Prove your "accepted" rules are the right rules to use to know God. It is arbitrary unless you begin with an absolute first.
ART, don't you realize that as soon as you utter a word in your god's defense YOU are utilizing the very SAME rules of reason that we ALL must use. It is all we have, our only tool. Our minds, REASON (logical or illogical) limited or not. There is NOTHING else! If you think I err, then show me where!!?? :-/
Hi ART, I kind of like your reply. You rightly point out the tenuous or relativistic nature of stu's claim. Nothing absolute. "For something to exist it must be in time and space." Stu is a great "believer" in that he cannot approach the idea of "existing" outside of what he "believes" to be space and time. In fact does "space" exist? Does "time" exist? How is stu ever going to establish this? How can he verify under his rule the existence of "space" and "time"? Much has been written about this. In fact giants like Maxwell and Heaviside had their doubts about this. It is very plausible that the notions of space and time will further evolve in a most surprising way to what we "think" or "believe" today. Human wisdom always held it to be sensible that "reality" exists independently of the fact that people have been aware of it. stu is not going to change this.
No, I am talking to you on your terms, I am speaking from a foundation of faith though, not your foundation of relativistic logic and limited senses. Since you won't come to my level of experience, I have to stoop to communicating with yours. I am not so stubborn as to refuse to see the point of view of others. I see your point of view, you don't see mine. I see both, and choose faith.
There is great comfort for those who failed in the practice of faith to find a closed system like relativistic knowldge to provide the certainty we as humans crave. The hamster feels very safe and in control on the wheel, he knows exactly where he is going.
ok, i need a term defined. how are you defining "relativistic logic"? what do you mean by this?? ps btw, i would LOVE to come "up" to your level of experience, but, i don't know how
Relativistic logic is the opposite of absolute logic. Instead of building a foundation of conditional statements: If _______________, then __________________. and tying all of those together to construct a belief system, you begin with absolute knowldge first. What is your first assumption? It begins with the assumption that intellect and senses are working properly, and are displaying Truth independent of senses and logic. Yet, how do you know that your programming is not flawed? If the mind is like a computer, how do you know you have chosen the right program to run? How do you know the "right" programming for human beings?
Personally, by "stooping" to communicating rationally and logically, I think you're stooping up. This is much better than some hokey "faith based communication", the kind found in religious/eastern philosophical material where often ridiculous and essentially nonsensical statements aquire a meaning unique to each individual, which they often can't themselves adequately explain. Instead they nod wisely and stroke their beards confident that they've all "understood". And to top it off they think it's somehow "superior" to coherent, logical communication.
It is very predictable to watch the atheist react to the word "stoop" when after all, I am stating that I am dealing with realtivistic logic for the sake of communication, where there are no absolutes of "better" or "best." You have your opinion which is a "better" way of life, I have mine.