TedM

What needs to be confirmed? My opinion about you? My opinion about the ability to judge God?

I share your concerns about God and why would he bother, and I'd add to it why would he not be more open with us about it if he really loves us..But I also recognize that these are simply questions from minds that are extremely limited in comparison to that of the Creator. Should WE even bother? Sure, if we want to, but I don't think it's gotten anyone anywhere other than to places where we perhaps form conclusions, tentative or final. But those conclusions have little merit because of our near-total ignorance, IMO. To think otherwise is IMO foolish.

You got very hung up on whether I was discussing assumptions, conclusions, questions, statements, etc... I consider that nitpicking the language -- something you are adept at doing. Tell me, does your 2nd statement contain an assumption about God or a conclusion, or both?:

spin

What you know,... in order to know it. In the context (of what you are trying not to understand), the discourse linkage should be clear:

No-one said you were deluded. I said that you have no way of knowing

(The grammatical complement of "knowing" is to be derived from the previous sentence, ie "No-one said you were deluded".)

And if that is still not clear, we go back to the original statement:

However, after the CIA work continues for a long time, it takes outside, objective help for him to learn that his CIA handler and the whole spy affair are a delusion of a schizophrenic mind. I don't know if god exists, but you have no way of knowing if you are like Nash before he receives help or not.

You think god exists. I don't know if god exists, but you have no way of knowing without independently observable evidence. I don't think you have any such evidence, so how is your belief in your god any different in quality from Nash's belief in William Parcher and the others?

Again, you have no way of knowing. You are vainly speculating about our limitations with respect to your hypothetical god without any hope of independent corroboration.

As you have no yardstick with which to make these statements, you are pissing in the wind.

Bull sees red object. Charges. It doesn't even know what the object is or why it charges.

Neither. And you still haven't acknowledged the hypothetical language.

outhouse

because that really is a impossibility


as written, the creation legends are previously used mythology, and have all been proven false by science and modern knowledge.

Their old ancient mythology never did happen as written, so there is no foundation for creation to rest on.





Deities on the other hand have all been born of mythology


Man has a long track record of creating and defining deities. And in he case of the abrahamic deity many call a creator. We see exactly how man made and defined his concept from compiling a few deities from previous religions [Canaanites]



So we have creation mythology and deity mythology.


and absolutely no place in reality where a magic man could ever be attributed to anything in reality. Let alone creation.

TedM

I'm not limiting God's creative abilities to those described anywhere.

TedM

I'm not sure why you are focusing on my belief in God. It's irrelevant to the topic, which concerns your judgements about God's nature, and my claim that it is fine to speculate but foolish to conclude much of anything.


Most would agree that that creator is smarter than the created, and would consider it to be simple logic. However, there is no shortage of people who act like they are smarter than God Himself


I consider "it's going to get awfully boring" as an untestable assumption on your part. How would you know that God can be bored by humans? As for the hypothetical, it is if you say it is. It didn't come across that way. And I don't believe you don't buy into your own speculations on this.

outhouse

well atleast your clear that deities only live in peoples imaginations, and have no nor ever had, a place in reality

TedM

I don't limit the location of a deity to people's imaginations. What is reality?

Thought Criminal

I'm not as smart as God, in exactly the same sense that I'm not as good a detective as Sherlock Holmes.

However, as both of these are fictional characters, I'm actually smarter and a better detective, simply because I exist.

outhouse

where else has he ever lived?



and if you have to ask what reality is, how can we debate where a deity would exist. ?




Do you not agree, man has a long history of creating and defining their deities??

spin

I do appreciate your rubber-necked avoidance of the elephant in the room. Your belief in god is the reason you insist against all logic on turning speculation into assumption. Your belief in god, like a dictator, forces you to distort what you deal with. That's why I'll call you out on your dancing around and point out that you are misleading yourself and refusing to test your beliefs, meaning that your working understandings may, like Nash's, be delusion. And I ask you to stop basing your thought on such foundations that have not been laid.

I don't have judgments about god's nature. Speculations on the semantic construct are a linguistic exercise.

You can crap on with untestable assumptions as much as you like, but untestable assumptions based on untestable assumptions is just nonsense.

More intelligent children have been known to be born to less intelligent people. Creations have been known to far exceed their creators' expectations. Heuristic entities need not be limited by those responsible for them. Although the assumption you make, supported by "most would agree", may be true, but, yet again, you wouldn't know. You are just bullshitting.

No, it's not merely if I say it is. Language is a shared cultural artefact. This falls on the language not me. I think I have used sufficient cues for neutral readers of English to comprehend. The first sentence sets the tone:

My wonder is why he/she/it--without gonads I doubt that gods can be gender specific--would have bothered with all this flesh stuff at all.

This contains my agnosticism and indicates the speculative nature of my comments, which the language throughout reinforces. You have stubbornly reinvented my comments, decontextualizing them, and manipulating them against their content. Your motivation seems based on your belief in the god whose existence I see no reason for you to accept and your apparent, though unnecessary, desire to protect.

As I have sufficiently signaled my position in the initial post you are complaining about, I'll wait for you to stop working from your eisegesis and start reading what I said. Then you have the chance to be exegetical.

So do you want to deal with that elephant? Or do you prefer not to know what you think you know? Are you going to continue to make unfruitful analyses based on untested foundations? Or will you seek some independent confirmation for those working ideas of yours you hold to be true?