On theist-secular relations

[wynn]

so in this sense no omniscience and omnipotence is needed..
one must just study God to be familiar with him, to 'know' him is to have ones own experiences confirm what is learned of him.

So list some examples of expriences that confirm that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, that God is the Source of All, the Summum Bonum, and that He loves us all.

so a person can claim to 'know' God and still be fallible..there is no omniscience and omnipotence needed/required,

also with this 'know' there is no 'one correct' religion..

It's also an apparently trivial solution, as it allows people to believe that pretty much anything people claim about God is true.

 

[NMSquirrel]

So list some examples of experiences that confirm that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, that God is the Source of All, the Summum Bonum, and that He loves us all.

there ya go setting the goalpost so high that it is unattainable..IOW any answer would be argued that it is not proof..(and you weren't specific on experience, as in personal vs collective experience)

now if you were to ask 'so list some examples of where you think God has been in your life.' that would be more reasonable..

It's also an apparently trivial solution, as it allows people to believe that pretty much anything people claim about God is true.

which is why the 'proof' question is irrelevant..

 

[wynn]

there ya go setting the goalpost so high that it is unattainable..

I didn't set it there. Theists do.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I didn't set it there. Theists do.

oh don't make me go back and quote you again...
:spank:

 

[wynn]

If you tell me you know God, I will hold you to it. That is all.
Or do you want me to cut you some slack, because you are, after all - *cough cough*- merely human?

 

[NMSquirrel]

If you tell me you know God, I will hold you to it. That is all.
Or do you want me to cut you some slack, because you are, after all - *cough cough*- merely human?

through scripture, study and experience i am familiar with God, ergo i know God, just as i know you..(granted i don't know you too well..)

but then as i do not know everything about you, i do not know everything about God..but that still does not mean i do not know God (or you)

if you want to classify me as an expert in all things God..well that is your prob not mine..i do not claim to know everything about God..i only have a sense of what he will or won't do...but even that sense is fallible,because i am human.


so if you 'hold me to it' as you say, be aware of what you are holding me to, are you holding me to what i say about who/what God is or who/what you think God is..(i accept the challenge of you holding me to what i say who/what God is)

Btw this is another problem area theists have probs with as they tend to hold others accountable to their own perceptions of who/what God is for them, irregardless as to who/what God is for the other person..

IOW what God wants from me is not the same as what God wants from you.

 

[wynn]

through scripture, study and experience i am familiar with God, ergo i know God, just as i know you..(granted i don't know you too well..)

How do you know it is indeed God that you know some things about, and not some other or fictional character?

If you would never actually personally speak with me, but heard numerous (and sometimes, conflicting) second-hand and third-hand accounts about me - would you take those accounts as true and indeed as about me, even though they are from other people?

i do not claim to know everything about God..i only have a sense of what he will or won't do...but even that sense is fallible,because i am human.

So what use is that sense then?

so if you 'hold me to it' as you say, be aware of what you are holding me to, are you holding me to what i say about who/what God is or who/what you think God is..(i accept the challenge of you holding me to what i say who/what God is)

Okay.

Btw this is another problem area theists have probs with as they tend to hold others accountable to their own perceptions of who/what God is for them, irregardless as to who/what God is for the other person..

IOW what God wants from me is not the same as what God wants from you.

And we're back to square one ...

 

[Balerion]

Wynn, why is it that you assert that there must be a monotheistic deity, if there is a god at all?

 

[wynn]

Because there can be only one who is The One.

 

[NMSquirrel]

How do you know it is indeed God that you know some things about, and not some other or fictional character?

if i were to study a book about puff the magic dragon i would assume the book is about puff the magic dragon and not someone else..

If you would never actually personally speak with me, but heard numerous (and sometimes, conflicting) second-hand and third-hand accounts about me - would you take those accounts as true and indeed as about me, even though they are from other people?

technically i am not speaking to you now...
but yes if someone were to tell me about you i would be obligated to believe it to be true,
if you were to talk to my boss and he were to give me a raise because of what you said to him, even though i have never met you i would be even more obligated to believe.

So what use is that sense then?

just because it can be fallible does not make it ALWAYS fallible..

 

[wynn]

if i were to study a book about puff the magic dragon i would assume the book is about puff the magic dragon and not someone else..

Well, that's rather gullible.

but yes if someone were to tell me about you i would be obligated to believe it to be true,

Why on earth would you be obligated to believe anyone who claims to be talking about me?!?

Do you really elevate gossip and hearsay to the level of truth?!

just because it can be fallible does not make it ALWAYS fallible..

So how do you know when it is fallible and when it is not?

 

[Balerion]

Because there can be only one who is The One.

But "the one" is a monotheistic concept. For all you know, the universe could have been created by committee. There is no inherent "oneness" to the universe.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Well, that's rather gullible.

huh?

Why on earth would you be obligated to believe anyone who claims to be talking about me?!?

Do you really elevate gossip and hearsay to the level of truth?!

i said i would BELIEVE it to be true..i would not KNOW it was true until i actually met you..
(in this sense knowledge trumps belief)

So how do you know when it is fallible and when it is not?

i think you meant, how do you know if your sense is faulty or not?

faith,time,scrutiny, sometimes you don't know.. the bible says that we are all sinners..AND we are forgiven..IOW the world is not going to end if i am wrong..the bible says just to believe..the rest is mans doing..

(hence why i believe that most differences in religions are not worth fighting about..)

 

[wynn]

But "the one" is a monotheistic concept. For all you know, the universe could have been created by committee. There is no inherent "oneness" to the universe.

And I'm supposed to believe you this because ...?

 

[Balerion]

And I'm supposed to believe you this because ...?

Nice red herring.

Exactly what about the universe mandates that it has only one creator, Wynn?

 

[kx000]

Nice red herring.

Exactly what about the universe mandates that it has only one creator, Wynn?

So there is something or someone outside of the universe? Are we a science project?

 

[kx000]

Wynn, why is it that you assert that there must be a monotheistic deity, if there is a god at all?

It makes most sense if "the Creator" is the universe, but separate if He so chooses.

 

[Balerion]

So there is something or someone outside of the universe? Are we a science project?

I haven't the foggiest idea. I'm saying that there's no way to know, and that there are no apparent qualities to the universe that would suggest what she's asserting.

It makes most sense if "the Creator" is the universe, but separate if He so chooses.

That's not really a sensible presupposition at all, but the point is that baseless presuppositions are required for her position to make sense. (ie. "The universe can only be created by one god, so there must only be one creator.)

 

[wynn]

I haven't the foggiest idea. I'm saying that there's no way to know, and that there are no apparent qualities to the universe that would suggest what she's asserting.

That's not really a sensible presupposition at all, but the point is that baseless presuppositions are required for her position to make sense. (ie. "The universe can only be created by one god, so there must only be one creator.)

Looks like you've had a good dose of The art of being right, again.

In this case, make a claim, and then insist that the other person made it. Slick.

 

[Balerion]

Looks like you've had a good dose of The art of being right, again.

This from the woman nine pages deep in her defense of not only having her own personal definitions for terms such as "Deism" and "Theism," but also in the argument that those who use the terms as they are actually defined are wrong.

Wait here, Pot. I have someone I'd like you to meet.

In this case, make a claim, and then insist that the other person made it. Slick.

History lesson time:

Because there can be only one who is The One.

Try again, wynnie.