|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, because the lesson about Job was watch a movie. Nothing more to be taken from that story. The rabbi is busy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoetGnTIjWY
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
Black Bones posted:I'm familiar with Paul's opinion on slavery, he didn't question it, the master and the slave are the same to Christ, etc. Good question. What is the purpose in the Bible if none of this is divinely inspired. At all. Just a bunch of stories created around a pillar of religion. So, whats the point in Christianity and the Bible at all? If we can just assume the whole book is a collection of anecdotes and nice stories, why is it still treated as the word of god? Oh, and please highlight where slaves have any semblance of free will. The relationship is not the same, and Paul should've seen that before ever writing that. Even at that time there were plenty of people that saw slavery as the crime against human kind that it was, why would Paul possibly make the comparison? BrandorKP posted:The rabbi is busy. Justify God's actions towards Job. Go. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:I'm familiar with Paul's opinion on slavery, he didn't question it, the master and the slave are the same to Christ, etc. Oh! Well then nevermind, I agree with you that the Bible is not the Word of God or any kind of divine revelation. It's just some dudes' opinions on stuff collected through the centuries, some of it decent, some of it horrible, none of it all-wise or divine. That's obvious. It's just that anytime one of us questions something in it, we get some bullshit like this: Kyrie eleison posted:Look at this moral judgment of God... from someone who claims to uphold a Jewish view of things, no less. God can get away with all sorts of killing in the OT, but he kills a plant to make a point and that's going too far? and this Sakarja posted:But that's the point. How and by what moral standard could you possibly judge God? and this Sakarja posted:I disagree. What you say applies to men but not to God. God sets the rules for men, not the other way around, it's not a two-way street. I think people balance the good against the bad all the time, it's just that - as you point out - some things are (sometimes) considered unforgivable and we apply different standards to friends and enemies. But how is creating reality a crime? A crime according to what law? Who is the victim? Where apparently it was dictated by God after all and questioning the authenticity of that claim is the exact same as sayin I know better than God instead of what I'm actually saying, which is that I know better than some rear end in a top hat claiming to speak for Him. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There is. It's just that the justifications for why I should believe a book of talking animals and rape apologia aren't convincing. Hmm, yes, that is the only concession I wanted to hear. According to a certain idealist vision of Christianity which I think is the only one permissible, simply entering on this path of knowledge / enlightenment should be enough to open one to the Christian faith, should their will to engage their spirituality be strong enough. Despite the many crimes of its earthly representatives in converting non-believers, the sacred doctrine of the Church is quite confident in the rational persuasive power of Christianity, and shouldn't see other philosophies and religions as strong opponents. Now, obviously most people aren't moved to seek God's grace on their own, perhaps because their will to seek enlightenment isn't strong enough, but that's a different problem, including whether or not it is the duty of Christians to care about how many individuals are lost to the Church. In short, if I speak from an academic point of view, Christians should argue that earnestly realizing a need to understand the universe (and the human being) is a sufficient movement in one's soul to find love of God, because from that point onwards through argumentation all rational beings can be persuaded about the superiority of the Christian faith over any other system of thought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Hmm, yes, that is the only concession I wanted to hear. According to a certain idealist vision of Christianity which I think is the only one permissible, simply entering on this path of knowledge / enlightenment should be enough to open one to the Christian faith, should their will to engage their spirituality be strong enough. Despite the many crimes of its earthly representatives in converting non-believers, the sacred doctrine of the Church is quite confident in the rational persuasive power of Christianity, and shouldn't see other philosophies and religions as strong opponents. Now, obviously most people aren't moved to seek God's grace on their own, perhaps because their will to seek enlightenment isn't strong enough, but that's a different problem, including whether or not it is the duty of Christians to care about how many individuals are lost to the Church. Ah yes, Kyrie's "well anyone who is genuinely looking for the truth would obviously agree with me completely, so followers of all other religions clearly know in their hearts they're worshiping Satan but won't admit it" argument. I don't find that particularly compelling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Hmm, yes, that is the only concession I wanted to hear. According to a certain idealist vision of Christianity which I think is the only one permissible, simply entering on this path of knowledge / enlightenment should be enough to open one to the Christian faith, should their will to engage their spirituality be strong enough. Despite the many crimes of its earthly representatives in converting non-believers, the sacred doctrine of the Church is quite confident in the rational persuasive power of Christianity, and shouldn't see other philosophies and religions as strong opponents. Now, obviously most people aren't moved to seek God's grace on their own, perhaps because their will to seek enlightenment isn't strong enough, but that's a different problem, including whether or not it is the duty of Christians to care about how many individuals are lost to the Church. Oh, that is smug. steinrokkan posted:In short, if I speak from an academic point of view, Christians should argue that earnestly realizing a need to understand the universe (and the human being) is a sufficient movement in one's soul to find love of God, because from that point onwards through argumentation all rational beings can be persuaded about the superiority of the Christian faith over any other system of thought. Based on the above viewpoint, no you don't. steinrokkan posted:In short, if I speak from an academic point of view, Christians should argue that earnestly realizing a need to understand the universe (and the human being) is a sufficient movement in one's soul to find love of God, because from that point onwards through argumentation all rational beings can be persuaded about the superiority of the Christian faith over any other system of thought. 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Personally I feel it's unethical to destroy something that could provide great value to another with little effort. It's like people who just chuck all their old clothes in the dumpster instead of taking them a half mile to the thrift store. And yes, I understand that it's not really a statement based on logic or anything like that, just a personal moral stance. I see what you're saying. I'd thought about that kind of thing with actual objects, but not money since it's so abstract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Hmm, yes, that is the only concession I wanted to hear. According to a certain idealist vision of Christianity which I think is the only one permissible, simply entering on this path of knowledge / enlightenment should be enough to open one to the Christian faith, should their will to engage their spirituality be strong enough. Despite the many crimes of its earthly representatives in converting non-believers, the sacred doctrine of the Church is quite confident in the rational persuasive power of Christianity, and shouldn't see other philosophies and religions as strong opponents. Now, obviously most people aren't moved to seek God's grace on their own, perhaps because their will to seek enlightenment isn't strong enough, but that's a different problem, including whether or not it is the duty of Christians to care about how many individuals are lost to the Church. "If you're bright and honest, then of course you'd be drawn to Christianity instead of one of those other loser religions/philosophies, heh."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, that is smug. If you want to get some smug r/atheism sounding rhetoric, just ask a religious person what he thinks of other religions, because it's basically "what no Mohammed was just a liar you dummies lol, fuckin idiots believing in angels writing a book"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you want to get some smug r/atheism sounding rhetoric, just ask a religious person what he thinks of other religions, because it's basically "what no Mohammed was just a liar you dummies lol" I can't get over this part: quote:all rational beings can be persuaded about the superiority of the Christian faith over any other system of thought. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah yes, Kyrie's "well anyone who is genuinely looking for the truth would obviously agree with me completely, so followers of all other religions clearly know in their hearts they're worshiping Satan but won't admit it" argument. I don't find that particularly compelling. Why should they know that they worship Satan. They live in absence of God, which is a sin, or rather the result of sin in the view of religious doctrine, but from human perspective it's pretty drat neutral. CommieGIR posted:Oh, that is smug. If there's something that gets to be smug, it's religion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I can't get over this part: Why not it's the same as this: Who What Now posted:The truth is that which most accurately comports with reality, not whatever we think feels right for us. And most importantly the truth is demonstrable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If there's something that gets to be smug, it's religion. Yes, but in what way is arguing the moral superiority of your religion over all others Christian? In what way do you get to declare yourself the supreme purveyors of the thoughts and words of a unknowable supreme being while at the same time declaring you are arguing from an ACADEMIC standpoint. That's not just smug, that perverse and wrong. BrandorKP posted:Why not it's the same as this: Then if it is, demonstrate your truths. Smugly declaring you have the ONLY true religion while at the same time declaring no one can know god or his thoughts nor understand his deeds makes the truth demonstrably unknowable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you want to get some smug r/atheism sounding rhetoric, just ask a religious person what he thinks of other religions, because it's basically "what no Mohammed was just a liar you dummies lol, fuckin idiots believing in angels writing a book" No, failure to persuade probably points towards the failing of the student of Christianity in developing his philosophy since a perfectly developed Christian doctrine should be perfectly communicable. After all, that is exactly what opponents of the Bible itt have been saying all along.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I can't get over this part: The best part is, I had a Muslim friend in university witness to me once, and his explanation for why God allowed good people to follow other religions and get condemned to hell was basically the same: that anyone who truly engages in a rational, open-minded search for truth will be convinced by the overwhelming persuasive power of Islam, so anyone who is not is by definition a bad or dishonest person in some way because otherwise why would they deny the plain Truth that God has revealed? CommieGIR posted:Yes, but in what way is arguing the moral superiority of your religion over all others Christian? In what way do you get to declare yourself the supreme purveyors of the thoughts and words of a unknowable supreme being while at the same time declaring you are arguing from an ACADEMIC standpoint. Remember, it's not those who claim God is their best buddy who agrees with them on everything and their words are like unto His that are the arrogant ones. Real arrogance is not automatically believing me when I say I'm basically God's press secretary 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:No, failure to persuade probably points towards the failing of the student of Christianity in developing his philosophy since a perfectly developed Christian doctrine should be perfectly communicable. After all, that is exactly what opponents of the Bible itt have been saying all along. Would you say that Christianity can't fail, it can only be failed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Then if it is, demonstrate your truths. One does this by living them (it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:One does this by living them. And how do you know them? Oh, right, the Bible. How do you know its true? You cannot declare that its both the word of god while at the same time declaring we cannot understand or know him. BrandorKP posted:You'll get no argument out of me here. Christianity is a broken myth and understanding that is a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
One doesn't know. One risks. Edit: Don't you want somebody to love, Don't you need somebody to love, You better find somebody to love. These are the members of the Airplane. It's A good movie watch it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:No, failure to persuade probably points towards the failing of the student of Christianity in developing his philosophy since a perfectly developed Christian doctrine should be perfectly communicable. After all, that is exactly what opponents of the Bible itt have been saying all along. Maybe the problem with Christianity's imperfect communicability is that it's not the perfect doctrine after all. I mean, nobody had to kill anybody to convince others to accept the truth of the Pythagorean Theorem, and it was developed independently across the globe by cultures arriving at the same truth. But when it comes to religion, everyone thinks up different mutually incompatible things and the most effective tool to spread it is conquest. How did some dumb mortal come up with a theory with better persuasive power than something dreamed up by the all-wise all-powerful Lord of the Universe? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:One doesn't know. One risks. Big risk to take if the Muslims or the Mormons are right and you are wrong. Seriously, how can you say something like this and go on and on about the truth of your specific sect of a larger faith? BrandorKP posted:It's A good movie watch it. Its a distraction. Please explain justification for God's actions towards Job. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Would you say that Christianity can't fail, it can only be failed? That sounds about right, but as I'm not a Christian, I don't feel quite comfortable making an assessment of believers on account of their religious shortcomings (even though I've basically done so in past posts).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait, we can use whether something is bizarre as an indication that the person claiming God said it is not to be believed? Of course you can argue it, however insofar as faith is concerned it cannot be said cut-and-dried that you are right. Personally I think it's a good idea to cultivate a measure of uncertainty in any case. A lot of bad things tend to come from people who are certain of their infallibility. bokkibear posted:Worse than the Binding of Isaac? That's literally "if God tells you to do something utterly insane you should do it". I would say yes, because if I am not mistaken Isaac wasn't actually shanked. Job? His family got fried, he got plagued, whole bunch of vicious stuff and at the end of it he got... A new family and his money back? I somehow suspect that would have been insufficient consolation or compensation for most people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe the problem with Christianity's imperfect communicability is that it's not the perfect doctrine after all. Let me say it like this - from the Christian point of view, there exists a perfect doctrine. Even if such a doctrine isn't the same as what is believed by any of today's churches, the hypothetical and so far obscured perfect knowledge is still Christian. It's a tautology, yes: The Christian doctrine is flawless, because the flawless doctrine is Christian. I guess working with such seemingly banal truisms is the state of affairs when dealing with God.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Let me say it like this - from the Christian point of view, there exists a perfect doctrine. Even if such a doctrine isn't the same as what is believed by any of today's churches, the hypothetical and so far obscured perfect knowledge is still Christian. It's a tautology, yes: The Christian doctrine is flawless, because the flawless doctrine is Christian. I guess working with such seemingly banal truisms is the state of affairs when dealing with God. God is just Circular logic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Let me say it like this - from the Christian point of view, there exists a perfect doctrine. Even if such a doctrine isn't the same as what is believed by any of today's churches, the hypothetical and so far obscured perfect knowledge is still Christian. It's a tautology, yes: The Christian doctrine is flawless, because the flawless doctrine is Christian. I guess working with such seemingly banal truisms is the state of affairs when dealing with God. How spectacularly useless. Somehow I expected more from the Architect of All that Is, Was, and Ever Shall Be than this. Assume God agrees with me bout everythang. Therefore, everythang outta my mouth is the Word of God! Take that, Muslims 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How spectacularly useless. Have you read that post? The truth has nothing to do with any person, it exists independently and in fact all shall be judged by it and all must labour personally to find an accord with it. So truth isn't that in which the divine agrees with me, truth is what can be seen of an impersonal divine and what can be reproduced through logic. What you just posted makes no more sense than retards screaming about the theory of evolution having a liberal bias.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
In fact I believe that anyone who would sincerely utter that "God agrees with me" would be a heavy sinner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Have you read that post? The truth has nothing to do with any person, it exists independently and in fact all shall be judged by it and all must labour personally to find an accord with it. So truth isn't that in which the divine agrees with me, truth is what can be seen of an impersonal divine and what can be reproduced through logic. What you just posted makes no more sense than retards screaming about the theory of evolution having a liberal bias. That doesn't make it truth. Even if we approached the concept of truth from a metaphysical standpoint, it would not make the ideas that they gain through their labours any more true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Have you read that post? The truth has nothing to do with any person, it exists independently and in fact all shall be judged by it and all must labour personally to find an accord with it. So truth isn't that in which the divine agrees with me, truth is what can be seen of an impersonal divine and what can be reproduced through logic. What you just posted makes no more sense than retards screaming about the theory of evolution having a liberal bias. It's not really convincing when you're just posting about these ostensibly obvious divine truths and the ability to independently reproduce Christianity through logic, you know that right? Can we see the logic? I'm finding myself unconvinced by: "assume there's an argument so logical, no listener can help but be convinced, this argument we will call Christianity." steinrokkan posted:In fact I believe that anyone who would sincerely utter that "God agrees with me" would be a heavy sinner. Sorry to hear that steinrokkan posted:In short, if I speak from an academic point of view, Christians should argue that earnestly realizing a need to understand the universe (and the human being) is a sufficient movement in one's soul to find love of God, because from that point onwards through argumentation all rational beings can be persuaded about the superiority of the Christian faith over any other system of thought. I forgive you of your heavy sin here, my son VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Can an omnipotent God craft an argument so circular, even He could not take it seriously?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That doesn't make it truth. Even if we approached the concept of truth from a metaphysical standpoint, it would not make the ideas that they gain through their labours any more true. It is truth insofar as it is a scientific finding, and if you look into Summa, you'll find that theology is treated as science related to all other sciences, albeit nobler because it deals with the most general thing imaginable. CommieGIR posted:God is just Circular logic? No, but of all possible candidates to the position of truth, only the truly true one can be said to represent the one God, by His very nature, regardless of how humans call it in their words or how the truth was misrepresented in the past. Similarly: when the atomists said that atom was the smallest indivisible part of matter, and later on the name was ascribed to a divisible particle, the atomists weren't wrong, it was those who tried to apply their terms who were wrong in identifying the thing that would fit the essential properties of atom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
You don't have to forgive me, as atheists don't take sin too heavily, and the thing is that you have it backwards. When a physician says that a good theory can be reproduced and communicated to any rational listener, and be accepted as correct based on testing, he isn't claiming mastery of a universal law, or that the universe is agreeing with him. He is professing a reasonable belief that his reason has managed to translate a part of the universal laws into an intelligible statement, that he is a student of an objective authority of nature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So how does this understanding by other means work? If we are able to use our limited human reason to decide which commandments are moral necessities and which parts are propaganda or mistakes by desert people grappling with the Divine or whatever, then are we really receiving a revelation? Because it seems like if we're using some moral or logical standard we've derived some other way to determine what is revelation and what is not, then the source of our knowledge is that external standard and we'd do just as well morally without the Bible at all. Apparently we have to go to some knowledge prior to our reading of the Bible anyway to decide that giving to the poor is good and raping the daughters of the tribe next door is not-so-good, so what's the use of the Bible telling us those things? Well, if we have to start from the very beginning here, we must recognize that the Bible is not a unitary work. We can no more talk about going to "the Bible" for moral guidance than we can talk about going to "Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton" for moral guidance. Each book of the Bible must be taken on it's own merits. This doesn't negate the value of the Bible of course, especially the Old Testament, because in aggregate it tells the story of the Jewish people, and that story is the backround for the life and work of Jesus Christ. It is that New Testament part which, to Christians, is the important bit. Everything before that is important to study and understand for appropriate context, but it's not a matter of "oh well this book conflicts with this other book" and so on and so forth creating some sort of moral dilemma - the question doesn't even come up because it's a nonsense question, just as it's a nonsense question of the Nun's Priest's Tale conflicts with The Tempest. Yet we can still learn a lot about English literary history from studying both works. Apologies for the lovely metaphor. quote:What's the point of having a moral revelation if we need to develop our whole morality external to it before we go in and decide which parts match up and are true, and which parts don't match and have some other historical explanation for being in there? So what's all this about moral revelation then? It's not as though the Bible is the only source of moral behavior - the Bible makes no such claim (and indeed cannot by its very nature). Not even the Church makes such a claim. It is surely possible to have a good and moral set of laws or manner of behavior quite apart from any influence of scripture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It is truth insofar as it is a scientific finding, and if you look into Summa, you'll find that theology is treated as science related to all other sciences, albeit nobler because it deals with the most general thing imaginable. Nope. And Summa does not enable it to be justified as such. steinrokkan posted:No, but of all possible candidates to the position of truth, only the truly true one can be said to represent the one God, by His very nature, regardless of how humans call it in their words or how the truth was misrepresented in the past. Similarly: when the atomists said that atom was the smallest indivisible part of matter, and later on the name was ascribed to a divisible particle, the atomists weren't wrong, it was those who tried to apply their terms who were wrong in identifying the thing that would fit the essential properties of atom. Nice mixed metaphors. You are comparing the physical and the knowable to something immaterial and unknowable. Not even remotely in the same ballpark. The atomists were proven by evidence. Please provide evidence for God's very nature and his truth. steinrokkan posted:You don't have to forgive me, as atheists don't take sin too heavily, and the thing is that you have it backwards. When a physician says that a good theory can be reproduced and communicated to any rational listener, and be accepted as correct based on testing, he isn't claiming mastery of a universal law, or that the universe is agreeing with him. He is professing a reasonable belief that his reason has managed to translate a part of the universal laws into an intelligible statement, that he is a student of an objective authority of nature. The Doctor is still working within the fabric of reality that is testable and knowable. These are not valid comparisons you are making.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Allow me to cut through the confusion once again. Do not try to prove the existence of the deity, or claim that belief in him is rational, or empirical. One interacts with Him only through the spiritual. Any other attempt at discovering him borders on blasphemy. His presence is observed through spiritual experience, and is obvious to people whose hearts are open to the spiritual. Those who do not experience the deity have had their hearts hardened by Him, and should pray that he reveal Himself to them. Do not doubt the deity's will, and do not judge Him. Do not try to claim that His will merely aligns with what is good, as if to suggest that good is something outside the deity. The deity is goodness itself. There is no separation. Anything the deity does is good by definition. If you willingly contest the deity, then you display foolish hubris, and commit mortal sin, and invite his full punishment. Is this acceptably clear?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Allow me to cut through the confusion once again.  How dare you attempt to quantify the unknowable, HELL FOR YOU!And hell is very real and HOT!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's not really convincing when you're just posting about these ostensibly obvious divine truths and the ability to independently reproduce Christianity through logic, you know that right? As I said: It requires spiritual labour. Go read doctors of the Church, the apologetics, Erasmus, and of course the Bible... The system isn't simple, but it has been constructed, and explaining it in a forum post would be as productive as summarizing Aristotlian thought through the same medium.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:As I said: It requires spiritual labour. Go read doctors of the Church, the apologetics, Erasmus, and of course the Bible... The system isn't simple, but it has been constructed, and explaining it in a forum post would be as productive as summarizing Aristotlian thought through the same medium. Man, if that whole system wasn't made up by humans, you might have a point. Aristotle at least worked with the fabric of reality instead of the cognitive dissonance of a supreme deity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nope. And Summa does not enable it to be justified as such. Saying that the immaterial is inknowable and closed to science is ignorant, isn't persuasive, and spectacularly ignores everything leading to and including modern phenomenology and basically all epistemological philosophies. That is not to say that many important people wouldn't agree with you, but they certainly wouldn't treat the matter as trivial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:16
|
|