Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by BO XIAN
that ONLY cosmologies
which deserve a "better" or perhaps . . . discussable rating
are those which admit being flawed or wrong.
That is not what I said.
I said those which are open to possibly being wrong and flawed.
I stand corrected. Sorry I left out the "possibly."
I am talking about any and all 'cosmologies'. If it's believed to be infallible truth discussion as to the validity of those 'truths' to begin
with is not allowed.
Any 'cosmology' like that is inferior to one that can be redefined and refined through reason and experimentation.
That ASSUMES, it seems to me, that
"ULTIMATE PERFECT TRUTH"
is ONLY arrived at in your construction on reality
a very flawed and tortured rational process REASONING THINGS OUT by very flawed human critters.
I don't find that overly logical.
In my construction on reality, TRUTH became a man and acted like the God He was . . . with dramatic demonstrations to prove it.
Yours 'conjurs' up some sort of cobbled together consensus from within the ASSUMED logical and sufficiently brilliant finite observers fabricating
some infinitely perfect truth . . . by social consensus.
In mine, TRUTH BREAKS IN FROM OUTSIDE.
Yes that is my opinion. I do not believe we posses books with infallible truths about all of existence.
Personally, believing in the Judeo/Christian cosmology as ultimate TRUTH AND REALITY is plenty discussable.
That might be grand . . . IF . . . there
was no cosmology that was, in fact, true.
What is there to discuss?
I have to believe as you do it's the ultimate truth to discuss. If I don't believe it to be the ultimate truth, the perfect 'cosmology', what will
our discussion look like? I say I don't believe it. You say that I should. I ask why and you say because I should.
No. That's not my reality. There's all manner of things to discuss from what TYPES of EVIDENCE are available for my convictions vs yours.
Then there's the issues of how reliable are the different varieties of evidence.
Of course, some are interested in such discussions and some are not.
JUST AS SOME atheists and agnostics are interested in the deliberate religion forum discussions and some are not. Others are interrested in the
incidental religious cosmology nuances, inferences and statements made on other forums out of say the Christian cosmology . . . and some are not.
JUST AS SOME Christians are interested in the deliberate discussions of the presumed superiorities of atheism according to some of those adherents . .
. and some are not.
And SOME Christians are interested in the incidental atheist, agnostic, . . . . whatever flavor . . . cosmologies expressed in nuances, inferences and
statements made on other forums out of those respective cosmologies . . . and some are not.
Well I don't buy into this notion it's a perfect and absolute reflection of infallible truth. I think a superior 'cosmology' is
Wellllllllll, maintain your tight grip on your conviction that a SUPERIOR 'cosmology' is fallible as long as you wish.
And I'll maintain my firm convicitons that the cosmology which has broken through to my consciousness in RELATIONSHIP and in demonstration of
convincing Loving Majesty and Power . . .
Time will tell who's cosmology accounts for the maximum number of data points.