>Johannes, it is difficult to argue with someone who insists the same (clear blue) sky we are both looking at is covered in pink and purple polkadots.<
Brees. From our perspective the notion of "self-evidence" by definition speaks to the issue of perception, not absolute existence. I do not define or redefine the sky, but merely perceive it. I here state it impossible to be certain that what I think of as "blueness" is precisely the same as what you think of as "blueness." Even if measured in some quantitative way, "blueness" yet must filter through our bodies wherein it is interpreted. We may both claim to understand it together, but we can have no utter certainty that we share a common perception of "blueness." So then "blueness" is not evident to an absolute degree to us both. It may be evident to me, and it may be evident to you, but whether it is the same for us both is impossible to determine. We then cannot claim it "evident" in an absolute sense. It may have an absolute definition, but neither I nor you will possess authority to codify it.
This is why you ought not throw up your dang "messengers" as proof of how a group of folk ought to think in the course of moral determinations.
>People behave willy nilly in general, as we have free wills. You seem to be looking for a concensus of agreement by the members of civilization. This has nothing to do with my evidence for the existance of self evident thruths.<
(sigh) Brees, you speak such utter nonsense. If folk cannot see a truth as it is, in its absolute nature, and if they cannot mutually acknowledge what they are all seeing is precisely the same thing, then they cannot know an absolute truth exists. Just because you claim the thing exists don't make it so. And if someone literally cannot see it, then the thing is not EVIDENT.
>You are a very confused man.<
Perhaps. But at least I don't talk in dang nonsensical circles in the course of a debate based on human reason.
>ME: Self-evidence is rendered impossible by the human condition itself, as we are all hopelessly cut-off from one another. I dare say we are cut off from any and all real truth. Heck, brees, you may even call "eating" one thing and I may call it something else.<
>YOU: We agree here.<
Then the case is closed. Once you agree here, the thing is over.
>Self evident truth is that thing inside you that confirms as truth (deep down or where ever you think that point of perception is) the principle morality of the human condition, when it is presented to you externally by scripture a wise person or what ever.<
And even that "deep down" thing has not been certified to be the same for all. Indeed many folk sincerely disbelieve a "deep down" thing exists at all. Folk may literally perceive truth and morality in different ways so that we find no objective evidence proving an absolute truth. So when you start throwing up "self-evidence" as a means by which we all should converse over and judge moral acts, you speak from profound, brain-numbing ignorance.
>You were not tabla rosa at birth. You were born with the full set. In other words its a personal thing, however there is a standard set of core truths.<
Then prove it, bad boy. (Oh, here comes them dang "messengers" again, and here is where all this began. If you bring up these folk like you do, I will be compelled to dismiss them as heathens. You will have to prove your provable "self-evident" evidence by means more reasonable than your own frail perceptions of heathen messengers).
>The more times you say this kind of bunk [that there ain't no meaning] the stronger the feeling of hopelessness can become. The fact is there is purpose, meaning and hope and it comes with faith.<
Indeed this is certainly true, but faith is no quantifiable thing and is therefore nothing to throw up in someone's face as a "self-evident" argument for a moral position. This is the dang point.
If you want to evangelise, then that is entirely a different matter. But you cannot throw up your heathenism as an objective fact with which I must contend in the course of a moral determination. If you continue trying to insult me with this desert crap, I'm gonna continue telling you the truth.
>It is quite provable to all but those who are limited to physical explanations of things.<
Well I see that we are all limited to a physical explanation of things, and that this is our nature. Indeed I see we are all trapped within physical nature, cut off from one another and everything else by space, time and flesh. So then when you spout on about your objective faith, all you do is state that your belief is nothing but a thing limited by the same parameters.
Real faith transcends these limitations and connects us to Ultimate Might and Meaning.
>I find [Muslim hogwash] based in common sense and perfectly intuitive.<
Of course you do, and I really do think this wonderful (sincerely). But not every person will see it your way or mine. To throw this stuff at them like its gravity is utter bigotry. You believe your junk, then believe it. But many folk will see it differently, and
there is no dang way you can prove them wrong. If folk are talking about whether it is acceptable to kill an unborn child, your Muslim "self-evidence" will simply be irrelevant - at best.
>I can say that because I have studied it and found it so. You keep making these outragious claims based on nothing but your own ignorance. Sorry, for you.<
Sure. Folk always have studied their religion and found it "perfectly reasonable," just like dang gravity. The truth is, it ain't reasonable. Heck, reason ain't even reasonable.
>ME: I think Allah a heathen god, but I respect your wish to worship such a heathen.<
>YOU: Another outragiously uniformed and blasphemous comment.<
And this perfectly underscores my point. I have studied the Quran and hung out with Muslims. I have seen the same words they have seen and studied the history of Islam. The Muslims came away still worshipping Allah, and I came away certain Allah was nothing but a heathen idea. Who is right? If I am uninformed, then so be it. At least I've tried. If it is blasphemous to call Allah a heathen, then it dang sho ain't self-evident to me. It is certainly blasphemous to many others to call your dang "messengers" self-evident. So if you are insulted, you need to look in the mirror at the source of the insult.
>Not true, many scholarly people who know the basis and principles of Islam have rejected it. You continue to throw out uninformed slams and declarations based on falsehood.<
Fine. So all these smart folk have rejected it, and me, the dummy, done rejected it too. The upshot is, it is dang rejectable whether you are smart or dumb. That tells you right there it ain't self-evident. (grin)
>[ Abraham, Noah, Jacob and Jesus] are the very beings I referenced as messengers and as haveing everything to do with Islam.<
I am aware you folk believe in an "Abraham", "Noah", "Jacob" and "Jesus." But I am equally aware these are but heathen versions of the real things, no matter how much you whine to the contrary. Many heathens grab onto Jesus for credibility. Others reject Him as incredible. None of it is self-evident.
>As I said before, you don't know me.<
Well. My statement had to do with what should be. Obviously, as you have a penchant to throw up crap as self-evident evidence, I cannot where you are concerned reference what in fact is.
ME: >You believe these folk were in unanimous agreement that humans can confirm God within themselves. Other folk don't see nothing of the sort, especially when they see Jesus claiming that folk are dead, even though they walk the earth.<
>YOU:>I am not familiar with that...<
Dead folk ain't familiar with a whole lotta things, brees.
>...but no doubt about it we can waste our lives as the walking dead, fussing over realistate and social influence. This is a dead walk for sure. Jesus also encouraged people, by saying that if they seek the kingdom of heaven to look within. Do you suppose we can confirm its existance by doing such? Self evidence?<
Nope. Your "kingdom" is able to be placed under a microscope, to be confirmed by looking there for it, proving it is but a component of the earth. The true kingdom of heaven is found not by an observation, as its reality is manifested of its own volition, internally and subjectively, and even here it is perceived imperfectly. It is not yet fully revealed, this, as an act of mercy, for its full revelation will most certainly destroy all things incompatible with it. All weaknesses will be utterly wiped away. Nevertheless its presence is nothing one can prove such that in a conversation on abortion one can reference it to objectively show what should be done. It is not objectively determinable. And you cannot talk someone into it by spouting Islamic nonsense.
I think it better to talk using frail earthly reason, praying to the Sovereign God of Israel that He might give folk eyes to see, than spouting all your insulting nonsense, as if it is as evident as gravity. Obviously many folk (Christian and heathen) disagree with me. I think this fine, but if folk start slamming them, they
get what they deserve. (grin)
>There is meaning in life, there is purpose, and reason to have hope. It has been given to us by messengers of God since the beginning of creation and will be available until judgement day.<
These dang messengers may have given you meaning, but they sincerely don't mean a dang thing to many other folk. I believe there is meaning and purpose, real meaning. There is meaning such that were it fully expressed it would fill all this empty existence, consuming every dang thing.
Nevertheless in the course of a general discussion I would not claim folk can put all this under their dang microscopes and together use it to make moral determinations. Such a thing is a gift. We may humbly ask for it, but that is about the extent of it. Either way, it is not self-evident in the Jeffersonian sense.
>The only way to know that it is the truth is by checking within and finding confirmation or reason to reject it.<
You say all this, but it don't be squaring with what I see. I look around and I see all kinda folk, many of whom think themselves perfectly ethical in hating and destroying one another. I see every dang body got a dang different point-of-view. Everyone longs for understanding, to rest within a place where they are truly
known and loved. Even folk who claim to have meaning are cut-off from one another, some clamouring for heathen gods and idols just to have something in which to believe.
Folk are dead, just as Jesus said they are. They can't be checking a dang thing "within," because all they will find is their own emptiness and goofy ideas. If meaning does not come for them, then they will remain as dead as ever.
>Examples of the lives of those who have rejected the scriptures of God over the last few thousand years are well documented... [Etc.] The examples of virtuous messengers and pious believers also prevail.<
This is subjective nonsense. Many of these "pious believers" were destroyed. From my vantage point perhaps they prevailed, but from another's vantage point they were vanquished. There ain't no objective proof that either my point-of-view or theirs is correct.
>These examples stand as yet another proof of self evident confirmation of the truth.<
This ain't no dang proof. You really ought to stop this nonsense. These lives may draw some folk toward faith, but they do not confirm a dang thing. The same lives will repulse others.
>The materialist worshipers know that what they are doing is counter to what is known as good within them.<
Perhaps, but you can't prove any of this, and so we return again and again to my overarching point, namely that to throw up your dang "messengers," claiming their messages "self-evident," is dang lunacy.
>The hopeless alcoholic can tell you what is bad about their behavior, attitude and lifestyle.<
(sigh) Even the concept of alcoholism is meaningless. One person may feel compelled to drink a pint a day and I may not think him an alcoholic but you may think him a drunk. This drunk of yours here may know what is bad about his own behaviour, attitude and lifestyle, but then again, maybe he sincerely does not. Maybe he just feels empty and does not know why. Maybe not. Maybe he thinks himself quite fulfilled.
>This is all intuitive self evident knowledge of the truth as it relates to the human condition.<
This is not self-evidence in the common sense of the term. This is subjective determination, nothing to use in a general debate, and again, this is my point. Surely I believe folk have this "deep down" thing, and I think Ultimate Might has put it there. But it dang sho ain't self-evident that everybody has the same thing.
>If you need to, however, go ahead and ignor.<
That I most certainly will do.
>Bashing the head gear of cultures you do not understand will probably do a lot for your philosophical perspective.<
I ain't bashing nothing. When you throw this Islamic crap up as objective proof, you bash other folk-- just like a friggin' bigot. Had you not set it up as some objective truth, I would not have said a dang thing about it.
>Well at least as much as claiming the sky is covered with pink and purple polka dots.<
Which is by far more potent than claiming your dang heathens are "self-evident." I just want that you get it through your thick Muslim skull that it ain't objective such that you can just throw it up as proof of how folk should think and act. If you keep doing that, you get what you deserve. Its one thing to talk about moral truth that emanates from your religious belief system, or to evangelise for your religious point-of-view. But it is quite another thing to claim the dang 'Quranic heathens have said such-n-such and so we should follow them because what they have said is as self-evident as gravity.' That is no respectable argument.
(sigh) I'm tired of this, and so must bring it to a swift conclusion. |
