posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:08 PM
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
If you have a way of arguing the points made in the OP, then consider aiming your comments at the evidence. Trying to render a derailment of the
train because you do not like where it leads is not a point that needs to be made. The simple fact remains.
This is the problem I've been trying to get to this whole time, Enoch. I'm not aiming at where the train is headed. I'm aiming at trying to understand
where the train started from; which is why I continually ask you to explain your axioms. (Not your ending "axioms" that are populated by a list of
concept, non-concept and metaphor, but your beginning axioms) I have been labouring to get to the bottom; all the way to the bottom. But you
This is one thing I would like to get to the bottom of:
God makes claims. Those claims are shown to be in perfect reflection with the world around us.
And this is one of the metaphors that do no good:
Shattering the mirror, and picking out aspects of the reflection you do not like, will not
change the fact that the mirror reveals God.
To say this:
Argue all you want, I should not be able to describe physics and DNA within Genesis 1 unless it is both Truth and Divinely inspired.
is completely empty unless I understand the foundation. What you are doing is starting half way down the chain of epistemology or usurping it all
together and planting a flag in the name of "truth". If I wanted, I could do the same. You can continue to go back to an arbitrary measurement like
the alphabet but all you are making is alphabet soup...or alphagetti.... We as a species find correlation and coincidence in everything.
One last thing; I still, after all of these exchanges with you do not understand what you are trying to say with this:
Speaking of Light, consider the evidence in the OP for the nature of consciousness in matter
If you really want to help me, answer this: What is the nature of the relationship between subject and object?
You can tell me that I’m fighting and not arguing the evidence, that’s fine. But if you post this stuff on a forum and ask for feedback, why is it
like pulling teeth when someone asks you to explain your metaphysical stance? I know you want to talk about the material you present and that is great
to see, but if I ask you to elucidate your metaphysical axioms, your epistemology or your theory of concepts I fail to see why this should be a
troubling task. Why should I take your word for it if I can’t examine how you form your knowledge. I cannot keep asking you the same questions over
and over without getting answers and then just one day believe what you say anyway; to fault me for that is...I don’t know. It’s odd.
edit on 19-7-2013 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)