On 12 Mar, 16:20, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, but I can feel the air and technically it can be seen because it > is full of micro particles, some of which we refer to as pollution; > you are familiar with the London Fog I'm sure. >
Indeed. It was/is a famous brand name for trench coats. As for the old pea-green "London Fog", I never encountered it, as it was a 'smog' based on the over-use of coal-burning in the City. > Playing God are we? Only the drips that you allow? lol Well then I > can only surmise from what you proffer and of course only use the > limited knowledge that is afforded me by the Him. > If you get so lucky as to be able to put all of that together, yes. However, the drips of data we get aren't always so easy to fit into patterns. > Well I thought you believed in the Father Son Holy Ghost bit so that > would make big daddy the third party, being that two of them are one. > Yet I accept NO trinity. How can one be three? I realise that one can 'appear to be' a countless mutltitude but it cannot BE more than one. > Test and then judge. Judge for what and for what reason? He doesn't > find it fun you say, and of course I guess you speak on behalf of the > judge. If there is only one, for whom ELSE could you speak? We ALL speak on behalf of the one, it's just that most don't realise that's the case. >What you don't see is that you are constantly trying to find > reason to support something that is simply a belief, one that remains > enigmatic, beyond reproach and without any course of proof or > disproof. > Oh I see that, but I don't see that as a problem. You might. I'm not constantly trying to find reasons, I've found them. More, I've passed along some answers. More, some are rejected as not seeming to fit someone's personal view that is taken from the same 'pool of evidence'. IF what I say is truly beyond reproach, then why seek to reproach it? For YOUR sake? For God's? Mine? None of those possibilities actually make any sense. So yet you incline yourself towards inclining yourself away from what I say, you do so for reasons that are no more or less reasonable than my own. > I see everyone living in the same world with some, such as yourself, > attributing experiences, good or bad, to a deity, a creator who by > design places lives in atrocious living circumstance as a means of > testing and judging. Tell that to someone being cruelly tortured for > no purpose. Find just one. And how do you measure 'purpose'? With what scientific tool? Who taught you how to use it and are you sure there isn't a left-handed model that might work better? >One can find justification in anything by simply adopting > this externalization of human experience. I might feel entirely > different if it all came out of some new discovery that actually > established the existence of such a being. Might? I think you know you'd feel entirely different. Yet when confronted with it, do you not think you'd feel awfully stupid? >However, being that it is > based on ancient superstitions and myths of desert dwelling people > with limited knowledge and probably one of the few myths out of the > many that stayed the course of history, yet to be formally dispelled, > I would have to remain skeptical of it and keep it in the box of > fanciful figments of man's conjured conclusions to life's > wonderment. Yeah, those prople who came up with algebra and chemistry were pretty uneducated compared to the Dark Age's man that had to re-learn from the Arabs what they'd forgotten. Simply because something has been believed for years without proof does not mean that the thing itself is 'unbelievable' simply because no proof exists FOR it, as no proof against it exists either. >I might add that the monotheist religious persuasions > all originated in the same region and have striking similarities. Yes, you would thinkg the the God of Abraham would read/sound a lot like the God of Abraham. > Natives in the jungle are no less fervent believers of totem gods than > you are of yours and the "Thousands" of others out there including > spiritualists and cultists. What you choose to believe is no more > valid than pet rocks. Nice. So my life's work is, for all you care, pet rocks. Fair enough, I never once expected everyone to be bowled over with it, and, if you expect me to be terribly upset because one individual wants to stick his fingers in his ears and say, "La-La-La-La-La...", don't hold your breath; some doom themselves in many different ways and no one has ever changd that aspect of life. But I bet you wish that whole 'Pet Rock' idea was something YOU'D done, as you value it enough to remark on their surprising (to you) popularity amongst the people and a fortune was had. He always laughs last. >Truth is I could spend a few hours putting > together my own religion and probably get followers willing to do > anything to appease my god of all gods. I'll call it Chimpsky. lol > Yup. Probably. And, you would have that inner gut feeling that you'd led them all astray and you'd damn yourself for it. Not worth doing, then, is it? Trouble is, you couldn't do such a thing because your own God-given ethics prevent you from it, yet you can deny their origins in the same breath as proclaiming that which no person gave you is from yourself. > On Mar 12, 3:41 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Mar, 02:26, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > You've assumed, without proof, that we are alone and that God is not > > with us. Just because you cannot see God with your eyes, doesn't mean > > He's not present. You don't see the air around you. > > > > > >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 > > > LOL!! It's always nice to be told what I think by someone who has > > never met me. You don't know the whole of my theory, only the drips > > that I give you. Do you think God treats you differently than I do? > > What I objected to as "not a part of my theory" was your reference to > > a 'third party'. THAT is not a part of my theory. There is only > > One. How can there be a third party if there is no second? > > > > > > 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 > > > It IS a game. Put more appropriately, it's a test and how we react to > > those testing elements is the basis for how we will be judged. Whilst > > some find it fun, others don't. God doesn't find it fun, per se, as > > he takes no pleasure, as any pleasure that is had (by any) is already > > His, as is any pain (had by any). If you refuse to think about > > things, then you will find NO answers. And you stand as a limit to > > yourself. Why do that? > > > > > >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!- > > > 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.
