Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

#2,076
#2,076
chatt-townVOL said:
You're swinging and missing, yet strutting like you're way ahead of par. Your post did not go over my head.

You're accusing my notion of not being able to comprehend God, but somehow still having an understanding of him as being inconsistent. It's not.
Click to expand...

You understand God when convenient and don't comprehend when inconvenient. Do you afford such an operation to people with other metaphysical beliefs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#2,078
#2,078
chatt-townVOL said:
Look up into the sky, go that way, never stop going, by this theory where do you propose the journey ends? I would argue that the journey does not end, and the world is infinite.

My point is, do our minds really comprehend this?
Click to expand...

Again, who says it has to "end"? Perhaps the journey wouldn't end, it would just start over in a different spot in space-time. I don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,079
#2,079
PKT_VOL said:
My post sailed over your head.

If only it had anything to do with whether or not such claims were in the Bible, rather than the cognitive dissonance of your metaphysical epistemology.
Click to expand...

PKT_VOL said:
You have failed to remotely explain how it is infinite; let alone the "has to be" (necessity).

The sky seemingly going on and on =/= infinite universe.
Click to expand...


Do you think I haven't played this game? I've spent more time debating theories with therealUT than I care to remember. Your debate styles are very similar and it's nothing new to me.

You pick out certain points to attack instead of attacking the argument, you purposely misinterpret words/phrases used by the person you're debating (like you just did with interpreting "has to be" as "necessity", when you are fully aware that's not how I meant it), You bring an unnecessary onslaught of uncommon words hoping the person you're debating with won't understand what you're saying.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't impress me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,080
#2,080
chatt-townVOL said:
Do you think I haven't played this game? I've spent more time debating theories with therealUT than I care to remember. Your debate styles are very similar and it's nothing new to me.

You pick out certain points to attack instead of attacking the argument, you purposely misinterpret words/phrases used by the person you're debating (like you just did with interpreting "has to be" as "necessity", when you are fully aware that's not how I meant it), You bring an unnecessary onslaught of uncommon words hoping the person you're debating with won't understand what you're saying.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't impress me.
Click to expand...

I don't know that. I go by your words. They are your words. I'm not a mind reader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,081
#2,081
PKT_VOL said:
You understand God when convenient and don't comprehend when inconvenient. Do you afford such an operation to people with other metaphysical beliefs?
Click to expand...

I understand what is able to be understood, and I don't comprehend what is incomprehensible. It's not as complicated as your agenda wants it to be.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,085
#2,085
chatt-townVOL said:
Are certain aspects of God comprehensible? Of course.
Click to expand...

Great. God would have to be comprehensible if we are to converse or think intelligibly about it. That seems to follow.

Would you agree that such comprehension is rooted in logic/reason? If so, would you further say that God is bound by logic/reason?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,086
#2,086
PKT_VOL said:
Great. God would have to be comprehensible if we are to converse or think intelligibly about it. That seems to follow.

Would you agree that such comprehension is rooted in logic/reason?
Click to expand...


Yes.

If so, would you further say that God is bound by logic/reason?
Click to expand...


No.

Is this the part where you tell me that's too convenient for the outsider to accept?
 
#2,087
#2,087
c31ac784ad400783ee9e2f2955905ec0.jpg


mark-twain-meme.jpg


epicurus_religion_atheism_desktop_1595x895_wallpaper-3172.jpg


tumblr_inline_na9puoz8nj1seipvm.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#2,088
#2,088
chatt-townVOL said:
Yes.




No.

Is this the part where you tell me that's too convenient for the outsider to accept?
Click to expand...

This is the part where I tell you the ideas of God being comprehensible, such comprehension being rooted in logic/reason, and God not being bound by logic/reason are incongruent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,089
#2,089
PKT_VOL said:
This is the part where I tell you the ideas of God being comprehensible, such comprehension being rooted in logic/reason, and God not being bound by logic/reason are incongruent.
Click to expand...

You're giving me a headache with this. I shouldn't have to break this down like I'm about to, but I will. No, they are not incongruent.

God was here before man was here: Easily comprehensible.

To God, a day is like 1,000 years: Much tougher for the human mind to comprehend.
 
#2,091
#2,091
chatt-townVOL said:
You're giving me a headache with this. I shouldn't have to break this down like I'm about to, but I will. No, they are not incongruent.

God was here before man was here: Easily comprehensible.

To God, a day is like 1,000 years: Much tougher for the human mind to comprehend.
Click to expand...

Not sure how this responds to my post.

Secondly, the fact that time is experienced differently by different consciousnesses is incomprehensible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,092
#2,092
chatt-townVOL said:
You're giving me a headache with this. I shouldn't have to break this down like I'm about to, but I will. No, they are not incongruent.

God was here before man was here: Easily comprehensible.

To God, a day is like 1,000 years: Much tougher for the human mind to comprehend.
Click to expand...

Humans have known time to be relative for nearly a century now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,093
#2,093
PKT_VOL said:
Not sure how this responds to my post.

Secondly, the fact that time is experienced differently by different consciousnesses is incomprehensible?
Click to expand...

These last pages seem lime a semantics dance. Accepting something and comprehending are different. Although, i grant, how one is using the word makes all the difference. I accept that i am composed of billions of microscopic factories (cells), but no I don't REALLY comprehend this. And, I would say I have more than a layman's understanding of the biology.

I apprehend that there are invisible waves flying all around me, some carrying music, communication, data, and even my favorite TV show, but do I really comprehend? Sure I understand the basic science of radio waves and that when I turn on my radio, tv and computer and that data is there, and that it was broadcast from a transmitter way out there.

Sure, I understand that cosmic background radiation, red shift and Einstein's theory of general relativity point towards a finite universe. But do I really comprehend this in its actual completeness? Hell no.

And then there is the creator of all this. Hmmmm.
 
#2,098
#2,098
PKT_VOL said:
Great. God would have to be comprehensible if we are to converse or think intelligibly about it. That seems to follow.

Would you agree that such comprehension is rooted in logic/reason? If so, would you further say that God is bound by logic/reason?
Click to expand...

You and I have had similar conversations, but I'll briefly answer each question.

I would say that comprehension of God can include logic/reasoning. I would say that God is in no way bound by logic/reasoning since to say that He is bound by logic/reasoning is to say that He is bound by our ability to think about Him.

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Click to expand...

So, no, I would say that God is not bound by logic/reasoning any more than you are bound by my, or anyone else's, ability to formulate thoughts or premises about you. You exist independently from people's perceptions of you. (At least, I believe that you do, even though you may disagree. :p )

You seem to me to be trying to set up an excluded middle. Either one can comprehend all of God, or God is incomprehensible/unknowable. In actuality, there are varying degrees of comprehension and we can develop workable relationships with things even if we do not fully comprehend them. i.e. I drove to work this morning without a full comprehension of the internal combustion engine and electronics that allowed me to operate the vehicle.

If I misunderstood your point--or the point that you were building to--then I apologize.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top