...just guessing whicn 'NOMA' was meant.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noma I would in no way require Omprem to accept such an approach. In fact, to make such a requirement in a way does support his POV.
On May 19, 6:59 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/5/18 omprem <[email protected]> > > > > > OMPREM: To ask for objective proof of religious matter is merely to > > assert the primacy of empiricism in areas that are totally beyond the > > jurisdiction of empiricism. However, one can experience the truth of > > the Divine by employing the methods suggested by the various > > religions. > > In your experience, how reliable and trustworthy are these religious methods > of knowing the truth of something? Have you found one particular method more > accurate than another? It strikes me that the various religions out there > have their own claims on truth and they very often contradict each other. > Can you explain this? > > I understand why you would make some kind Gouldian appeal to non-overlapping > magesteria. I'm interest to know whether you are actually strict about this > in your own reasoning. Very often I see theists, when pushed to explain > certain points, breaking NOMA... and thus disappearing in a puff of logic. > Back to the drawing board, etc. > > Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
