> > > > 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. <<Pat > > > Supposition entirely and from where you proceed in order to construct > > the rest of the design. Knowledge 'afforded' us would in that account > > be more uniform, unilateral without discrepancy or the conflict of > > false knowledge and true knowledge as in the case of Gallileo and > > reveal itself to be more so, instinctive knowledge. <<Slip > > Not if you aren't afforded that. And galileo was afforded what he was > afforded. <<Pat
Again your basing your response totally on your own supposition that the only way we can gain knowledge is by the doling out of allowed levels of understanding and ability to learn by some imaginary deity. <<Slip > > >We have in record > > perceived and calculated knowledge by experience, subsequently failing > > at times to perceive actual truths and bounding forward on faulty > > conjecture until, through alternate experience, truth emerged.<<Slip > > Therefore demonstrating our limited knowledge.<< Pat You are saying absolutely nothing here. It demonstrates how we have struggled along on our own since our primordial beginnings, how we accumulated knowledge from experience and discovery. There is no indication that we were allowed to have some knowledge or the limitation of knowledge. <<Slip > > >We > > can't simply dismiss or disregard thousands of years of floundering on > > myths and notions in an attempt to establish the Harrington Theorem of > > deity knowledge which postulates an imparting of human knowledge by a > > third party source presented as the gate keeper of all knowledge. Slip > > Which is not my postulate. Rather, I postulate that the One created > us as third party items where He is the one reality that holds the lot > and that lot exceed the addition of our allotments. <<Pat It is so your postulate, it is exactly what you keep reiterating. Allotments? Its the same as before with a new word. Now your saying we were created as imbeciles who would receive little tokens of knowledge every once in a while? Like God's assistant runs over and says: "God, the humans are very cold and freezing, what should we do?" and God answers "Give them the knowledge of how to start fire, but nothing more, I want them to suffer for my pleasure, I enjoy seeing those little creatures I created suffer". Slip > > > Further allowing this persuasion to continue as even remotely valid I > > would assume that the gate keeper is in utter bliss and ecstasy by > > withholding knowledge that would alleviate a great deal of death and > > suffering at the hands of horrid diseases. Slip > > You would find no cures if there were no diseases. Think a little > about that. <<Pat Think about that? What is there to think about, that is absurd. If there were no diseases we would have to worry about finding cures. You make it sound like it all a big game and it is just loads of fun finding cures for people living agonizing lives on account of disease. <<Slip > > >Perhaps you can initiate a > > petition to spare all our lives by "affording" us the knowledge of > > "Cures". <<Slip > > If my petitions are accepted, it would only be by His permission. Do > you accept that you are diseased? If so, I'll ask for the cure. ;-) > And why, for one, do you think that I would want to cure all > diseases? That would, by your logic, rob us of the pleasure of > finding the cures ourselves (by my logic, having that knowledge when > it is dispensed). Personally, I'd rather solve world hunger than cure > all known diseases. Or bring peace ot the Middle East. <<Pat World hunger, world peace, disease all fall into the same lot Pat, there is no selective need here. Unfortunately you are sold on this idea of a deity that is dangling food above the starving for some warped reason. I don't see it that way and there is no reasoning which would support such a notion. You can go on with that fantasy if you like, I'll pass. <<Slip > > >Snap! Back to reality and the understanding that we have > > developed our own storehouse of knowledge through experience, > > discovery and experiment. Our conglomeration of knowledge is > > continually augmented by new experience, discovery and experiment not > > by the secretion of allowable ability to learn. <<Slip > > And, you'd be able to prove that? No more so than I can. So, at best > and at worst, it's a stalemate. But your 'storehouse' of knowledge' > is somehow separate from God's knowledge, whereas mine allows for no > separation, rather, an appearance of one.<<Pat The proof of what I'm saying is clearly visible in our history but there has never been any proof nor is there any now of a deity other than in the imagination of the human mind. We have a recorded history of human advancement, achievement and civilization. Let me guess, your going to say "that is because HE allowed us to have it". Uh Huh! -- 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.
