The Origin of Life

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you have a problem with being Christ-like?

I have a problem with someone like you believing that you are Christ-like.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have a problem with someone like you believing that you are Christ-like.

Which probably shows why you have a problem with every follower of Christ, who strives to be Christ-like.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Which probably shows why you have a problem with every follower of Christ, who strives to be Christ-like.

You're saying you are Christ-like, not that you're "striving" to be. And you really believe it. Most "followers of Christ" believe no such thing.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Which probably shows why you have a problem with every follower of Christ, who strives to be Christ-like.

That comma puts Christ in the interesting position of trying to imitate himself.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I used the quotation marks because we don't directly observe anything; images go to our retina, go up the optic nerve and then are put together in some semblance of order by the operation of our brains.

Congratulations. You've just described direct observation.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have an experiment for you since you claim you experience God "directly" in everyday life. Go to the nearest tall building and walk off it. Since the existence of the building itself and the ground below is merely a matter of "faith" according to you (as bbarr correctly points out, nothing is directly observable by human beings) if you click your heels ...[text shortened]... her nothing bad will happen to you. Please attempt this experiment and report back. Tootles.

If nothing is directly observable by human beings, how do you go about distinguishing between fact and fiction?

Originally posted by dottewell
Congratulations. You've just described direct observation.

You're wasting both our times with this drivel; go back and respond to the actual point of my post.

Originally posted by dj2becker
If nothing is directly observable by human beings, how do you go about distinguishing between fact and fiction?

By reason. Try it sometime.

Originally posted by no1marauder
By reason. Try it sometime.

Without direct/indirect observation you would have no reason to reason about anything.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Without direct/indirect observation?

Yes; shut yourself in a box and don't observe anything.

Now that we're through with the stupidity part, is there an actual question lurking somewhere? You use human reason to make sense of the information you receive from whatever sources. A blind person doesn't use direct/indirect observation, but he can still distinguish between fact and fiction can't he?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Without direct/indirect observation you would have no reason to reason about anything.

Obviously incorrect. Besides, your original claim involved "direct observation".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes; shut yourself in a box and don't observe anything.

Now that we're through with the stupidity part, is there an actual question lurking somewhere? You use human reason to make sense of the information you receive from whatever sources. A blind person doesn't use direct/indirect observation, but he can still distinguish between fact and fiction can't he?

Yes; shut yourself in a box and don't observe anything.

Would I not be observing darkness? What makes you think that observations are only made through the sense of sight?

You use human reason to make sense of the information you receive from whatever sources. A blind person doesn't use direct/indirect observation, but he can still distinguish between fact and fiction can't he?

A blind man would be using indirect observation.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Yes; shut yourself in a box and don't observe anything.

Would I not be observing darkness? What makes you think that observations are only made through the sense of sight?

You use human reason to make sense of the information you receive from whatever sources. A blind person doesn't use direct/indirect observation, but he can still distingu ...[text shortened]... sh between fact and fiction can't he?

A blind man would be using indirect observation.[/b]

You're changing the standard meanings of words and I'm not playing that game. Observe comes from a Latin word meaning "to watch". If you don't want to speak English fine but I'm not changing the standard meaning of words to fit your definition.

EDIT: And this was your original question:

If nothing is directly observable by human beings, how do you go about distinguishing between fact and fiction?

Stick to it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Obviously incorrect. Besides, your original claim involved "direct observation".

Obviously incorrect

How so?

Besides, your original claim involved "direct observation".

Which has in the meantime changed to "direct/indirect observation" as you claimed that "direct observation" is an impossibility.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Obviously incorrect

How so?

Besides, your original claim involved "direct observation".

Which has in the meantime changed to "direct/indirect observation" as you claimed that "direct observation" is an impossibility.[/b]

What will it change to next?