God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

[Sarkus]

The sanskrit words are sat - eternal, cit - knowledge ananda - bliss vigraha -form.
Tell me what part of that you don't understand and i will clarify it.

Let's start at the beginning.

You say that these sciptures define "God" as eternal, knowledge and bliss.

Please explain precisely what you mean, or what scripture means, by these words:
- What does "Eternal" mean - and is that merely your interpretation or the one given to you in the scriptures?
- What does "Knowledge" mean - and is that merely your interpretation or the one given to you in the scriptures?
- What does "Bliss" mean - and is that merely your interpretation or the one given to you in the scriptures?

Once we have established these points then this discussion can move on.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "I am not surprised - after all you don't have a basis of theoretical knowledge - like a layman's definition for medical examination may be "sticking needles in people" but it is hardly what a doctor works with...".

Get serious!
First, you rejected them because they are for academics.
And now you're claiming those same definitions are for laymen,
and not for you!

an academic is a layman in terms of religiousity because they are not a practioner - maybe that is a bit harsh - I suppose you could stretch it to say that an academic has done the research but not the application.

The fact is this: You could not find one single concept of God
(including your own) to be consistent and free of contradictions.
And so you have rejected them all.
Correct?

No - the wikipedia definitions are too broad to withstand a logical analysis - like suppose you said trees are green - that could be logically disproven because trees also have brown trunks - generally a tree is green, specifically it is a lot more - a practioner is interested inthe specifics ....

lightgigantic: "...that's why it is necessary to have a foundation of theoretical knowledge - otherwise you just see the variety of details and miss the common thread - just like in medical practice, if you don't have a foundation of theoretical knowledge how the body works you ar e just left to puzzle over techniques, ignorant to the unifying cause, namely the increaed health of the body (one moment they are giving you pills, the next mesuring blood pressure, and then they're cutting you open on the surgeon's table etc ). there are also a range of practices too - alopathic, homeopathic, natural chinese, ayurveda etc...".

Show us some of your fabulous 'theoretical knowledge'!
Up to now, you're just using it as a 'catchy phrase', no more.
Okay?

Its a very simple concept - just like if you lack the theoretical knowledge of human anatomy you cannot begin to perceive the approach of applied medicine - in the same way if you lack an understanding how god is a transcendental phenomena (not subject to time and matter) you will inevitabley draw him up as a contradiction by dint of one's mundane perspective.
Theoretical knowledge must be acquired before you venture onto understanding, which then leads to the testing of hypothesis or realisation - if you lack theoretical knowledge you don't have the ability to recognise th erelated phenomena (ever wondered why at the start of every elective they teach theory before prac?)

lightgigantic: "...I don't deny that - but it is precisely your understanding of that unifying point that I contend - you begin your definition as this unifying point as a material phenomena, and then proceed to apply logic - the proper definition is that the unifying point is not a material phenomena - like when god is referred to as having a form, the idea is that he does not have a material form since matter is accepted as an effect of god as opposed to the cause...".

Where is the materialism in 'God is the source of all'?
You are certainly looking for a 'straw man', or simply
playing around with words.

I don't see any materialism in god as the cause of all - that's the problem - you do because you start with a material definition of god for your logic

lightgigantic: "...But the general phenomena is that street vagrants don't stumble upon the truth - how many scientists have been serious students of study and enquiry and how many have been street vagrants ?
- actually if one can recognise the qualifications of knowledge one can recognise it wherever it may be because one can see through external designations - your stance is that anyone who says anything about god is just as authoritative as anyone else - in other words because you lack the foundation of theoretical knowledge you have no discrimination to apply, hence my example of putting street vagrants and qualified scientists on the same platform of authority as an absurdity...".

You are against 'qualified scientists', and with the 'scriptures'.

No - a qualified scientist is a qualified scientist and a qualified religiou spractioner is a qualified religious practioner, and for that matter a qualified street vagrant is a qualified street vagrant - the general principles that they are recognised by are the same but obviously the nature of their specialisations are not - in other words a qualified scientist can only be a qualified religious practioner if they apply the necessary means to become aqualified religious practioner (and vice versa of course)

So unless you believe in the Caste System of your scriptures, you should
not look down on vagrants and paupers just for not having money or home.
Right?

Who said anything about looking down at them? If you gave a street vagrant the rubber stamp of a qualified scientist would it improve anything?

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "That's not where you use your skills of concoction though - you start concocting when you say that god is subject to material causes - in other words you over ride th e premise that god is the cause of all causes because you ascribe him to a previous cause or you say he is dependant on material phenomena for an existence...".

That is your own straw-man argument.
And it is not mine.
My objection was and still is this:
Your Deity cannot be the cause of all causes,
because He cannot cause Himself.
Your God cannot be the origin of all, because
He cannot exist without eternity; and therefore,
He cannot be the origin of time.

And how is this argument different from the one that I mentioned in the above paragraph?

And if your God has a form as you insist, then He
also cannot exist without space; and therefore,
He cannot cause space.
Your God certainly cannot be the origin of the logical
law of identity, because He must have identiy before
being able to do anything at all.

ditto here

He also cannot be the cause or the creator of
the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle,
because He Himself cannot exist or make any sense in
the absence of those logical laws.
As a result of all of the above, your definition of God
is conradictory.

Why did you type all this? Its the same thing - you don't accept god as a transcendental phenomena - that is your essential gripe - and my essential gripe is that scripture declares god as a transcendental phenomena - why should we accept your definition over scripture?

lightgigantic: "...There is a lot of room in the definition of the "actual state of affairs" - if you begin with the definition that matter is the only component in the actual state of affairs you will have a limited sphere to work in. The epistemological definition of god begins with the theoretical foundation that he is a transcendental phenomena. If you miss that you miss the epistemology...".

There is even more room in the definition of 'transcendental phenomena'. And again, show us some of this mysterious 'theoretical foundation' of yours! Is it really there or just a 'CATCHY PHRASE'?

transcendental phenomena just means beyond the grasp of material perceptions - as far as this thread is concerned if you want to prove that god is a contradiction by logic you should work with the working model of the article in contention (which is where the theoretical knowledge comes in - you may not accept god, but for the sake of this thread you are bound to work with the working definition of him) - that's why i say you are out of your league with this thread - you want to redefine the definitions before you apply logic - which is why your logic is ultimately illogical - what you call catchy phrases are actually the definition of terms in theoretical knowledge - "quantum leap" is a catchy phrase also to a person who is not familiar with the relative theory

lightgigantic: "...well usually if a man does an evil act they call him an evil man - what's the difference? Who created the darkness? The evil sun or the good sun?...".

Because a 'man' is supposed to have FREE WILL, but
an 'earthquake' does not.

That's my point exactly - why did you ascribe evil to an earthquake to begin with?

And don't blame the sun for it! Your God is declared by you to be
the cause of all causes; and so He is responsible for that.

You think you have a better idea how to run the universe? Obviously the universe disagrees because your not in that position ....

lightgigantic: "...Yes its not practical unless you have a foundation of theoretical knowledge...".

This 'theoretical knowledge' is freaking me out!
What is it? Theoretical physics? Pure mathematics?
Idealistic theology? What is it? German philosophy?
French? English? Indian? What is it?

Theory is required before understanding. Understanding is required before analysis of hypothesis - if you want to lauch into analysis of hypothesis before theory you shoot yourself in the foot - you say god is a contradiction according to material logic but god is not defined within the confines of matter to begin with - you are working with a definition that a practioner doesn't work with - you ar eaccepting a definition that an atheist works with - so the result of this thread is that you are "preaching to the converted" - that's why i say you ar eout of your league if you want to prove god is a contradiction in an assembly of theists - theists work with a different definition

 

[lightgigantic]

So you're still holding back your mysterious 'theoretical knowledge'
as a very big secret! And you don't want to tell us anything about it.
You have every right to do so. For let us face it, your secret
'theoretical knowledge' doesn't have a chance to stand on its
own, if you write it down right here in clear words.

I have already given you the so called mysterious theoretical knowledge "god is not a material phenomena because he has a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss" This is what is established in scripture - that's why I say, repeatedly, that you are out of your league with this thread - you want to establish your own definition of god - but you don't realise that if you do establish your definition of go nobody would worship god to begin with - in other words theists are only interested to worship the definition of god found in scripture - if you have difficulty with that you would be better off re-directing your energies to a thread that attempts to undermine the authority of scripture, rather than proceeding with applications of logic on a faulty primary definition - because your first premise is incorrect - all your subsequent premises are incorrect

Now, let me try, based on the post above, to make an outline of it!
First of all, your 'theoretical knowledge' is founded on the Vedas.
And so the authority of 'scripture and saintly persons' is very
important to you. Without it, your worldview would collapse.
In that saintly source, God is assumed to be the 'origin of all & the
cause of all causes'. And this is the definition that you should stick to.
Forget about epistemology and the 'authority of established epistemology'!
Because deep down, you don't really believe in it. Your only authority
is the authority of 'scripture and saintly persons', and that is it.

does this mean you are now trying to undermine the authority of scripture?
You will have to work a bit harder than saying "you don't really believe it" ....
It may be true for you, but if you want to work with proving god as a contradiction you will have to work with scripture IN THEORY which is what a practioner uses for working definitions and application

I have shown you that the definition given by the 'scripture and
saintly persons' is contadictory, since your Deity can possibly
cause neither Himself nor eternity nor laws of logic.
In resposne to my objection, you've come up with
this 'theoretical knowledge':

That was a pretty lame attempt to undermine the authority of scripture- I have seen better attempts on other threads by atheists on this site -perhaps you should do some homework - anyway looks like we are back to the same old issue of application of logic to faulty definitions

The sun radiates sunlight. Fire radiates heat.
In the same way, God radiates all things, including eternity and the
laws of logic. This analogy, I should say, is poetic and quite good!
Unfortunately, it does not resolve the basic conrtadictions.

Contradictions because you lack the basic theoretical knowledge of definitions

Because if all those things are as eternal and old as God Himself,
then they are eternal and onld and have no beginnigs and therefore
they do not need causes or origins or God in order for them to exist.
Hence, the definition that 'God is the cause of all cause' is false.
Eternal entities do not need a first cause, because they have no starting
point to begin with. Your God, thus, is useless.

heat from fire, wetness from water, sunlight from the sun etc etc I have repeated this soooo many times now you can probably recite it just as well as me - and the reason is because you don't accept time as an emanation of god just as heat is an emanation from fire - and the reason for that is that you lack the basics in theoretical knowledge, namely that god is not bound by time or matter since these are his energies.

The uselessness of the God hypothesis was pointed out by
Pierre-Simon Laplace long time ago:
'After presenting his scheme for how the universe fit together, Pierre-Simon Laplace, one of the great early cosmologists, was challenged by Napoleon, "I notice that there is no mention of God in your system."
"Sire, I have no need of the hypothesis," Laplace replied'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace

So this is your new argument -"once upon a time a european man had a model for understanding the universe - this model was not complete and did not adequately explain all that we have in the way of the phenomena of the universe - however this european man said there was no god - this is overwhelming evidence that proves god does not exist"

 

[lightgigantic]

Let's start at the beginning.

You say that these sciptures define "God" as eternal, knowledge and bliss.

Please explain precisely what you mean, or what scripture means, by these words:
- What does "Eternal" mean - and is that merely your interpretation or the one given to you in the scriptures?
- What does "Knowledge" mean - and is that merely your interpretation or the one given to you in the scriptures?
- What does "Bliss" mean - and is that merely your interpretation or the one given to you in the scriptures?

Once we have established these points then this discussion can move on.

Well if I give you my definition how will it be ascertained whether it will be merely your interpretation of my definition or the actual definition that I give you
are you trying to drive me semantically insane by osmosis

 

[Sarkus]

Well if I give you my definition how will it be ascertained whether it will be merely your interpretation of my definition or the actual definition that I give you.

Then I go back to my original comment: How arrogant of you.
First you require us to know the definition and to be able to use that definition, but yet you refuse to tell us what is meant by that definition - and then accuse us of not being able to appreciate those definitions and work with them.
Arrogance.

And it also implies an inability to argue your point with anyone (possibly with the exception of those who already agree with you).

I thus see trying to progress this discussion as a futile exercise.

 

[AAF]

Then I go back to my original comment: How arrogant of you.First you require us to know the definition and to be able to use that definition, but yet you refuse to tell us what is meant by that definition - and then accuse us of not being able to appreciate those definitions and work with them. Arrogance.
And it also implies an inability to argue your point with anyone (possibly with the exception of those who already agree with you).
I thus see trying to progress this discussion as a futile exercise.

Hi Sarkus:

Obviously, the 'POOR GUY' has no definitions of those things different from
what is already known. He has none whatsoever.
PERIOD!
But, as a wise police chief might say to his men, we have to remember
that if these theists go into deep silence, then we will be out of business!
I really need badly the help of that 'TALKATIVE MAN' to get the MAGIC NUMBER of (12,000 VIEWERS).
Put up with 'HIS NONSE*', please!

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "an academic is a layman in terms of religiousity because they are not a practitioner - maybe that is a bit harsh - I suppose you could stretch it to say that an academic has done the research but not the application...".

Therefore, 'practitioner', in this context, means a priest of particular
religion, who was trained and certified by other priests who in turn were
trained and certified by other priests and so on, until we reach the originators
and the 'saintly persons' of that religion.
And such a trained priest is, in your view, the only qualified person to
define God and to expound the mysterious 'theoretical knowledge'
of religion you're talking about!
Correct?


lightgigantic: "...No - the wikipedia definitions are too broad to withstand a logical analysis - like suppose you said trees are green - that could be logically disproven because trees also have brown trunks - generally a tree is green, specifically it is a lot more - a practioner is interested inthe specifics....".

Most of those definitions are minor variations of the basic idea of 'CREATOR', 'ORIGIN OF ALL' & 'SOURCE OF ALL THINGS'.
And they appear to you to be 'too broad' only because they are unfamiliar to you.
Is that the real reason?

 

[lightgigantic]

Then I go back to my original comment: How arrogant of you.
First you require us to know the definition and to be able to use that definition, but yet you refuse to tell us what is meant by that definition - and then accuse us of not being able to appreciate those definitions and work with them.
Arrogance.

And it also implies an inability to argue your point with anyone (possibly with the exception of those who already agree with you).

I thus see trying to progress this discussion as a futile exercise.

Well whats the problem with eternity, knowledge and bliss as a definition? - its not clear to me what clarification you require - it seems pretty straight forward for anyone who has a dictionary. Are you trying to tell me that you are completely perplexed by those words? If you are what is the point of providing synonyms ......

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "an academic is a layman in terms of religiousity because they are not a practitioner - maybe that is a bit harsh - I suppose you could stretch it to say that an academic has done the research but not the application...".

Therefore, 'practitioner', in this context, means a priest of particular
religion, who was trained and certified by other priests who in turn were
trained and certified by other priests and so on, until we reach the originators
and the 'saintly persons' of that religion.

Actually the point is that they are qualified - getting the stamp from a religious institution may or may not be a contributing factor to that qualification - just as a doctor is qualified by their ability to perform medical proceedures and analysis a saintly person is qualified by qualities such as peacefulness, self control, truthfulness, austerity, religiousness, knowledge, wisdom etc - getting institutional assistance is not an essential ingredient, but you could say that a person requires training to acquire knowledge - if you want to say it requires institutional status you have to examine a particular institutional system

And such a trained priest is, in your view, the only qualified person to
define God and to expound the mysterious 'theoretical knowledge'
of religion you're talking about!
Correct?

Just as a practioning doctor has credibilty in the field of medicine a practicing theist has credibility in the field of religion - otherwise why not ask a fruit vendor about how to deal with disease epidemics?

lightgigantic: "...No - the wikipedia definitions are too broad to withstand a logical analysis - like suppose you said trees are green - that could be logically disproven because trees also have brown trunks - generally a tree is green, specifically it is a lot more - a practioner is interested inthe specifics....".

Most of those definitions are minor variations of the basic idea of 'CREATOR', 'ORIGIN OF ALL' & 'SOURCE OF ALL THINGS'.
And they appear to you to be 'too broad' only because they are unfamiliar to you.
Is that the real reason?

Lol - actually they are all too familiar
The problem is that there is a vagueness in the definitions - god could be this god could be that - of course they all hinge on god being the cause of all causes but they differ in an understanding of that cause - as such you cannot work with the wikipedia definition because the definition has no clear idea of god to begin with, but has a few characteristics of his effects (such as being the cause of all etc) -

But then you don't even work with the wikipedia definition of monotheism because you begin with the idea that god is not the cause of all causes - you say that he is caused by time - so you are not applying your logic to a monotheistic concept but perhaps a polytheistic concept -

 

[Sarkus]

Well whats the problem with eternity, knowledge and bliss as a definition? - its not clear to me what clarification you require - it seems pretty straight forward for anyone who has a dictionary. Are you trying to tell me that you are completely perplexed by those words? If you are what is the point of providing synonyms ......

And once again you are avoiding having to define these terms.

Please define them.

 

[AAF]

Actually the point is that they are qualified - getting the stamp from a religious institution may or may not be a contributing factor to that qualification - just as a doctor is qualified by their ability to perform medical proceedures and analysis a saintly person is qualified by qualities such as peacefulness, self control, truthfulness, austerity, religiousness, knowledge, wisdom etc - getting institutional assistance is not an essential ingredient, but you could say that a person requires training to acquire knowledge - if you want to say it requires institutional status you have to examine a particular institutional system
Just as a practioning doctor has credibilty in the field of medicine a practicing theist has credibility in the field of religion - otherwise why not ask a fruit vendor about how to deal with disease epidemics?........

And how do you know they are qualified without the 'stamp'?
I think the whole approach is wrong.
Instead of being too concerned about the qualifications of the MESSENGER,
one should only concentrate on examing the MESSAGE.
Is the MESSAGE true or false?
Is it clear or vague?
Is it useful for some purspose or not?
Is it original or not?
And so on......
Right?

 

[(Q)]

Just as a practioning doctor has credibilty in the field of medicine a practicing theist has credibility in the field of religion - otherwise why not ask a fruit vendor about how to deal with disease epidemics?

Well, most if not all doctors would prescribe calamine lotion for a rash. How many different answers will I get if I asked a variety of theologians about heaven and hell?

But then you don't even work with the wikipedia definition of monotheism because you begin with the idea that god is not the cause of all causes - you say that he is caused by time - so you are not applying your logic to a monotheistic concept but perhaps a polytheistic concept -

What "caused" god? Why was god required?

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "...Its a very simple concept - just like if you lack the theoretical knowledge of human anatomy you cannot begin to perceive the approach of applied medicine - in the same way if you lack an understanding how god is a transcendental phenomena (not subject to time and matter) you will inevitabley draw him up as a contradiction by dint of one's mundane perspective.Theoretical knowledge must be acquired before you venture onto understanding, which then leads to the testing of hypothesis or realisation - if you lack theoretical knowledge you don't have the ability to recognise th erelated phenomena (ever wondered why at the start of every elective they teach theory before prac?)...".

So that is your fabulous 'theoretical knowledge'.
I am not very impressed!
First of all, if we cannot begin to perceive the 'approach of applied
medicine' before having the 'theoretical knowledge of human
anatomy', then how on earth did 'applied medicine' begin in
the first place?
It seems you don't realize that every branch of knowledge was started off
as trials and errors by extremely ignorant people who knew nothing about
its theoretical basis. Knowledge is certainly based on BOOTSTRAPPING.

Let's see where the meat is!
You were talking for so long about God as a sort of 'transcendental phenomena' without explaining it.
But, now, you've defined the term 'transcendental'
as (not subject to time and matter).
And so your argument is the Transcendental Argument.
Unfortunately for the theists, the Transcendental Argument is flawed
and can be turned on its head to prove the exast opposite:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
As I said before, the concept of God is the sole creation of the human
mind. And therefore, God stands and falls by the standards of the human
mind alone. He just simply cannot be above logic and reason.


lightgigantic: "...I don't see any materialism in god as the cause of all - that's the problem - you do because you start with a material definition of god for your logic...".

So which of the two is materialistic, the DEFINITION or LOGIC?
In any case, God cannot be above logic. Because the mere assumption
of His own existence to make any sense at all must presuppose
the existence of logic and time, in exactly the same way the existence
of a BABY presupposes the existence of DADDY & MOMMY!

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "...Its a very simple concept - just like if you lack the theoretical knowledge of human anatomy you cannot begin to perceive the approach of applied medicine - in the same way if you lack an understanding how god is a transcendental phenomena (not subject to time and matter) you will inevitabley draw him up as a contradiction by dint of one's mundane perspective.Theoretical knowledge must be acquired before you venture onto understanding, which then leads to the testing of hypothesis or realisation - if you lack theoretical knowledge you don't have the ability to recognise th erelated phenomena (ever wondered why at the start of every elective they teach theory before prac?)...".

So that is your fabulous 'theoretical knowledge'.
I am not very impressed!
First of all, if we cannot begin to perceive the 'approach of applied
medicine' before having the 'theoretical knowledge of human
anatomy', then how on earth did 'applied medicine' begin in
the first place?

Well you are working out of a model of empiricism - in other words you have human consciousness duking it out with inanimate matter trying to uncover its musteries - in spiritual life the duking out doesn't get you far because the thing being studied is superior in consciousness , ie god, so its more a case of it being revealed to the sincere practioner as opposed to the adroit researcher - but even if you disagree (which I am sure you do -lol) when a person sets out to study medicine do they go back to reinventing the wheel or do they approach a body of theoretical knowledge?

It seems you don't realize that every branch of knowledge was started off
as trials and errors by extremely ignorant people who knew nothing about
its theoretical basis. Knowledge is certainly based on BOOTSTRAPPING.

Actually we cannot even trace the source of mundane knowledge - we canonly speculate about it (who inveneted the chair for instance? - There are also indications that apparently ancient civilisations, like even relativelyy recent ones like the egyptians, had access to knowledge of architecture and astronomy that is even superior to the current standard in some ways)- what to speak of applying the same empirical model to something beyond the mundane.

Let's see where the meat is!
You were talking for so long about God as a sort of 'transcendental phenomena' without explaining it.
But, now, you've defined the term 'transcendental'
as (not subject to time and matter).
And so your argument is the Transcendental Argument.
Unfortunately for the theists, the Transcendental Argument is flawed
and can be turned on its head to prove the exast opposite:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html

I read it - it pretty much leads to what I was saying - if you begin with the idea that matter is the only indication of observable phenomena (which outlaws consciousness - since you cannot observe what you are observing with) it will invariably lead to a view of an impersonal universe bereft og god (plagued with unlimited mysteries because one misses th essential aspect of creration - namely god)

As I said before, the concept of God is the sole creation of the human
mind. And therefore, God stands and falls by the standards of the human
mind alone. He just simply cannot be above logic and reason.

Unless of course he works by a superior logic

lightgigantic: "...I don't see any materialism in god as the cause of all - that's the problem - you do because you start with a material definition of god for your logic...".

So which of the two is materialistic, the DEFINITION or LOGIC?

Both if you have a mundane definition (ie try to understand god by using one's own self as a yardstick or try to apply logic due to one's own experience of logic)
Actually Ramanuja acharya says that god cannot be understoof by logic - he can only be understood by practicing - logic can be a good introduction to come to the platform of practicing religious life - but it is the practicing that actually delivers understanding of god.

In any case, God cannot be above logic. Because the mere assumption
of His own existence to make any sense at all must presuppose
the existence of logic and time, in exactly the same way the existence
of a BABY presupposes the existence of DADDY & MOMMY!

You just can't let go of this mundane concept of god - if you accept that time is a cause for godd you are dealing with a polytheistic god not a monotheistic god - if you follow your mother's mother etc etc where does it lead you? How did matter develop consciousness?

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, most if not all doctors would prescribe calamine lotion for a rash. How many different answers will I get if I asked a variety of theologians about heaven and hell?

Depends which doctors you check out - if you see a nutrionist they may advise you to change your diet - an accupuncturist may give you a few needles - a chinese doctor would give you some bitter tasting tea

What "caused" god? Why was god required?

What caused god - he has no cause - thats what it means to be the cause of all causes ... if you trace your family tree down to your furtherest ancestors what caused you? Assuming you take the absolutist evolutionist stance what caused matter to become conscious?

Why was god required? Well why do you require a person to drive a car - why don't cars just go by themselves?

 

[lightgigantic]

And once again you are avoiding having to define these terms.

Please define them.

Why don't you hazard a definition of the definition that I gave and I will respond - thats usually how it works in establishing theoretical knowledge - a theoretical definition is given and a person gives feedback on its reception - of course you can just say i don't believe it or accept it, ie refuse to apply your intelligence to the definition, in which case the cause for furthering theoretical knowledge stops right there ...

 

[lightgigantic]

And how do you know they are qualified without the 'stamp'?
I think the whole approach is wrong.
Instead of being too concerned about the qualifications of the MESSENGER,
one should only concentrate on examing the MESSAGE.
Is the MESSAGE true or false?
Is it clear or vague?
Is it useful for some purspose or not?
Is it original or not?
And so on......
Right?

Good question - if someone says they are a representative of god, how would you know if they are lying or not? I mean if you automatically write them off or if you automatically believe them it doesn't make a bit of difference since both persons lack any knowledge of who is qualifi8ed and who is not.

The thing about the mesenger and the message is not vaild - for instance if a top environmental scientist reccomends that the gov't reduce the national greenhouse gas emmisions and if a fruit vendor reccomends that the gov't reduce the greenhouse emmisions who is most likely to be listened to, even thought they both have identical messages?

Is the message true or false? How can you tell the difference? Unless one is qulified (or has faithin qualified sources) how can one determine whether a scientist is lying?

Id it useful? Well ask your average grid iron fan whether he thinks the latest findings in astronomy are important ot not - depends who yuo are asking the q to

Is it original? Hopefully not - the time place and circumstances may change (hence many manifestations of god's presence in different cultures at different times) but the essence is still the same - surrender to god

 

[AAF]

...........Is it original? Hopefully not - the time place and circumstances may change (hence many manifestations of god's presence in different cultures at different times) but the essence is still the same - surrender to god

'surrender to god'?
What is this?
Is your God your victorious ENEMY?
He is supposed to be kind, gentle, and superior in everything!
So why is He bullying weak, mortal, little creatures like yourself?
That is not fair. Not fair at all!
Therefore, Your God deserves to be banished out of existence.

 

[AAF]

.........ditto here.......Why did you type all this? Its the same thing - you don't accept god as a transcendental phenomena - that is your essential gripe - and my essential gripe is that scripture declares god as a transcendental phenomena - why should we accept your definition over scripture?..................transcendental phenomena just means beyond the grasp of material perceptions.....................

And why should we accept without thinking the definition of God
declared by your 'scripture'?

Now, when you say that God is a 'transcendental phenomenon',
you imply He is not 'transcendental'!
That is because PHENOMENA are always accessible and observable.
Therefore your God can only be a 'transcendental entity'.
Right?