Aletheia

Originally posted by josephw
Does everything have to be proven?

Does one have to do scientific evaluation to prove that air exists?

There is evidence for the existence of God, but because it doesn't pass the test of so called scientific evaluation the scientist/atheist doesn't believe it.

Perhaps it is beyond science to find proof. Maybe science is too limited.

I am never sure what use the word 'proof' has outside of mathematics. It seems to vary from 'solid evidence' to 'mathematically incontrovertible' - but the two are not the same and should not be mixed.
I do not believe that anything about the physical universe can be proven mathematically because the physical universe is not maths.
When we say scientifically proven, we really mean solid scientific evidence.
So why shouldn't knowledge of God be subject to scientific scrutiny? Science is really only a method for verifying and testing knowledge. To a large extent, if something cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny it is because there is evidence that contradicts it, or it is self contradictory.

And yes, one should do scientific evaluation on air, and it should be able to withstand that evaluation, and if that evaluation fails, we should doubt the existence of air.
It is interesting to note that theists fully accept science and its findings for everything except their favorite parts of their religion, and even when there is a conflict they have a tendency to claim the finding is not scientific rather than claim that science itself is flawed.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What he said.

Additional comment: 'concealed', 'disguised' -- figurative language; so while I agree thoroughly with blackbeetle ( 'The Purloined Letter'😉, even absent his comments, it's still: so what?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
so what?

Oh, how I love "so what?"s...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
[quote]Aletheia (ἀλήθει&#945😉 is the Greek word for "truth", and like the English word implies sincerity as well as factuality or reality. The literal meaning of the word ἀ–λήθεια is, "the state of not being hidden; the state of being evident".

[b]Heidegger and aletheia
A Paint ...[text shortened]... that this archaic notion of truth is as seductive to me as it is new.

Any comments?[/b]

So what?

Originally posted by Palynka
So what?

*shrug*

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
*shrug*

Exactly. 😏

Originally posted by Palynka
Exactly. 😏

Congratulations for talking yourself out of the conversation.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Congratulations for talking yourself out of the conversation.

Please. What can I do when you show no interest? "So what?" is the ultimate conversation killer. Don't blame it on me now.

Originally posted by Palynka
Please. What can I do when you show no interest? "So what?" is the ultimate conversation killer. Don't blame it on me now.

Your point was well answered by black beetle; you might respond to his posts.

As for me, you could read my post again and respond to the rest of it, ignoring the 'so what' bit if you like.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your point was well answered by black beetle; you might respond to his posts.

As for me, you could read my post again and respond to the rest of it, ignoring the 'so what' bit if you like.

Don't worry, I will respond to bb.

Originally posted by black beetle
"God created" (this and that ect etc) is merely an unjustified declaration.

Enlightenment just is, and either takes or takes not place -there is no "true" or "false" enlightenment; and science, philosophy and the evaluation of the mind is all we have -the rest is delusion.

"Knowledge of God" is non existent because there are no elements of reality ...[text shortened]... ave up smoking 8 years ago; and kindly please worry not, your humor cannot harm me😵

I am trying to find a thought within these 90+ words--- minus the last personal aside, of course--- that isn't completely contradicted by one or more thoughts before the end of the sentence!

To wit:

"God created" (this and that ect etc) is merely an unjustified declaration.


Such a statement itself demands justification. The claims for the truths found within the Bible (and more specifically, this one regarding Creation) are "justified" by virtue of God's direct dialogue with man:
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways.. " Hebrews 1:1

Here, you dogmatically intone something which clearly cannot be proven false. Were you there (in the past) standing around the desert eavesdropping on Moses? Can you in any meaningful way, shape or form prove the non-occurrence of the myriad conversations which took place in the time between Moses and the Apostles of the Christ? Absurd posturing is all that is left.

The declaration of the Bible is called divine revelation. As such, it represents knowledge otherwise unavailable to man, and only accessible by the will of God. You have no reason to not believe in the transmission of the same. You may not believe the message, but you cannot possibly hope to dismiss its deliverance.

Enlightenment just is, and either takes or takes not place
This contradicts your earlier statement, when you insisted that truth has no inherent being. Something cannot both +be and -be at the same time. It either is (as you say here) or it is not.

-there is no "true" or "false" enlightenment
So the enlightened person sees the belief in God and His message as delusion, but not false enlightenment? Sounds like doublespeak. Last time I checked (16 seconds ago if my hopefully-enlightened watch is correct), delusion is the persistent false belief which is held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. Enlightenment is clarified information, normally to change one's status from ignorance to knowledge.

According to your viewpoint, the only path to truth (which cannot be known, also according to you) is the one of human viewpoint: science, philosophy and that great cure-all, the evaluation of the mind (oy! the poor sorry saps who suffer from any number of brain-not-so-goodedness). According to the Christian viewpoint, the only path to truth (which does exist, otherwise we couldn't be making mind evaluations regarding its status) is through divine revelation.

When one considers the byzantine gyrations required of keeping your system of is/not-is and yes/not-yes afloat, is it any wonder how the simplicity--- and heart-warming beauty--- of truth as described by God is found so much more attractive... by dolts and geniuses alike?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I am trying to find a thought within these 90+ words--- minus the last personal aside, of course--- that isn't completely contradicted by one or more thoughts before the end of the sentence!

To wit:

[b]"God created" (this and that ect etc) is merely an unjustified declaration.


Such a statement itself demands justification. The claims ...[text shortened]... described by God is found so much more attractive... by dolts and geniuses alike?[/b]

The “divine revelation” will remain mambo-jumbo for as long as the theists remain unable to bring up a single element of reality that proves the existence of the super observer “god”.

"Enlightenment" is a mode of ones’ mind according to her/ his points of attention that enables her/ him to bring up solid theories of reality, and therefore it has no inherent being. Aletheia, a product of the World 3, has no inherent being either
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The “divine revelation” will remain mambo-jumbo for as long as the theists remain unable to bring up a single element of reality that proves the existence of the super observer “god”.

"Enlightenment" is a mode of ones’ mind according to her/ his points of attention that enables her/ him to bring up solid theories of reality, and therefore it has no inherent being. Aletheia, a product of the World 3, has no inherent being either
😵

The “divine revelation” will remain mambo-jumbo for as long as the theists remain unable to bring up a single element of reality that proves the existence of the super observer “god”.
"Will remain" almost sounds like a sustained status, one which began and then continues in said state ad infinitum. Let's start there, shall we? When Adam was in the Garden speaking with God, what do you imagine he thought about the conversation? A result of too much paradise? Temporal lobe seizures resulting in auditory hallucinations? Or, the more likely explanation, he was interacting with God?

And what of Moses? Why do you suppose he took the burning bush seriously? Why does anyone take the claims of the Bible seriously? Disregarding those unthinking folks who just like the way it makes them feel, how can a thinking person take the Bible as the word of God? In two words, signs and history.

Without either God's direct interaction with man at certain points along the line of time, or some sort of confirming act unexplainable by any other means, the claims of the Bible are groundless. As it stands, we have both: the historical records of men who had direct interaction with God, as well as multifarious examples of signs throughout man's timeline of history, all exhibiting the existence of God.

Therefore, if the divine revelation is to remain anything, it is to remain steadfast... not, as you claim, "mambo-jumbo," which sounds as though you're attempting to describe the Bible as a big Cuban-inspired dance.

"Enlightenment" is a mode of ones’ mind according to her/ his points of attention that enables her/ him to bring up solid theories of reality...
More self-contradictory remarks from your bag of linguistic tricks. You cannot denude "enlightenment" of the very requirements which makes it so without turning the word into meaningless noise. Enlightenment necessarily depends upon truth in order for the one so deigned to be considered enlightened. Here, you enforce a subjectivity upon the word (which, it must be stated, there is such application, given certain parameters) and then turn the limited scope into a supposedly universal meaning. That pig fails to fly.

For instance, one can be enlightened regarding, say, the finer points of Queen's Gambit and yet remain clueless about life in general. While we can emphatically label the one so informed as enlightened, we caveat that knowledge due to its limited scope. To what are they enlightened? The minor aspects of a minor world: chess.

However, you have not been using the term "enlightenment" in this manner. Instead, you are universalizing the term applying it as the transcendent property that it is. Yet even here you are inconsistent. Likely, you understand how playing by the rules will logically rule your world view as nonsensical. Because it is.

Example:

it has no inherent being. Aletheia, a product of the World 3, has no inherent being either

If it (enlightenment) has no being, it does not exist. If it does not exist, it cannot enable, cannot aid, cannot be.

If it cannot be--- and only if it cannot be--- can it be said to have neither good or bad iterations. If it cannot be, you cannot use it in support of your argument, one way or another. There either is a standard of truth/reality against which we can describe our perceptions, with the aid of which we determine delusion, or there is nothing. If there "be" nothing, then what in the hell is the source of all this sensory stimulation... and how in the hell are we able to make even those determinations?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The “divine revelation” will remain mambo-jumbo for as long as the theists remain unable to bring up a single element of reality that proves the existence of the super observer “god”.
"Will remain" almost sounds like a sustained status, one which began and then continues in said state ad infinitum. Let's start there, shall we? When Adam was in th ...[text shortened]... imulation... and how in the hell are we able to make even those determinations?[/b]

Adam in the Garden, the burning bush, the so called "interaction with god" etc etc will remain mambo-jumbo for as long as the theists remain unable to bring up a single element of reality that proves the existence of the super observer “god” 😵

Enlightenment and aletheia have no inherent being because they are products of the Human mind😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Adam in the Garden, the burning bush, the so called "interaction with god" etc etc will remain mambo-jumbo for as long as the theists remain unable to bring up a single element of reality that proves the existence of the super observer “god” 😵

Enlightenment and aletheia have no inherent being because they are products of the Human mind😵

Despite your penchant for making up terms which have no meaning (ala mambo-jumbo), the perspective you espouse is anything but original. Nonsensical and unoriginal. Sad, really.

What you have 'accomplished' is akin to using words to claim that words don't exist. What a goof ball way of looking at life. Well, as most people in life keep their eyes closed, at least we can say this much for ya: your eyes are open. They may be so crossed as to distort all reality, but they're sure open!

Good luck with that...