Food for thought for Christians

[bluehillside Retd.]

SP,

Have a look at Trollboy's latest eructation as an illustration of his deep dishonesty. The only person to mention mental illness is him, but now he's demanding that I defend the accusation. That's what trolls do - just make up any shit they like, affix it to their interlocutors, then hammer on about it in the hope that no-one notices that yet again they've completely ducked the problem they keep running from, in this case providing a method to distinguish his "true for you too" god claim from just guessing about stuff.

That's why I gave up feeding the troll - it only encourages him to keep lying.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Any chance of answers to 202 and 203?

Cheers

I don't mean to be rude but I think you have misconstrued a part of my conversion experience as the whole thing. God is knocking from the start and the moment is one of full realisation of that.

My other point is my developing concern during my experience with ontological verity, the lack of answer from secular humanist belief and the appearance of a solution from an unexpected and yes initially unwanted source.

I would recommend digesting what I have said and in its entirety since not only is assuming the role of incessant inquisitor tiring for the interlocutee, it prevents reflection on what is actually being said to you as some of your fellow interlocutors stand testimony too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SP,

Have a look at Trollboy's latest eructation as an illustration of his deep dishonesty. The only person to mention mental illness is him, but now he's demanding that I defend the accusation. That's what trolls do - just make up any shit they like, affix it to their interlocutors, then hammer on about it in the hope that no-one notices that yet again they've completely ducked the problem they keep running from, in this case providing a method to distinguish his "true for you too" god claim from just guessing about stuff.

That's why I gave up feeding the troll - it only encourages him to keep lying.   

You mentioned that medical literature deals with feelings like the ones you think I have. That can be construed as a sly way of implying mental aberration.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I don't mean to be rude but I think you have misconstrued a part of my conversion experience as the whole thing. God is knocking from the start and the moment is one of full realisation of that.

My other point is my developing concern during my experience with ontological verity, the lack of answer from secular humanist belief and the appearance of a solution from an unexpected and yes initially unwanted source.

I would recommend digesting what I have said and in its entirety since not only is assuming the role of incessant inquisitor tiring for the interlocutee, it prevents reflection on what is actually being said to you as some of your fellow interlocutors stand testimony too.

Well, actually I have gone to some pains to answer the questions you have asked of me as honestly as possible. You can of course always as m further questions.

The reason for repeated questions is that you seem to be unable to spell out clearly why you think you really are experiencing God.

For example in the above post you say:

"My other point is my developing concern during my experience with ontological verity, the lack of answer from secular humanist belief and the appearance of a solution from an unexpected and yes initially unwanted source."


This comes across simply as an example of something happening which I can't explain here, is an answer therefore it is an objective truth.

So far clarity could you tell us specifically what the question was that lacked an answer and what the answer you got from an unexpected source was?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

Have another look at Reply 113 - the Trollboy playbook.

Having exhausted his repertoire of re-defining words to suit his purpose, ascribing positions to his interlocutors that none of us actually hold, making an argument that no-one disputes (ie, that anything could be), and never, ever, ever even attempting an argument for his objectively true god claim that distinguishable from just guessing about stuff he’s now complaining that it’s tiring when he’s called on it and demanding that you just listen to what he says – ie, all of the above.

Scummy behaviour throughout (would Jesus be proud of him do you think?) but classic true-to-form Trollboy from beginning to end nonetheless.
 

[Owlswing]

Owls,

Aren't the lumps of coal used in steam locomotives called "nuts"?

Hmmm...

Yes, that is true, but, considering the final destination of the coal 'nuts' in this connection I could never make the connection as wishing that another poster should die in the Fires of Hell, or the steam locomotive equivalent thereof, is specifically banned and can get the poster equally banned (for life) so I didn't do so!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, actually I have gone to some pains to answer the questions you have asked of me as honestly as possible. You can of course always as m further questions.

The reason for repeated questions is that you seem to be unable to spell out clearly why you think you really are experiencing God.

For example in the above post you say:

"My other point is my developing concern during my experience with ontological verity, the lack of answer from secular humanist belief and the appearance of a solution from an unexpected and yes initially unwanted source."


This comes across simply as an example of something happening which I can't explain here, is an answer therefore it is an objective truth.

So far clarity could you tell us specifically what the question was that lacked an answer and what the answer you got from an unexpected source was?

As I have said ontology is not dependent on methodology.
I'm afraid in terms of my certainty of experiencing God I,m afraid At the moment all I can say is, if it walks, like duck , quacks like a duck then it is a duck..........and not a leprechaun.

[Owlswing]

As I have said ontology is not dependent on methodology.
I'm afraid in terms of my certainty of experiencing God I,m afraid At the moment all I can say is, if it walks, like duck , quacks like a duck then it is a duck..........and not a leprechaun.

Except, of course, ducks actually exist and it can be rpoved that ducks walk and quack.

The same cannot be said for the God of the Christians.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except, of course, ducks actually exist and it can be rpoved that ducks walk and quack.

The same cannot be said for the God of the Christians.

It's a metaphor son.
You and Hillside have just demonstrated that your only real argument against God is a knuckle dragging " yer all just a bunch of nutters ".

Bring on the talking donkey.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

As I have said ontology is not dependent on methodology.
I'm afraid in terms of my certainty of experiencing God I,m afraid At the moment all I can say is, if it walks, like duck , quacks like a duck then it is a duck..........and not a leprechaun.

Fine, so you finally admit you can't tell whether you are mistaken or not.

You might have compared your experience to what others describe as God and found it similar, but as none of them have been able to demonstrate that it is a true experience of God you are no further forwards. i.e. no one can show that there God experience is directly attributable to an objective external God.

Also, how does this help with mutually contradictory claims. You think Jesus is God because he walks like etc, etc.. my Jewish friends differ in their deeply held beliefs. Only one of you is correct. Jesus was divine or he wasn't (I am including Jesus as myth as not divine for simplicity).

PS. why have you been using the term secular on this subject? Secularism is nothing to do with whether or not God exists. You must be using it in a very none standard way.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

As I have said ontology is not dependent on methodology.

Also, what does this mean in plain English?

Are you saying that the truth of a matter is not dependent on having a methodology?

If so I agree, but  for objective truths we need a methodology to discover whether it is true or not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fine, so you finally admit you can't tell whether you are mistaken or not.

You might have compared your experience to what others describe as God and found it similar,

Similarity is a very flexible thing Stephen so I would self monitor your understanding of it if I were you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fine, so you finally admit you can't tell whether you are mistaken or not.

You might have compared your experience to what others describe as God and found it similar, but as none of them have been able to demonstrate that it is a true experience of God you are no further forwards. i.e. no one can show that there God experience is directly attributable to an objective external God.

Also, how does this help with mutually contradictory claims. You think Jesus is God because he walks like etc, etc.. my Jewish friends differ in their deeply held beliefs. Only one of you is correct. Jesus was divine or he wasn't (I am including Jesus as myth as not divine for simplicity).

PS. why have you been using the term secular on this subject? Secularism is nothing to do with whether or not God exists. You must be using it in a very none standard way.

No, What I am trying to get across is that the experience is one where I am certain of it as I am of other experiences because several criteria involved in its description are fulfilled in my experience.

I'm afraid I am not in the position of being able to offer any comforting doubt about Gods existence.

[Enki]

I'm quite interested in the "Abyss" of existentialist thought. Would you say your experience equates with this?

Haven't a clue, Vlad. These 'experiences' haven't taken the form of overwhelming feelings of emptiness and negativity at all or even any sense of alienation(if that's what you mean), more a realization of somehow fitting into a non conscious universe around me, without any need for any sort of outside purposeful prop.  Do yours?

As the idea of the hugely varied experiences of others necessarily equating with their objective truthfulness does not seem to make much sense to me, it must surely follow that any subjective experience that I may have is no more or less objective. Hence, I have looked for other means of coming to my own conclusions as to whether a god(s) exists, for instance. As I have never, so far, found any evidence that one does, I see no reason to believe in any god whatever, until that evidence is demonstrated to me.

[floo]

No, What I am trying to get across is that the experience is one where I am certain of it as I am of other experiences because several criteria involved in its description are fulfilled in my experience.

I'm afraid I am not in the position of being able to offer any comforting doubt about Gods existence.

But what about the 'experiences' people of other faiths have had, which convince them that theirs is 'true'? Or in the case of my husband, when in a coma, that no god or afterlife exists?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also, what does this mean in plain English?

Are you saying that the truth of a matter is not dependent on having a methodology?

If so I agree, but  for objective truths we need a methodology to discover whether it is true or not.

I'm sorry but Ontology precedes methodology otherwise methodology would conjure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But what about the 'experiences' people of other faiths have had, which convince them that theirs is 'true'? Or in the case of my husband, when in a coma, that no god or afterlife exists?

Well in the case of contradiction somebody in some cases has to be wrong.

We can of course have a genuine experience but be wrong in our interpretation of it.

For instance I think the abyss as experienced by the existentialists maybe related to the dark night of the soul in catholic mysticism.

In your husbands experience I would be most interested in what told him what after all must be a cosmic level truth if it is true that there is definitely no God.

[ProfessorDavey]

But what about the 'experiences' people of other faiths have had, which convince them that theirs is 'true'? Or in the case of my husband, when in a coma, that no god or afterlife exists?

Indeed - in fact I could give my experience of realising that I didn't believe in god which has many similar features to the experience Vlad describes which lead to him believing in a different direction.

The point, of course, is that none of these experience are anything other than subjective - they might by used to justify god existing, or not existing, in a subjective 'true for me' or 'true for you' manner. What these experiences do mot do is provide a jot of evidence to back up an objective view that god exists and exists for everyone - or for that matter objectively that god does not exist and does not exist for everyone.

In an objective sense god either exists or does not exist and our varying experiential states are completely irrelevant to that objective fact of existence or non existence.

[floo]

Well in the case of contradiction somebody in some cases has to be wrong.

We can of course have a genuine experience but be wrong in our interpretation of it.

For instance I think the abyss as experienced by the existentialists maybe related to the dark night of the soul in catholic mysticism.

In your husbands experience I would be most interested in what told him what after all must be a cosmic level truth if it is true that there is definitely no God.

I have no idea, and don't think his 'experience' is any more valid than that of those who believe they have connected with god.

[Owlswing]

Bring on the talking donkey.

You're already here!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Haven't a clue, Vlad. These 'experiences' haven't taken the form of overwhelming feelings of emptiness and negativity at all or even any sense of alienation(if that's what you mean), more a realization of somehow fitting into a non conscious universe around me, without any need for any sort of outside purposeful prop.  Do yours?

As the idea of the hugely varied experiences of others necessarily equating with their objective truthfulness does not seem to make much sense to me, it must surely follow that any subjective experience that I may have is no more or less objective. Hence, I have looked for other means of coming to my own conclusions as to whether a god(s) exists, for instance. As I have never, so far, found any evidence that one does, I see no reason to believe in any god whatever, until that evidence is demonstrated to me.

The closest I can get to your experience is being in a room with phyletic ally organised biological specimen. I had a profound feeling of connectedness to a tree of life that went beyond the intellect.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Well in the case of contradiction somebody in some cases has to be wrong.

We can of course have a genuine experience but be wrong in our interpretation of it.

Finally you get it. I do not deny your experience I just questions your interpretation. FFS

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I'm sorry but Ontology precedes methodology otherwise methodology would conjure.

In English please? I think you have said what I have. Something objective is either true or it isn't. In order to determine that we need a methodology.
FFS

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

No, What I am trying to get across is that the experience is one where I am certain of it as I am of other experiences because several criteria involved in its description are fulfilled in my experience.

My Jewish friend would say the same.

What Criteria?

I'm afraid I am not in the position of being able to offer any comforting doubt about Gods existence.

I beg your pardon? Sounds like a threat to me. Believe what I do or your going to get you comeuppance. FFS

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My Jewish friend would say the same.

What Criteria?

I beg your pardon? Sounds like a threat to me. Believe what I do or your going to get you comeuppance. FFS

My Jewish friend would say the same.

Eh,
Re Jewish friend. Is he a convert or believing in the faith of his fathers?