Life after death
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
I think you misunderstand.
All I am getting at is that empiricism is a poor choice for the task, much like a thermometer is a poor choice for the task of measuring distance.
This isn't to say that thermometers are faulty- simply that its absurd to think that just because it is so great at measuring temperature its the perfect choice for measuring distance.
Along the same lines, just because one can herald a lot of so-called advancement within the tomes of empiricism, its idiotic to expect that all claims come to bear within its folds, precisely for the reason that there are some issues (like consciousness for example) that contextualize the very workings of empiricism.
I throw my 2 cents in:
That the lady who raised you is you biological mother is such a presumption, unless someone tells you otherwise or by accident you learn that is not consistent with the scientific knowledge you have. For example when the US supported dictatorship ran Chile, several thousand left-wing attractive girls were repeated raped in their prison cells and usually became pregnant. Their baby was taken from them when it could be weaned and given to a "politically correct" supporter of the dictatorship which could not have a child of their own.
It has been a shock for more than 100 now adult Chileans to learn that their blood type could not have resulted from their "parents." A few have even managed, via DNA tests and an organization that helps make these re-connections, to find members of their biological mother's still living families.
Religious beliefs (or the lack there of) also, at least while still a pre-teen almost invariably are also "presumptive knowledge." I.e. Young Christians were born into Christian families; Ditto for young Jews, Moslems, Sheiks, Mormons, etc. I was a Lutheran, even an acolyte of the church (light alter’s candles) for a year when young by this presumptive knowledge path.
Because education not only exposes you to scientific based knowledge, it also in US and most advanced societies exposes you to others whose religious presumptive knowledge strongly conflicts with your own. In my case that happened in High School, as my best friend was the Rabbi’s son. We often ate & sleep at the other's house etc. I was even a guest at Yom Kippur dinner one year and learned how to put on tifillan to bind my body and mind to the will of God, but it was not the same God my friend had. I pondered my duty conflict:
Should I violate this acceptance to save his soul? I decided not to as that could happen later by someone else. (When you are young, your death is not a very real fact to you - more a theoretical possibility.) Post college graduation I was an agnostic and he was a confirmed atheist.
SUMMARY: One can only be 99.9% sure of well confirmed, scientific-based, knowledge and the more educated you become, the more likely you will at least doubt the presumptive knowledge that was instilled in you as a child and reject it if it clearly conflicts with scientific knowledge or has no greater claim to being fact than dozens of other's strongly held presumptive knowledge which says yours is false and their's is correct.
Yes, our knowledge and beliefs have two different foundations. One is based on scientific repeatable demonstrated tests, experiments if you like. The other is based on the common presumptions of our society or sub division of it if we are part of some special sub group.
That the lady who raised you is you biological mother is such a presumption, unless someone tells you otherwise or by accident you learn that is not consistent with the scientific knowledge you have. For example when the US supported dictatorship ran Chile, several thousand left-wing attractive girls were repeated raped in their prison cells and usually became pregnant. Their baby was taken from them when it could be weaned and given to a "politically correct" supporter of the dictatorship which could not have a child of their own.
It has been a shock for more than 100 now adult Chileans to learn that their blood type could not have resulted from their "parents." A few have even managed, via DNA tests and an organization that helps make these re-connections, to find members of their biological mother's still living families.
Religious beliefs (or the lack there of) also, at least while still a pre-teen almost invariably are also "presumptive knowledge." I.e. Young Christians were born into Christian families; Ditto for young Jews, Moslems, Sheiks, Mormons, etc. I was a Lutheran, even an acolyte of the church (light alter’s candles) for a year when young by this presumptive knowledge path.
Because education not only exposes you to scientific based knowledge, it also in US and most advanced societies exposes you to others whose religious presumptive knowledge strongly conflicts with your own. In my case that happened in High School, as my best friend was the Rabbi’s son. We often ate & sleep at the other's house etc. I was even a guest at Yom Kippur dinner one year and learned how to put on tifillan to bind my body and mind to the will of God, but it was not the same God my friend had. I pondered my duty conflict:
Should I violate this acceptance to save his soul? I decided not to as that could happen later by someone else. (When you are young, your death is not a very real fact to you - more a theoretical possibility.) Post college graduation I was an agnostic and he was a confirmed atheist.
SUMMARY: One can only be 99.9% sure of well confirmed, scientific-based, knowledge and the more educated you become, the more likely you will at least doubt the presumptive knowledge that was instilled in you as a child and reject it if it clearly conflicts with scientific knowledge or has no greater claim to being fact than dozens of other's strongly held presumptive knowledge which says yours is false and their's is correct.
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
You can however be 100% i.e. completely sure about pure a priori logic since pure a priori logic is not a knowledge itself but rather we use our linguistic knowledge to communicate it to ourselves or others. That must mean pure a priori logic is not the same as scientific knowledge or any knowledge. This also doesn't mean it's impossible to disbelieve in pure a priori logic.
Last edited:
Alexandraj
Registered Member
Yes i believe in life after death. Out present life is a trial.
K
keith1
Guest
Our present life is our present life.
That you feel the extra logic to dress it in hot-pants, and take it to Vegas, is your delusion. Feel content that you are not alone in those conclusions.
actually I would argue that the two divisions of knowledge are "ascending" (where one depends on one's own powers of perception and comprehension to solve an issue) and "descending" (where one depends on the accountability and authority of a more qualified person/s)
Actually its a bit fallacious to accept a specific anecdotal example as sufficient to grant a superior position. There are heaps of examples where the "scientific" approach has delivered the wrong end of the stick. For instance there are thousands of parents who were shocked to discover that thalidomide caused severe birth defects in their children.
The actual position to analyze and compare the two epistemological positions is to to determine their merits. This provides clear scenarios where one can deem their suitability as opposed to stationing them in a diametrically opposed framework. For instance ascending knowledge works perfectly well for crossing the street but is perfectly lousy for determining absolute definitions for consciousness, the universe and a host of other issues that contextualize our powers of perception.
You can talk about the cultural aspects of religion (as well as their antithesis) being a consequence of familial ties, since the very nature of a family is built on cultural tropes.
The higher philosophical issues of practically applied religion however stand beyond such things (there is even a word - upa-dharma , or a nearness to religious principles - to distinguish the two),
For instance you can't really describe the state of moving beyond the neophyte stage (eg - like being free from material lust, envy, wrath etc) as being a simple consequence of taking birth in a particular cultural framework (or even as a consequence of presumptive knowledge)
This is yet another anecdotal example. For instance one could also talk of reductionist models prominent in scientific thought conflicting with the richness of experience afforded by practically applied spiritual life.
There are also various ways to explain how so called education in modern society tends to lead one more into a materialistic view of the world (such as consumerist society reducing higher education to a philosophical void and molding education into a mere facet of career paths and job placement ...and of course education institutions being led and run by similarly minded persons. Couple this with corrupted religiosity that functions more on the platform of ritual that can't even deal with the simple problem of multiplicity of faith in the world and you have a clear picture which side of the fence education tends to land you)
The problem with such a statement is that the type of knowledge you indicate as superior by dint of being well confirmed is that it only functions in the specific sphere of empiricism. The limits of empiricism is that it works purely in tacit language (as opposed to explicit - for instance if you take a cup of flour, you can never say explicitly what it is, although you can talk of it being made from wheat and how to make a cake out of it and such ).
Basically what this means is that empiricism works well for action but tends to bite the dust when it moves into philosophy (or wreck havoc when the philosophy that drives the action is revealed to be false). IOW when it starts taking itself as an authority on subjects that are not accompanied by any "doable" activities, it is speculation at best down right dangerous at worst.
To be fair, one can also talk of the problems of descending knowledge, when the authority is also built on a false foundation. Both types of knowledge have their associated problems as well as clear boundaries in which they do and do not function.
I will comment on your reply to my post 144 summary. You said in full:
I agree that scientific knowledge only functions in the sphere of testable knowledge – that follows from the definitions of scientific knowledge. Philosophical knowledge (and religious view is a major subdivision of that) should only concern the “untestable.” Unfortunately, it often does not. For example, that the Earth was the center of the universe belief was a religious dogma that got some burned at the stake for disputing it. Some still believe literal the Bible* – Jonah really was a week or so in the belly of the whale; Christ transformed water into fine wine, and feed a multitude with a couple of loaves of bread, etc. It certainly is not just Christians who allow impossible nonsense to overrule scientific knowledge.
The problem with what you call “descending knowledge” (my “presumptive knowledge”) is not that some of it is built on a “false foundation” but that there is no way to know which foundation is false. The dogma of one religion is just as valid as that of another so long as it sticks to statements that are in its “not testable” realm. It is extreme arrogance to claim, “My religion is true as founded on God’s revelations but yours is false with no valid foundation.”
--------------
* "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day." (Joshua 10:13 NIV)
The great astronomer Galileo was jailed by religious authorities when he asserted that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, as the above verse suggests. …
On February 24, 1616, the Qualifiers {An authorized church body} delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."
From: http://www.fallwell.com/ignored verses.html (A site listing miracles Jerry Fallwell held to be facts.)
First I did not indicate “scientific knowledge” was “superior” but did note that when it contradicts “presumptive knowledge” which is usually instilled in one when they are a child, many, if not most, reject their presumptive knowledge and accept the scientific knowledge. If you think that makes scientific knowledge “superior” that is your interpretation.
I agree that scientific knowledge only functions in the sphere of testable knowledge – that follows from the definitions of scientific knowledge. Philosophical knowledge (and religious view is a major subdivision of that) should only concern the “untestable.” Unfortunately, it often does not. For example, that the Earth was the center of the universe belief was a religious dogma that got some burned at the stake for disputing it. Some still believe literal the Bible* – Jonah really was a week or so in the belly of the whale; Christ transformed water into fine wine, and feed a multitude with a couple of loaves of bread, etc. It certainly is not just Christians who allow impossible nonsense to overrule scientific knowledge.
The problem with what you call “descending knowledge” (my “presumptive knowledge”) is not that some of it is built on a “false foundation” but that there is no way to know which foundation is false. The dogma of one religion is just as valid as that of another so long as it sticks to statements that are in its “not testable” realm. It is extreme arrogance to claim, “My religion is true as founded on God’s revelations but yours is false with no valid foundation.”
--------------
* "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day." (Joshua 10:13 NIV)
The great astronomer Galileo was jailed by religious authorities when he asserted that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, as the above verse suggests. …
On February 24, 1616, the Qualifiers {An authorized church body} delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."
From: http://www.fallwell.com/ignored verses.html (A site listing miracles Jerry Fallwell held to be facts.)
Last edited by a moderator:
*************
M*W: A trial for what?
if your summary that scientific knowledge, as a consequence of good education, overcomes "presumptive" knowledge is not a claim of superiority I'm not sure what is ...
I think you misunderstand - the testability of spiritual claims is a completely different discipline to the empirical. At this point, I am simply pointing out how absurd it is to deem it untestable simply because its not within the scope of empiricism.
correction - no empirical way
hence henological discourse usually finds its home in the realm of the philosophical and not bile secretions or what not
They are different as oranges and apples are. Thus I am reluctant to say one is superior to the other for same reason I don't say oranges are superior to apples.
Also you are misquoting me: I said many replace their "presumptive knowledge" with "scientific knowledge" as they become more educated, when they conflict, not that all do. There are many very well educated people who still hold fast to the beliefs they were taught as a child, but I am not one who did. Science can NOT prove that God does not exist (or prove any negative claim outside the realm of mathematics. For example, at this very minute on some distant planet, unicorns may be pulling plows.)
That is not why I said religious dogma is untestable. I agree it is outside the realm of empirical test - that was the DEFINITION of what I called "presumptive knowledge" and you called "descending knowledge." You are putting words in my mouth if you assert that is why I said "spiritual claims" are untestable.
The reason I said "spiritual claims" are untestable is that when tested, by adherents of one religious faith, "result A" is obtained, and when another makes his non-empirical test the conclusion is "not A" in many if not most cases.
This is very different from tests of scientific knowledge. - There are still conflicts in various empirical tests results, but they are minor and the results tend to converge as the procedures are refined / made more precise. Never for example does one scientist say "A" and the other "not A" if "A" is the claim / statement: "Lead floats on liquid water" but that is common when "spiritual claims" are "tested." For example: some assert "Christ was god."; Others assert: "Christ was just a man, not a god."; Others assert "Christ was a god-inspired profit."; Others assert "Christ was the son of God."; Still others assert "Christ did not even exist - that is a myth." etc. for many dozens of "A" vs. "not A" claims. Which claim about Christ is true is impossible for anyone to know, (without my final bold sentence being true.)
SUMMARY: I said "spiritual claims" are untestable because the tests produce mutually conflicting results and there is no way to tell which, if any, "spiritual claims" are valid.
Only extreme arrogance / self delusion / allows one to think their "spiritual claims" are true and all conflicting "spiritual claims" others make are false.
Last edited by a moderator:
the problem is that you clearly explained why you think one category out classes another
:shrug:
hence the use of the word "many" is used to indicate the prominent value of the category, yes?
For instance if I said many people prefer to eat apples over oranges , I would be placing apples in a superior category, yes?
or alternatively, your parents may not be your true genealogical bearers - does this mean that the notion of plow pulling unicorns and your parents genealogical claim to you are equivalent?
read it again
you say that it is presumptive because there is no scope for testing (you give the reason that there are multiple claims or whatever, so the conclusion is the same - whatever is driving the claims is not testing in your opinion)
My use of descending is not equivalent to you use of "presumptive", since for the person from whom the knowledge is descending is not presuming anything.
If one is not in the position to have the knowledge descend from them, the only way to test it is to follow it. BTW this is nothing new ... its what we commonly do when we encounter professionals
This is an absurd suggestion. There is absolutely no field of knowledge that has a monolithic knowledge base ... especially if you don't involve any criteria for determining who is a valid professional in the field
there are numerous ways to explain the multiplicity.
Iif you have different knowledge bases, you certainly have different results. For instance advanced knowledge of physics totally redefined understandings of the sciences (so much so, that its a common misdemeanor of materialists to relegate all language of reality to physics ... but that's a different topic). If you have persons on a knowledge base stabilized beneath such a level, their opinions and findings while perhaps somewhat accurate are considered inferior. IOW teh higher grade of knowledge makes for a more accurate picture and reduces the margin for error.
This is the general principle that underlies all henological discussion - namely that there are different levels of knowledge of that one is stabilized on which in turn reflect ideas not only of god, but also the living entity, the nature and purpose of this phenomenal world and so on. In this way one can resolve monotheism, polytheism and even animism into a broader picture.
In this sense, theism is much like any other discipline of knowledge, its absurd to expect a monolithic knowledge base and a uniform approach to it. For instance I'm sure you wouldn't criticize the medical profession for being a bunch of bozos because one guy wants to operate, another wants to give a needle, another wants to change your diet and another wants to give you a massage
Rubbish
There are literally new examples happening every day. Hell, even now we can make lead float on water, provided it has a lower density than the water or is hollow.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that theism doesn't have the tools to weed out and resolve the variety of claims it brings to the table.
I mean even in terms of astronomy, its difficult to find a relevant text book that has remained accurate for 50 years
On the contrary, merely indicating variety as an indication of a weak claim of knowledge is usually the consequence of a poor fund of knowledge.
Along similar lines, one could cite the contradiction between the claims that lead can and cannot float on water, or even the wave/particle duality or a zillion other things
Only if it is made outside of the language of philosophy ... which is much like anything else. The same extreme arrogance/self delusion drives materialists who cry foul when they cross paths with ideologies that undermine their own without bothering to investigate the philosophical framework
:shrug:
Last edited:
Billy may be reluctant to assert the superiority of empiricism based knowledge, but I am not. Knowledge gained from empirical, or scientific processes is immensely superior to that gained because some would-be prophet wakes up with a gut ache. It is so superior that it is on a different planet.
Planet A - empirical or scientific knowledge = knowledge that is probably correct.
Planet B - other 'knowledge' = knowledge that is probably bulldust.
Scientific knowledge is subject to rigorous testing. Other 'knowledge' is not. If the bible says that Elisha was subject to teasing over his bald head by small boys, and God sent a bear to tear them limb from limb, does that mean it really happened? Of course not. That story is so much bulldust.
The fact that I 'know' the story of Rapunzel does not mean that some bimbo dropped her hair to allow her boyfriend up to enjoy a mutual bonking session. Some knowledge reflects reality and some does not. Knowledge based on empiricism has a high probability of being real. Knowledge based on other sources, such as old stories, is most probably not a true reflection of reality.
Without proper testing using empirical methods, 'knowledge' is pretty much worthless.
Planet A - empirical or scientific knowledge = knowledge that is probably correct.
Planet B - other 'knowledge' = knowledge that is probably bulldust.
Scientific knowledge is subject to rigorous testing. Other 'knowledge' is not. If the bible says that Elisha was subject to teasing over his bald head by small boys, and God sent a bear to tear them limb from limb, does that mean it really happened? Of course not. That story is so much bulldust.
The fact that I 'know' the story of Rapunzel does not mean that some bimbo dropped her hair to allow her boyfriend up to enjoy a mutual bonking session. Some knowledge reflects reality and some does not. Knowledge based on empiricism has a high probability of being real. Knowledge based on other sources, such as old stories, is most probably not a true reflection of reality.
Without proper testing using empirical methods, 'knowledge' is pretty much worthless.
poor baby..will never know someone loves him..
empirical methods will never prove someone loves you..
Squirrel
It is true that empirical methods can never prove someone loves someone else. It is equally true that non empirical methods also totally fail in this.
Accepting someone else's love is a risk. We all know of people who did that and got their heart's broken. If empirical evidence cannot demonstrate that something is probably correct, then no other method can do any better.
I have 21 years of marriage and consistency in my relationship with my wife, along with numerous indications of love, to provide evidence of my wife's love for me. I accept that love. I also know that there is a risk she is lying. I accept that risk. The rewards are much greater than the risk.
It is true that empirical methods can never prove someone loves someone else. It is equally true that non empirical methods also totally fail in this.
Accepting someone else's love is a risk. We all know of people who did that and got their heart's broken. If empirical evidence cannot demonstrate that something is probably correct, then no other method can do any better.
I have 21 years of marriage and consistency in my relationship with my wife, along with numerous indications of love, to provide evidence of my wife's love for me. I accept that love. I also know that there is a risk she is lying. I accept that risk. The rewards are much greater than the risk.
No, I did not say that either anymore than I said one was superior to the other. I said two things only:
(1) That many people as they get educated and learn their newly acquired, scientific based, knowledge conflicts with the "presumptive knowledge" they were taught as child (including religious beliefs, such as "the sun stood still for more than a day") switch to accept the demonstrated POV instead of their unsupported beliefs.
And
(2) That one cannot rank one as superior to the other as they are very different, (the Apples vs. Oranges problem).
The new words you are putting in my mouth (“one category out classes another.") still distorts what I said. Please just quote me - don't try to speak for me.
-----------
Let me explain why I prefer "presumptive knowledge" to your "descending knowledge" even though most "presumptive knowledge" has been handed down from one generation to the next, not all has, with a personal example of some false "presumptive knowledge" I created / believed when about 5 years old:
I knew there were four types of milk: chocolate milk, butter milk, skimmed milk, and regular milk and that cows had four tits. For at least a year, I drew and believed the obvious conclusion. - Each type of milk came from a different tit.
This was false "presumptive knowledge", not "descending knowledge." Also note that ALL "descending knowledge" had an origin, perhaps 100s of generations ago, in someone's "presumptive knowledge". That knowledge now handed down to you did descend but it was initially "presumptive knowledge" just passed down thru the generations.
I think you prefer "descending knowledge" because the fact that it has been believed by many generations seems to make it true. If that is not why you prefer "descending knowledge" to my "presumptive knowledge" please tell why you like your terms better. If the number of generations that have believed "presumptive knowledge" increases the "truth probability" then you should cease being a Christian and become a Jew. I know you will not, because when you were a child, Christian beliefs were so well instilled in you that now you are incapable of changing your POV.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please stop playing coy.
How can you talk of a conflict and a clear resolution to it without calling upon superior values?
If you couldn't rank either as superior you wouldn't be in a position to indicate how one outclasses another ....
Please look at the comprehension issues behind your statements.
If you seriously think that you are capable of discussing these things bereft of any innuendo of superior or inferior values, please refrain from discussing the surrounding conflict issues or how they are likely to ressolve
:shrug:
Its not a question of preference they are two different categories.
Actually both your presumptive and scientific knowledge are examples of ascending knowledge.
The only reason you think descending knowledge shares some sort of parallel with presumptive knowledge is because you think the authority it is descending from is unreliable or based in a knowledge base no better than the person to whom it is descending.
then you clearly approached the problem in an ascending manner - IOW you relied on your own (limited) senses to solve it (or you assumed that any other person to whom you might inquire would answer from the same knowledge base as yourself) - if you had asked a dairy farmer (ie an authority in the field) who then informed you of the facts of the matter (and you in turn accepted or rejected the information to the degree you had faith that he was a valid authority on the subject)it would be an example of ascending knowledge
This is rubbish.
Descending knowledge has its basis in superior training and comprehension of information. This is why a professional can read a detailed analysis from an image and the lay man can't even work out which is the top and which is the bottom
actually this statement is a classic example of presumptive knowledge - you presume that your knowledge base is essentially non-different from a self realized soul.
At this point I'm not even sure that you understand what is meant by the phrase "descending knowledge".
I mean, why do you think I illustrate the term with a layman going to a professional?
The reason I prefer it is because there is not an essential difference between your "presumptive" and "scientific" knowledge - both work out of the limited powers of an individual
lol
kudos for attention (I'm not even a christian or a jew)
But anyway, the numbers game isn't a valid basis for a strong philosophical line (argumentum ad populum), but since we are on the subject, for as long as one conceives of religion in terms of one's bodily lineage or place of birth, they have more or less stunted their potential for spiritual development. Any sort of theistic philosophizing from such persons is just jazzed up politics.
On the contrary, spiritual knowledge is a zillion times superior to that gained because some would-be scientist wakes up in anxiety how to secure a grant to pay for their baby's shitty nappies
Or alternatively ...
Planet A - empirical knowledge = knowledge on how to do stuff but without the foggiest on how or why beyond meeting the animal necessities of eating, sleeping, mating and defending (which, as it happens, automatically renders sparrows and the like superior to humans since they don't have to work night shifts or take sleeping pills to meet the exact same criteria)
and
Planet B - Knowledge that contextualizes not only the living entity but also the phenomenal world, which, as it happens, provides the very basic foundation values for social stability that allow "empirical knowledge" to flourish in the first place (pretty difficult to stare intently down a microscope while your wife is getting raped when the village gets pillaged ... or even plant a crop of grain for that matter)
You can test till the cows come home - still won't provide you with a fleas fart worth of value based knowledge - or even weed out the host of vices that can easily run parallel with such "rigorous" testing (Hans Eppinger was pretty rigorous, yes?)
Do you mean to say that you don't personally have the know-how or resources to test value based knowledge?
Or that any consensus on it is no more valid than the opinion of Charles Manson or your green grocer?
And after reading the bible this is what strikes you as the most essential key point that Christianity pivots on?
The fact that you think the essence of this story is about casual sex seems to be more topical ...
If you don't have the values to empower comprehension, you are not even on the map of reality
You've got it twisted around.
Without proper values empirical knowledge is not only worthless but also more than likely fast tracking towards dangerous
If it were so clearly superior & out classing other POVs, then ALL would abandon the childhood inculcated beliefs when they conflict with documented scientific facts, but many, including you it seems, do not.
By "presumptive knowledge" I have clearly stated is NOT based on scientific evidence (and may conflict with it) so yes there is a clear difference. Also "presumptive knowledge" usually does come from one individual, but scientific knowledge rarely does. Instead many individuals and organization repeatedly test its validity before it is accepted as scientific knowledge.
Thanks for the clarification that you are not a follower of any set of religious dogma that has descended thru the ages and that you think that "presumptive knowledge" which "works out of the limited powers of an individual" is not valid. Yet you seem to support some sort of view that most would call religious or a theistic position. Where did it come from? I assume that you too are an individual with "limited powers" so if you made up your theistic POV you have just refuted it as you have limited powers. Did you did take some "theistic philosophizing from such persons" and modify it? If so would that not make it your POV "theistic philosophizing" in spite of your "limited" powers"? Do you think you modified theistic philosophizing is correct because unlike other mortals, you are a God with unlimited powers?
Please clarify from where come your theistic beliefs.
Last edited by a moderator: