So you can’t think of any questions that you individually, or humanity collectively would like to have answered by the presumed master of all that is?
There is a general principle that perfect answers require perfect questions (think of it as the glass half full version of "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer").
I'm just giving you the limelight so you can show us what you've got.
Aren’t you privy to to higher truths by way of non-physical access to knowledge?
Once again, I am more surprised that you would hold me in such high esteem.
What would be the time, place or audience to discuss these things?
At this stage, anything better than a cohort of bawling online trolls would be a start.
How do you expect to legitimize your path to divine knowledge if your not willing to demonstrate it?
How would you expect to benefit from a university if you demand access to radioactive elements during open day?
I really can’t recall any I’ve found persuasive, so there’s no point in picking one over another. But since you seem to recognize a value in some, go ahead and pick a favorite.
Requesting others to launch a defense of a critique you are too lazy to research is not the mark of a scholar.
A conversation. Where I can ask questions. And unlike this discussion, get answers.
I guess the next issue is where one determines if there are any framework or prerequisites to coming to such a position. I mean if even universities, even on their open days, are not recreational outlets for the possibly banal and probably dangerous curiousities of one and all, would it be reasonable to demand open access to the absolute store house of knowledge as the "first base" encounter of any slimy git that walks off an online forum?
We’ve already been over that stuff. There is no evidence that human beings are capable of knowing anything out of relation to our physical neurology. Subjective notions of unseen existence are not knowledge, it’s at best reasonable speculation, but on average it’s just bad fiction.
Whatever.
I am just reminding you of your epistemological requirements for the task you have set before yourself.
What task I’ve set for myself?
Thanks for reminding me. I was giving you more credibility than what is warranted.
You are talking about "meaningful interaction" with God and a demand that it be expressed in the language of empiricism (since thats "according to the rules of reality" ... at least in your books).
So your challenge (the one you set for yourself, btw, since you've made it clear that its either your ideas of reality or the highway, so to speak) is to elaborate the empirical data that would identify God. Of course its a theoretical problem for you, but I assume would have more rigorous demands to be met rather than being introduced to someone who says, "Hi, I'm God".
So, whenever you're ready ...
I have no expectation of knowing anymore about reality than can be determined by the collective knowledge of humanity during my lifespan. Who knows, maybe the Vulcans will land, or the Jewish messiah will finally show up, and we can receive an unexpected dump of advanced knowledge in our lap.
If you can't distinguish the vulcans from a jewish messiah, its probably a good clue that you already have severe epistemological problems
I guess you’re not familiar with the obfuscation tactics of our former president Bill Clinton. I was comparing his to your own.
In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence—a blue dress with Clinton's semen that Tripp provided—Starr concluded that the president's sworn testimony was false and perjurious.
During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton–Lewinsky_scandal
Ring any bells? Any blue evidence of gods you can bring into court?
How about judging one’s performance on their ability to answer simple questions? By this standard you’re failing miserably.
I don't follow?
You asked what colour cloth God wore.
I pointed out that its a pointless q because you have no criteria to assess the merit of
any answer given.
IOW, from your (empirical) perspective, you would have no means to determine if I told the truth, was lying, or anything in between.
It is exactly like sending someone who has no means to identify gold on a fool's errand to purchase it at a fruit market.
I'm pretty sure the marketplace will be unscrupulous enough to ensure the fool comes back with something they bought. Whether it is gold or not is a separate issue ...
