge of one and non knowledge of the
Meta: that's a meaningless atheist propaganda phrase. All
you are really saying is 'let me do my reductionism thing so my straw
man idea of God is the only valid one so I can have something to attack.
assertion of God as "what he is and who he is" comes from an
understanding of Thomism, Thomas Ananias, the idea that God's existence
is his essence. Nothing about that the puts God under the microscope and
means that we have to have exhaustive knowledge about him or we can't
know a single thing including his existence. that's a just a ridiculous
anytime you say "Xi s beyond my understanding' you
are saying "I know X exists." That's part of knowing it's beyond your
understanding. That phrase does not and cannot mean 'I don't a know a
single thing about it including its' existence."
one must know at least that one doesn't know.
are also overlooking compete the other half of the equation. The full
statement is that left brain collapses in on itself when you try to make
that the only form knowledge.We need both left and right and experience
of God is right brain that's what we need for understanding God.
that we construct place holders which are analogies that bridge the gap
somewhat by comparing what we don't know to what we do know.
kind of knowledge of God that we have directly is inactive right brain
thinking, experience first hand. Intellect, book knowledge, things that
can be quantified, as people said in the oughts "not so much."
SM:"Your last sentence has no bearing. We cannot conduct experiments on your supposed god."
Meta: We don't have to. That's not the only form of knowledge
SM: "As far as observations and knowing something intellectually; most
people believed that more heat escapes from your uncovered head during
winter months. Hell, it sounds intellectually viable and is sound in
common sense. It's absolutely false."
Meta: that is argument from analogy. arguemnt from analogies is not proof.
are confused. You can know something about a thing and not know all
about it. You can know it experimentally and not know it
that is absolutely true. We know that's the case
because we can do it all the all the time. Left brain right brain kind
of stuff. There is a right brain. I know atheists are scared to death of
feelings and experiences but that is a valid from of knowledge. For
examples that's the only way we know we are loved. mot atheist don't
like love and think it's BS. that's because they are afraid of right
I've been told by a neurologist that there is
no evidence that left brain brain thing applies to all forms of
thinking. Yet it's a good metaphor for these types of knowledge.
Here’s a book that has almost nothing to do with religion, but I recommend for everyone: City Limit:
While it is a novel, it rings as true in a sense as any work of nonfiction out there.
This work is about the disturbing core of our society...
It concerns a boy at the unsightly core of the society that we steadily neglect in our daily lives, that we refuse to acknowledge. He hates the violence that surrounds him, the very guns that he repairs and sells just to stay alive, the drugs and insanity, but he has no choice but to bear through it, in some vague, unrealized hope that it is not necessary for human existence, even though he knows nothing else.
This is a powerful first novel, from Lantzey Miller, which I cannot too-highly recommend.