One of My Reasons Not to Be Agnostic:
Holy God, Manifested in the Solar Matrix,
Speaks to Me: Sun Sextile Mercury Personal Interchange
This will be a very favorable day for all kinds of communications and personal interchange with others.
Even routine connections with friends and neighbors will be very fruitful, for you will be able to get through to each other with greater clarity. This is an excellent day for communicating something important to another person, in which it is necessary to be precisely clear.
If you have to present the views of a group and your ideas must be in tune with theirs, this will be a favorable time.
But this is also a good day to examine your own goals and expectations.
This influence favors all types of commercial transactions, buying and selling or negotiating deals favorably.
Today is fine for traveling for any purpose, although you will be best served if it stimulates your mind or has an educational purpose.
If god/s are not beings on the Earth, how are we to objectively know there is one or more gods?
Have we seen god/s with our space probes?
Do we have a good notion of god/s?
Is god/s phenomena or Person/s?
Is the divine scope the Solar System, the galaxy, the universe, the multi-verse, a given set of dimensions or a different set of dimensions?
Is god/s interested in religion and worship or not?
The above questions are good reasons to say, I don’t know; therefore, I am agnostic.
Judith said
Steefen,“Have we seen god/s with our space probes?”
Back in 1984 there was a strange sighting of glowing, gigantic winged beings sighted by all six cosmonauts on the Salyut 7. You can google it!
It hardly matters. When it comes to God and the Cosmos, we know that our Sun was created in a Nebula. Nebulae dissipate. The God of the Sun has dissipated.
Whatever winged beings were sighted, they weren’t the God/s of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Furthermore, as much a Lifegiver the Sun is for Earth and for Homo Sapiens Sapiens, that God, Sol Invictus, the Invisible Sun, will also die.
So, go a level up, the galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy is God.
No. The Andromeda Galaxy is going to absorb the Milky Way Galaxy, and the Milky Way Galaxy, is no longer a God.
Gods dissipate/die.
This must be a characteristic of Physical Gods.
Like the God Mother Earth, there probably was another God who was destroyed in pieces, the Asteroid Belt. What else was it but a planet?
spiker said
Steefan
Agnosticism is not about whether you know, it is about HOW you know, that is, it’s about having proper evidence to support a given conclusion. Seems to me you are simply accepting a theory
because of its appeal rather than substantiating it.
Spiker, for now, I do not have a grip on what you’re saying.
I’ll give it some thought. I’ll begin by defining terms. Feel free share definitions of terms. So, not what is it about, but what is it, then what is it about, please. Thank you.
= = =
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Agnosticism is the view that, the ** you do not have permission to see this link **
According to the philosopher ** you do not have permission to see this link ** rather than a religion as such.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen said
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
That’s a terrible definition. Primarily because it’s wrong.
Huxley, who coined the term, describes it thus
“Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.”
And Again,
“That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”
The idea that something can’t be known assumes that you know that thing has a property or properties that place it beyond the ability to know, which makes it knowable.
The philosopher William Rowe has no clue about what he is referring to.
In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration.
In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
The idea that something cannot be known assumes that you know that thing has a property or properties that place it beyond the ability to know.
= = =
Does a baby intellectually know its parents?
Does a baby intellectually know its parents exist?
Things exist without intellectual certitude.
– – –
Would a human to God/s be a smaller ratio than baby to adult? Yes, it would be much smaller.
The human notion of God needs to break at the Creator-God of the Sun, the nebulae from which stars are born, because nebulae dissipate.
We have to allow for Creator-God handoffs.
Are you agnostic about a Creator-God?
No. Creator-God existed but Creator-God dissipated.
The Sun-Star created its planets. The Sun-Star is finite.
Same thing with the Big Bang. It too is gone except for remnants.
What about the mega stars, the first generation of stars? They are gone.
Creator God/s need to be removed from the definition of God in question of existence because they are finite (the Sun-Star); they dissipate (the Sun-Star’s nursery-nebula); the Galaxy gets run over by a larger galaxy; and the first generation of mega stars are gone.
= = =
No one is agnostic about the existence of the Sun-Star, nebulae, the Galaxy, and the first generation of stars.
Counter: They are Creators. So, we are not agnostic about Creators. Creation is, what, 50% of one’s notion of God?
Steefen said
Does a baby intellectually know its parents?
Does a baby intellectually know its parents exist?
Things exist without intellectual certitude.
– – –
Does a baby know anything intellectually? I would say they aren’t capable of it
Yes things exist without certitude, but no one ever argued that. You do understand that, right?
Huxley’s argument was about having sufficient evidence and going by what the evidence is
“The Cleric asserts that it is morally wrong not to believe certain propositions, whatever the results of a strict scientific investigation of the evidence of these propositions. He tells us “that religious error is, in itself, of an immoral nature.” He declares that he has prejudged certain conclusions, and looks upon those who show cause for arrest of judgment as emissaries of Satan.
In short, Huxley is criticizing the idea that evidence should be ignored. Do we need some imaginary ratio to decide whether Jesus walked on water? Do we need some magic ratio to decide whether pigs were possessed by demons? Do we need some imaginary ratio to decide whether five loaves and two fish were enough to feed 5000 people?
Would a human to God/s be a smaller ratio than baby to adult? Yes, it would be much smaller.
How would you know? And if Babies aren’t capable of understanding anything intellectually, Adults often can.
So why does the “ratio” matter? How could you expect to determine what that “ratio” is?
spiker
Did Jesus walked on water?
Steefen
For the same purposes Hermes and Athena travelled over water in the Homeric epics.
spiker
Were pigs possessed by demons?
Steefen
For the purpose of making the point to me that pork has no nutritional value for me–not for the purpose that pigs can be good pets. In Jesus’ day, it was more likely pigs were farmed for eating than for being a domestic pet.
So pigs are a variable for dispensable. Demons are a variable for the wickedness of rebellion against Rome. Jesus is a variable for Vespasian (when he was going through Judea to put down a wicked rebellion against his home empire). Possession is a variable for a spirit of rebellion against Rome.
So, throwing out the Jesus destroys pigs story is missing the point.
Throwing out the bath water is missing the baby is there.
spiker
Were five loaves and two fish enough to feed 5000 people?
Steefen
Matching grants.
Little boy: I have five loaves and two fish.
Jesus (stand in for, say, Prince Izates, son of Queen Helena): I’ll take up your idea and with my royal wealth, I will feed all these people. Sure, Prince Izates fed 5,000 people times over, but as a component of the Jesus character, his philanthropy is remembered.
Steefen said
spikerDid Jesus walked on water?
Steefan you might want oo go back and read my post. I never asked if Jesus walked on water. You don’t get to misrepresent my opinions. I asked if we needed some magic ratio( a reference to your question, Would a human to God/s be a smaller ratio than baby to adult? Yes, it would be much smaller.)
This is to say would be need to overcome some imaginary ratio to evaluate the claims in question? And in that context the question wasn’t about understanding how it was done, rather about if it even happened.
And I think you’ll have to do better with the mythicist gobbledygook, if you want to be taken seriously.
spiker:
Steefan you might want oo go back and read my post. I never asked if Jesus walked on water. You don’t get to misrepresent my opinions. I asked if we needed some magic ratio( a reference to your question, Would a human to God/s be a smaller ratio than baby to adult? Yes, it would be much smaller.)
Steefen:
My name is not Steefan, it is Steefen.
One’s notion of God should be a smaller ratio than baby to adult. It would be a poor notion of God if it did not. If you’re dealing with poor notions of God you’re setting yourself up for a straw man fallacy. I’m not here to play with straws. What is your notion of God?
spiker:
This is to say would be need to overcome some imaginary ratio to evaluate the claims in question?
Steefen:
Well, I evaluated the claims in question.
spiker:
And in that context the question wasn’t about understanding how it was done, rather about if it even happened.
Steefen:
A literal interpretation of the claims in question has been dismissed by me. Go find yourself someone who ONLY takes the Bible literally.
spiker:
And I think you’ll have to do better with the mythicist gobbledygook, if you want to be taken seriously.
Steefen:
I do not take you seriously for that response until you redeem yourself with a more substantial reply.
spiker:
I never asked if Jesus walked on water. … And in that context the question wasn’t about understanding how it was done, rather about if it even happened.
Steefen:
So, if there is any misrepresentation, it was caused by you because you did ask if it even happened.
Did Jesus walk on water or hoover over water? My answer agreed with the scholar Dennis R. MacDonald, author of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. In the process of mythologizing the composite figure Jesus, the Jesus Myth had to be just as good as Mercury/Hermes and Athena, both of whom could hoover over the surface of the Earth and not just walk on land.
Steefen said
spiker:Steefen:
So, if there is any misrepresentation, it was caused by you because you did ask if it even happened.
You’d better get your facts straight, son. For someone who cares if I spell his name with an a or an e, you ought to give just as much care in representing my ideas as you want yours treated with.
NO I asked if we needed a certain CRITERIA to determine if it happened. This is what you proposed. An imaginary ratio for an imaginary being.
A literal interpretation of the claims in question has been dismissed by me. Go find yourself someone who ONLY takes the Bible literally.
Here again. This is a gross misrepresentation. You ought to consider very carefully whether you failed to understand what I was talking about because if you are deliberately misrepresenting my opinion, you ought to think twice before continuing to do so.
If you can’t argue without misrepresenting someone’s opinion, then you ought to reconsider your opinions .
This, BTW is what I said
In short, Huxley is criticizing the idea that evidence should be ignored. Do we need some imaginary ratio to decide whether Jesus walked on water? Do we need some magic ratio to decide whether pigs were possessed by demons? Do we need some imaginary ratio to decide whether five loaves and two fish were enough to feed 5000 people?
spiker said
Steefen said
spiker:Steefen:
So, if there is any misrepresentation, it was caused by you because you did ask if it even happened.
You’d better get your facts straight, son.
I don’t like your tone of voice so, I’m not reading this post.
You immediately go on the adversary list.
Be disrespectful and, with me, you lose.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)