08 Nov 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt was a long time ago that I read the book but the evidence seemed plausible to me. Refresh my memory what does the bible say happened to jesus after the crucifiction ? I don't think that it did change anything to do with the message of his teachings but as a side issue how can you be sure that what you currently know as jesus' teachings are in fact the same as what he taught over 2000 years ago ?
What is the meaning of the book. Does the content change Christs teachings ? In what way ? The writer claims that Christ died in Cashmir. Well that's what Mr. Kersten says ... and the tricks with names are not very convincing to me .... In that way you can "prove" that Mr. Bush once was a tree. I mean in a previous life .....
09 Nov 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf I cannot comprehend something, then it cannot enter into the content of my beliefs. If something cannot enter into the content of my beliefs, if it cannot be the object of my putative knowledge, then I cannot make meaningful claims about it. If I cannot make meaningful claims about something, then I cannot make claims about that thing that would be subject to countervailing evidence. If there can be no countervailing evidence (because there are no claims for them to countervail), then the issue of irrational belief does not arise. These problems with countervailing evidence arise when the religious person tries to speak about the ineffable, or tries to conceptualize the non-dual.
Indeed this is very simple. It is a bit too simple, bbarr.
BBarr, what do you do when you are confronted with something that you cannot understand, something you cannot comprehend with the use of your logic or your way of reasoning ?
.
09 Nov 03
Originally posted by bbarr
If I cannot comprehend something, then it cannot enter into the content of my beliefs. If something cannot enter into the content of my beliefs, if it cannot be the object of my putative knowledge, then I cannot make meaningful claims about it. If I cannot make meaningful claims about something, then I cannot make claims about that thing that would be subjec ...[text shortened]... the religious person tries to speak about the ineffable, or tries to conceptualize the non-dual.
Do you also talk to your wife like that ? ..... 🙄
Can you explain this in normal English, please ...
I'm not Dr. Spock, I'm human .......
09 Nov 03
Originally posted by Jay Peatea
It was a long time ago that I read the book but the evidence seemed plausible to me. Refresh my memory what does the bible say happened to jesus after the crucifiction ? I don't think that it did change anything to do with the message of his teachings but as a side issue how can you be sure that what you currently know as jesus' teachings are in fact the same as what he taught over 2000 years ago ?
After the crucifiction He rose from the dead, He showed himself to many, many people and after that He ascended to Heaven ....... according the Holy Scripture.
Because His teachings are coherent and true ...
09 Nov 03
Originally posted by bbarr
If I cannot comprehend something, then it cannot enter into the content of my beliefs. If something cannot enter into the content of my beliefs, if it cannot be the object of my putative knowledge, then I cannot make meaningful claims about it. If I cannot make meaningful claims about something, then I cannot make claims about that thing that would be subjec ...[text shortened]... the religious person tries to speak about the ineffable, or tries to conceptualize the non-dual.
Sorry Bennett. Almost 90% of your assertions are wrong (or at least, IMHO, very dubious). I'd wish to rebate them one by one, but my poor command of english language would introduce more confusion in this thread. Please don't take ofense. I have my own arguments and, after all, them could prove to be wrong, of course.
But let me to put clearly that I have in high respect your comments.
Regards
Michael (aka LittleBear)
09 Nov 03
1 edit
Originally posted by LittleBearThat's considerate, Michael. Thank you for refraining from introducing confusion into this thread. I don't take offense when people disagree. But I also don't take their disagreement seriously unless they are able to provide arguments. This shouldn't be a problem with you, however, since you claim to have arguments at your disposal. Perhaps you could present them sometime.
Sorry Bennett. Almost 90% of your assertions are wrong (or at least, IMHO, very dubious). I'd wish to rebate them one by one, but my poor command of english language would introduce more confusion in this thread. Please don't take of ...[text shortened]... high respect your comments.
Regards
Michael (aka LittleBear)
By the way, if your command of the english language is too poor to allow you to feel comfortable debating my assertions, then how can you be confident that 90% of my assertions are wrong? Are you saying that your command of the english language is sufficient to see THAT my assertions are wrong, but insufficient to explain WHY they are wrong? Perhaps, if your command of the english language is as poor as you claim, then you actually have failed to understand my assertions.
Bennett
09 Nov 03
Originally posted by bbarrBennett,
That's considerate, Michael. Thank you for refraining from introducing confusion into this thread. I don't take offense when people disagree. But I also don't take their disagreement seriously unless they are able to provide arguments. This shouldn't be a problem with you, however, since you claim to have arguments at your disposal. Perhaps you could ...[text shortened]... e is as poor as you claim, then you actually have failed to understand my assertions.
Bennett
my problem with command of english is that I lack vocabulary. I can read it almost perfectly, without having necessity to recure to a dictionary at all. But when I have to write a single sentence, it takes me a lot of time. This simple answer to your question, has taken me to write (up to here) almost 10 minutes... And I risk to be missundestood, in matters where the use of precise terms are a must.
Michael
P.S.: oops, did I've say 10 minutes? 20 up to here! 🙂
09 Nov 03
Originally posted by bbarrWell, here goes an example:
That's considerate, Michael. Thank you for refraining from introducing confusion into this thread. I don't take offense when people disagree. But I also don't take their disagreement seriously unless they are able to provide arguments. This shouldn't be a problem with you, however, since you claim to have arguments at your disposal. Perhaps you could ...[text shortened]... e is as poor as you claim, then you actually have failed to understand my assertions.
Bennett
You have said:
"If I cannot comprehend something, then it cannot enter into the content of my beliefs."
And I answer: if that's true, science never could have advanced. In knowledge engineering we must to study a lot about Belief Systems. For one thing, I must agree with you, but partially. The object under observation (study) may be such a one that cant be totally understood by you, but if its nature doesnt penetrate at least partially your system of beliefs (i.e., if you have no "faith" that pursuing the observation of the object under study will bring you at least some "positive" result) you will -almost for sure- abandon the eforce.
Just kidding: "I can't understand my mother in law, then, I don't believe she exists..." 😀😀
Regards
Michael
09 Nov 03
Originally posted by LittleBearMichael,
Well, here goes an example:
You have said:
"If I cannot comprehend something, then it cannot enter into the content of my beliefs."
And I answer: if that's true, science never could have advanced. In knowledge engineering we must to study a lot about Belief Systems. For one thing, I must agree with you, but partially. The object under observat ...[text shortened]... understand my mother in law, then, I don't believe she exists..." 😀😀
Regards
Michael
Please go back and read the post to which I was responding. Ivanhoe asked me about being confronted with something I could not comprehend, something that was beyond the bounds of logic and reason. He was asking me to explain how I would react if I found myself confronted by something that reason itself could not, even in principle, explain.
Science advances because it concerns itself with things that are within the scope of reason. Roughly, Scientists apply reason to the world in the form of experiments, and then construct theories on the basis of the results. Ivanhoe was not asking me about things to which reason can be fruitfully applied, he was asking me about things that are unexplainable by reason and logic.
Your objection is based on a misunderstanding of what was meant by 'beyond comprehension'. You take 'beyond comprehension' to mean merely currently unexplainable. I take 'beyond comprehension' to mean unexplainable in principle, or completely beyond the scope of reason and logic. My claim is that if something is completely beyond the scope of reason, then we can never be justified in attributing properties to it. But to think about something we have to conceptualize it in some way, and we do this by describing it as this way or that way. So, if we are confronted with something completely beyond the scope of reason, then we cannot be justified in describing it as being any particular way. But this entails that it cannot enter into our thinking.
09 Nov 03
Originally posted by bbarrRight on. Describing something as 'beyond reason' automatically brings it into reason by giving it an abstract property. If this is the case, then saying, for example, 'God is beyond reason' is not indicating transcendental properties any more than saying 'A point has position but not magnitude' is.
Michael,
Please go back and read the post to which I was responding. Ivanhoe asked me about being confronted with something I could not comprehend, something that was beyond the bounds of logic and reason. He was asking me to explain how I would react if I found myself confronted by something that reason itself could not, even in principle, explain.
...[text shortened]... ng it as being any particular way. But this entails that it cannot enter into our thinking.
Basically, one is committing an error of reasoning by describing something as being beyond the scope of reason. This does not mean that such things are not in principle possible, but it does mean that you can't think of these while still thinking reasonably about other things. That's what my last post was about.
'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'
09 Nov 03
If this keeps up, we are going to have a new "Longest Thread".
I was raised to believe in God. It was with the passing of my father that strengthened my beliefs, and faith.
I have no options (religions) that appeal to me. I do believe that my father is in heaven. Perhaps nieve to some, but comforting to me, none the less. I know that traditional logic does not always equate to the spiritual realm.
If there is a God, and he made us all, then chances are, he is smarter than the most advanced logic that we can ever hope to dream of.
It is impossible to know if Jesus was really the son of God. It comes down to faith. Some believe, some dont.
I believe.
I believe he was really the Jesus that we read about. I have no desire to "force" my opinion on others. If you have questions, ask me, I will talk. If you disagree, well, I disagree with you, and we too, can talk. It wont stop me from having a game with you.
Differences of opinion are what challenge us, and make us think.
I am not religious, but do believe in God.
Not trying to rock the boat, but apparantley, this thread will not politely go away, so there is my opinion.
Jonathan "wants a nice chessboard for Christmas" Fulcher
09 Nov 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrHi Bennett!
Michael,
Please go back and read the post to which I was responding. Ivanhoe asked me about being confronted with something I could not comprehend, something that was beyond the bounds of logic and reason. He was asking me to explain how ...[text shortened]... way. But this entails that it cannot enter into our thinking.
your reply makes me feel good!
At least, for one thing, my english isn't too bad. Hehe!
Your answer makes me to understand that we are speaking a common language.
But I fear that if we move this thread onto the details I have touched, most of the people will be bored and disapointed with regard to the main topic of the thread.
Briefly put, I think that here we could start another thread. and a very productive one.
I doubt there will be much people interested in it, but... 🙂
And of course, think of it if you are interested: you will give me a lot of english languange lessons, and may be I'll give you some humble Spanglish lessons too. 😏
Regards.
Michael
P.S.: I will re read the thread, maybe that my intervention, comenting on your post, was out of place. If so, I beg you pardon.
Now I'm going to sleep... 😴😴
09 Nov 03
Originally posted by fulcherjl
If this keeps up, we are going to have a new "Longest Thread".
I was raised to believe in God. It was with the passing of my father that strengthened my beliefs, and faith.
I have no options (religions) that appeal to me. I do believe that my father is in heaven. Perhaps nieve to some, but comforting to me, none the less. I know that traditiona ...[text shortened]... o there is my opinion.
Jonathan "wants a nice chessboard for Christmas" Fulcher
I think that tomorrow I will be in better conditions to answer you. While you wait, take a look at my profile. It says all, and it says nothing.
Regards
Michael 😴
P.S.: Have a nice day people!