Again, precisely what did I say, Metacrock? Why can't you quote me and respond to the quote? Also, you have already admitted that the Creed cannot be proven rationally.

rodahi

I'm sure he's a prince of a fellow. But he's picking on me. I'm not picking on him.

MEta => Why do you equate experince with faith? Experince is empiricial--it is the original meaning of the word "empirical." SK says that lgoic is merely hypothetical, expeince is an actual encouter with trth.You cannot crituqe existetnial philosphies on the basis that they aren't proven with logic, that is to deny the basic nature of what they are. They are about experince. You have the world divided into a false dichotomy between "empirical" proof (in a scientific sense) and everything else, (which is invalid and 'subjective'). You treat the word "subjective" as though it is a synanim for "invalid." That is silly and naive and it ignores most form of thought.

rodahi: 3. I don't think you are in any position to tell me or anyone else what they would or would not understand.

Metacrock: O yea I am.

Oh, no, you are not. You have demonstrated on numerous occasions that what you believe has little or nothing to do with reality.

Meta =>YOu have no credentails to say that. You can't stand up to me in a debate and I didn't see you trying to. YOu can't demonstrate any of my arguements are fallacious. Yours are. You base most of your statements on really poor understandings of a field for which you have little background.

Metacrock: I really am on the doorstep of by doctorate.I don't care if you believe that or not.

I don't particularly care if you are "on the doorstep of by doctorate" or not. As a matter of fact, I don't care if you have fifty doctorates. For the most part, you spew nonsense and support your faith in said nonsense with scholars who also spew nonsense.


Meta =>You are just voicing your ignorance.

Metacrock: I know I'm good, you dont' understand, wait and read my book. I'll send you a copy if you are still around when it comes out.

1. I suppose some feel the need to make such statements about themselves. I am very sorry that you feel that need.
2. I have plenty of doorstops; keep the book.

Metacrock: Not to worry, I'm not just trolling you, I'm moving the thread to the Philosophy board. I'll be over soon, need to formulate my attack.

Good. You have admitted the Creed cannot be rationally supported. That is all I asked for.

MEta =>I said you don't get to be the orbitor of rationality

Metacrock: O did I?

Yes, you did. You admitted that it is based on faith, not evidence.


MEta =>Faith is not "irrational" in your sense of the term.

Metacrock: I thoght I was saying that your critique of it was misplaced and naive.

Sometimes what you think and what you say are two different things.

Anyway, you seem to have changed your mind and now, apparently, mean you have a rational explanation (as in solid evidence) for why you believe that Jesus was conceived by the imaginary Holy Spirit for which the imaginary Virgin Mary was the conduit.

Please present the evidence, Metacrock, or admit your belief system is founded on nothing more than a "confession of faith."

rodahi

MEta =>I presented it on the existence of God board about 50 times and no one ever out argued it. You wouldn't know that becasue to you anything an atheist says is auotmatically out arguing a Chrsitian even before you read it. But you have totally distroted what I said. I explained that and STill understood what I was saying. I said I could give such reasons if I had to I did not say that is what my faith is based upon.

NOw I"m going to continue this on the philosphy board and I really mean it this time. It's off topic here, and you are too ignorant and biased to even mess with.

I am not a prince by any stretch of the imagination, but I am not picking on anyone. I thought we were simply discussing a serious issue.

rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
rodahi: 2. Can you demonstrate the validity of SK's philosophy with anything other than faith?
Metacrock: Yes. With experince.

In other words, you cannot demonstrate the validity of SK's philosophy with anything other than faith in your own experience.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MEtacrock: Why do you equate experince with faith? Experince is empiricial--it is the original meaning of the word "empirical."[/b]

Okay, using empirical evidence, demonstrate the historicity of the Virgin Birth. If you cannot, then you are relying solely on faith.

Metacrock: SK says that lgoic is merely hypothetical, expeince is an actual encouter with trth.

I am not particularly impressed with SK's philosophy. I think the only reason you are is because you seem to believe it relieves you of the responsibility of proving the absurd.

Metacrock: You cannot crituqe existetnial philosphies on the basis that they aren't proven with logic, that is to deny the basic nature of what they are. They are about experince.

I am not here to critique philosophies.

Metacrock: You have the world divided into a false dichotomy between "empirical" proof (in a scientific sense) and everything else, (which is invalid and 'subjective'). You treat the word "subjective" as though it is a synanim for "invalid."

I don't live in Fantasy Land, Metacrock. Now, do you have empirical evidence to demonstrate the historicity of the Virgin Birth?

Metacrock: That is silly and naive and it ignores most form of thought.

It is silly and naive to believe superstitious absurdities, e.g., virgin birth, a dead person coming back to life, a dead person floating into the sky, a dead person sitting on a throne in the sky, etc.

rodahi

rodahi: 3. I don't think you are in any position to tell me or anyone else what they would or would not understand.

Metacrock: O yea I am.

Oh, no, you are not. You have demonstrated on numerous occasions that what you believe has little or nothing to do with reality.

Metacrock: YOu have no credentails to say that.

I know many high school students who could recognize and comment intelligently on your "philosophy." There is the real world and Metacrock's world.

Metacrock: You can't stand up to me in a debate and I didn't see you trying to.

Here I am, Metacrock. Prove the historicity of the Virgin Birth, or admit that you must rely on nothing more than faith. That is a challenge. I am standing as I type this.

Metacrock: YOu can't demonstrate any of my arguements are fallacious.

Again, just demonstrate the historicity of the Virgin Birth, or admit that you must rely solely on faith.

Metacrock: Yours are. You base most of your statements on really poor understandings of a field for which you have little background.

You will excuse me if I don't place a great deal of credence in your opinions of how much or how little I understand.

Metacrock: I really am on the doorstep of by doctorate.I don't care if you believe that or not.

rodahi: I don't particularly care if you are "on the doorstep of by doctorate" or not. As a matter of fact, I don't care if you have fifty doctorates. For the most part, you spew nonsense and support your faith in said nonsense with scholars who also spew nonsense.


Metacrock: You are just voicing your ignorance.

Prove it, and don't use faith as your proof.

rodahi

Metacrock: I know I'm good, you dont' understand, wait and read my book. I'll send you a copy if you are still around when it comes out.

rodahi: 1. I suppose some feel the need to make such statements about themselves. I am very sorry that you feel that need.
2. I have plenty of doorstops; keep the book.

Metacrock: Not to worry, I'm not just trolling you, I'm moving the thread to the Philosophy board. I'll be over soon, need to formulate my attack.

Good. You have admitted the Creed cannot be rationally supported. That is all I asked for.

MEtacrock: I said you don't get to be the orbitor of rationality

I am not the "orbitor[sic]" of anything. I am simply asking for verifiable evidence that demonstrates the historicity of the Virgin Birth.

Metacrock: O did I?

rodahi: Yes, you did. You admitted that it is based on faith, not evidence.


MEtacrock: Faith is not "irrational" in your sense of the term.

Faith is not evidence.

Metacrock: I thoght I was saying that your critique of it was misplaced and naive.

rodahi: Sometimes what you think and what you say are two different things.

Anyway, you seem to have changed your mind and now, apparently, mean you have a rational explanation (as in solid evidence) for why you believe that Jesus was conceived by the imaginary Holy Spirit for which the imaginary Virgin Mary was the conduit.

Please present the evidence, Metacrock, or admit your belief system is founded on nothing more than a "confession of faith."

MEtacrock: I presented it on the existence of God board about 50 times and no one ever out argued it. You wouldn't know that becasue to you anything an atheist says is auotmatically out arguing a Chrsitian even before you read it.

Don't you mean that you presented your nonsense on another board and when others pointed out the problems with it, you ignored it and declared yourself correct?

Metacrock: But you have totally distroted what I said. I explained that and STill understood what I was saying. I said I could give such reasons if I had to I did not say that is what my faith is based upon.

One more time, Metacrock: Give evidence demonstrating the historicity of the Virgin Birth or admit you must rely on nothing more than faith.

Metacrock: NOw I"m going to continue this on the philosphy board and I really mean it this time. It's off topic here, and you are too ignorant and biased to even mess with.[/QUOTE]

I am not interested in philosophy, Metacrock. I am interested in why Christians believe in the Creed when they cannot support that belief with anything more than faith.

rodahi

I am not interested in philosophy, Metacrock. I am interested in why Christians believe in the Creed when they cannot support that belief with anything more than faith.

rodahi[/B][/QUOTE]

While I am not part of the argument--which I did not read nor have the time to read--I would like to comment that believers can support their belief through lyric vision which only can be conceived to exist if there was truth in the Creed. That is to say, if the Creed is true and it can be rationalized with noetic vision from where it was written, lyric vision must be able to have intimations with this truth or it would not be true and therefore soon cease to exist. It is only hyletic vision that has no sight of this truth and since noetic vision cannot possibly exist without the existence of hyletic vision the believer has a valid position in accepting the Creed without justification.

Amos

While I am not part of the argument--which I did not read nor have the time to read--I would like to comment that believers can support their belief through lyric vision which only can be conceived to exist if there was truth in the Creed. That is to say, if the Creed is true and it can be rationalized with noetic vision from where it was written, lyric vision must be able to have intimations with this truth or it would not be true and therefore soon cease to exist. It is only hyletic vision that has no sight of this truth and since noetic vision cannot possibly exist without the existence of hyletic vision the believer has a valid position in accepting the Creed without justification.

Amos[/B][/QUOTE]

Amos, when you decide to make sense, I will respond to your posts. In the mean time, there when for back three and vision with on above city at she zip afternoon through five men toe jam football. Furthermore, are TV join out wall at much we ocean book visionary. Lastly, cup bus to chicken leaves four, but Lucy in the Sky with diamonds and Judy in disguise with glasses. Therefore, Christians should either present evidence demonstrating the historicity of the Virgin Birth, or admit that they rely solely on faith.

rodahi