"Though my experience are unique I am not alone I do know other even only in passing No one is alone in their beliefs"-Allen
It is not to say that I am alone in my beliefs, for I share the same beiefs as many. Rather, no one believes as I do! My beliefs are the product of my experiences which differ from even those with which I share some of the same beliefs. Personal experience hence forms a distinct dialect in our belief systems therfore making it difficult to express through explaination or by any other means, what exactly one believes. Despite the commonalities in believing (or dis-believing), many tend to focus on their differences concerning belief or truth. On Mar 11, 7:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 Mar, 11:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > This is the problem. All Gods continually take form out of human > > thought. To classify a God as Omniscient is a human > > characterization. "Knowing" is a human perception, to know, > > knowledge, perception and awareness. Things may very well "just be" > > because they "just are". To hold that a being is total knowledge, > > perception and awareness is in itself a human characterization at its > > "infinite" quality. Therefore it can be concluded that God is a human > > concept born out of human knowledge, perception and awareness. As > > people perceived having knowledge it followed that if humans can > > "know" then surely God would know all things in totality, ie; > > omniscience. Out of these concepts come variations in view resulting > > in deity multiplicity; a sort of parallax effect. Ergo, the disparity > > in beliefs on a global scale and the expansion of beliefs such as > > trinitarian concepts etc. Your belief is based on how you see it or > > from where you stand and affected by knowledge and experience. > > Alternatively, you've got the cart before the horse. We humans have > knowledge because a subset of God's all-encompassing knowledge is > afforded us by Him. Whilst you might believe that we created God in > our likeness and image, I believe it was the other way around. I > don't hold that God is total knowledge; God is not 'all knowledge' but > all knowledge is God's. God knows what you know through you. Put > another way, when you think you know something, it isn't you that > knows it, it's God that knows it, as He is a parallel processor > utilising all forms of awareness, and all thouse forms of awareness > are, in reality, His awareness extended to that which appears to be > aware. I don't deny that my belief is based on how I see things other > than to state that what I see is what God allows me to see. It is God > that sees and hears, not us. > > > > > On Mar 11, 4:31 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11 Mar, 00:06, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I believe that I don't believe in any belief or at least I don't > > > > believe that I do believe and I believe that is what I truly believe; > > > > believe it or not. > > > > After reading this, I've come to the conclusion that omniscience > > > confers perfect immunity against all beliefs; therefore, an omniscient > > > God cannot hold any belief. And there's one more limitation on such a > > > deity. God cannot believe; He can only know via omniscience. > > > > > On Mar 10, 12:36 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I would not aspire to convince anyone or otherwise try to prove > > > > > my beliefs at all. Not by means of explaination for the fact that no > > > > > one believes as I do. Likewise one could not properly relate to an > > > > > explanation from me as none but myself fully understands the > > > > > explaination biased or not. As I read through this disscussion I have > > > > > found one certain proof; All have beliefs (disbeliefs) based upon > > > > > their individual experiences. I think that it would be difficult for > > > > > one to rightly prove a belief (system) by means of science as science > > > > > deals mainly with the material rather than the etheral. Beside this, > > > > > science can not maintain that which is fact due to it's own advances. > > > > > The more science moves towards micros and away from the macros the > > > > > further it is from seeing the big picture and there will be more > > > > > theories and differences. This is within the same diciplines as well > > > > > as across. Look at the differences between Ben Franklin's and Sir > > > > > Nikoli Tesla's electrical theories and the contovrsy it wrought. And > > > > > is it not a shame that Tesla's theories oppressed and all but > > > > > completly lost. Had it not been for greed's sake...!!! Gain adversely > > > > > influences science, religion and politics on all levels. > > > > > > On Mar 10, 11:47 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 10 Mar, 15:58, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > " We understand > > > > > > > nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that > > > > > > > He > > > > > > > wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."......Pascal > > > > > > > > I can see how this fits in with your monistic view of God, Pat, > > > > > > > but it > > > > > > > shows up one of the major conceptual weaknesses of the > > > > > > > conventional > > > > > > > Abrahamic views of the all-loving, all-caring, at the same time > > > > > > > judging-to-heaven-and-hell God. It's the basic problem of > > > > > > > predestination, stated in all of its horrific unavoidable logic by > > > > > > > John Calvin: > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism) > > > > > > > > Personally, even if I tended towards belief, I'd want nothing to > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > with such a God. > > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > {snickers} If there is such a God, you can't escape it by disbelief > > > > > > or wishes. God is NOT all-loving, as that goes against omnipotence. > > > > > > "Caring" is a difficult word due to its ambiguity. He is intimately > > > > > > involved and cares (by virtue of force!) that those who disbelieve > > > > > > remain in their disbelief and that believers remain in their belief > > > > > > and is perfectly capable to enforce that. Cherishing, is a better > > > > > > term. But it still comes with the concept that He cherishes the > > > > > > atheist to remain an atheist in order to do that which only atheists > > > > > > can do. Thus my "willingly or unwillingly" comment to Slip. > > > > > > > > On 10 Mrz., 15:31, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 10 Mar, 14:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I guess this swings over to Fidd's thread (very busy but..) on > > > > > > > > > Pascal's Wager. > > > > > > > > > To a degree, it does...yes. No one will be able to prove it to > > > > > > > > others, but rare experiences serve as proof to a few. > > > > > > > > > > "If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in > > > > > > > > > denial. If I > > > > > > > > > saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose > > > > > > > > > peacefully in > > > > > > > > > faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to > > > > > > > > > assure me, I > > > > > > > > > am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that > > > > > > > > > if a God > > > > > > > > > sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity. We > > > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle > > > > > > > > > that He > > > > > > > > > wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."......Pascal > > > > > > > > > That last line of 'blind(ing) some...' is very true. But that > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > necessary in order to test the faith of the faithful. Thus the > > > > > > > > VERY > > > > > > > > important role of atheists. > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager > > > > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/fbeaab7... > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:01 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE > > > > > > > > > > IT?" > > > > > > > > > > That is the question Pat.. and I have no intention of > > > > > > > > > > trying to prove it. > > > > > > > > > > nor will I attempt to. > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Pat > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 20:21, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no need to ask for proof of what i know to be > > > > > > > > > > > > true. Nor do I need > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > create strange arguments.. even science knows that a > > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly straight > > > > > > > > > > > > line will end at its starting point. enjoy your physics > > > > > > > > > > > > and geometry I > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > enjoy my God. > > > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > My arguments aren't strange, they're logical. And, of > > > > > > > > > > > course, you > > > > > > > > > > > aren't the only reader here. So, when I address your > > > > > > > > > > > statements, I > > > > > > > > > > > address them (your statements) for a larger audience with > > > > > > > > > > > you as a > > > > > > > > > > > primary audience. Whilst you may have no need of proof or > > > > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > > examples, others might, so I proffer them. In my > > > > > > > > > > > opinion, God must > > > > > > > > > > > work within a framework of His design and I view my 'job' > > > > > > > > > > > as being to > > > > > > > > > > > discover and reveal as much of that framework and design > > > > > > > > > > > as I can. > > > > > > > > > > > The doctor needn't treat the healthy but not all are > > > > > > > > > > > healthy and some, > > > > > > > > > > > whilst believing thay are healthy, aren't; and some > > > > > > > > > > > whilst believing > > > > > > > > > > > they are ill, aren't. And I have to address them all or > > > > > > > > > > > I'm being > > > > > > > > > > > unfair. > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, your example of a perfectly straight line ending at > > > > > > > > > > > its starting > > > > > > > > > > > point is only true in the case of a line that extends > > > > > > > > > > > throughout all > > > > > > > > > > > of space-time (and THAT assumes a curvature TO > > > > > > > > > > > space-time, which > > > > > > > > > > > contradicts the 'straightness' of the line). And, since > > > > > > > > > > > you didn't > > > > > > > > > > > specify the length of the line, your example is > > > > > > > > > > > incorrect, for a > > > > > > > > > > > straight line that is one inch long will prove your > > > > > > > > > > > example false. > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, if the one inch line is drawn around a sphere that > > > > > > > > > > > has a > > > > > > > > > > > circumference of one inch, your statement is still false, > > > > > > > > > > > as the line > > > > > > > > > > > is curved and not straight. I value geometry and there > > > > > > > > > > > is much to be > > > > > > > > > > > learned from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Pat > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 15:32, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whoa Pat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That One is beyond gender, which is why He > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can't have > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
