Choices

[firedragon]

When you go to their profile, it will be under the information tab, if they have chosen to display that information.

There is a lot of settings one can turn off.

Regards Tony

Ah. So you have to to their profile. Understood.

Im still calling ladies "brother", and not looking at avatar names when responding, not remembering names.

 

[Sheldon]

That is a belief, not a claim.

I disagree, as the two are not mutually exclusive as you keep asserting, however it still carries a "burden of proof". Which of course your posts consistently fail to meet, while trying to hide behind this kind of semantics.

There is no objective evidence, sorry.

Quelle surprise, invisible mermaids again.

Everything has a cause, so accidents, injuries and diseases have causes, but that does not mean that they were not preordained.

Straw man fallacy, however all you've done is repeat your original "unevidenced claim" that things are preordained.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Ah. So you have to to their profile. Understood.

Im still calling ladies "brother", and not looking at avatar names when responding, not remembering names.

Yes it is wise to look at the profile first.

It helps me to know who I am replying to, but I do not look at them all I must admit, I look at those that have a interest is dialogue.

From memory you can also see who has viewed your profile? Will have to look again, as that may be another forum I was on.

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

It's only demonstrably false if we - and indeed, you - are convinced that you are a reliable source of information about your own true nature.

No one is questioning what you think, or what you believe.

Many spiritual people, of all religious denominations and none, have expressed the belief that the Universal Spirit is present in all people,

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. many people believed the world was flat, it turned out they were wrong, go figure. The number of people that believe a claim tells us nothing about it's validity, only a demonstration of sufficient objective evidence can do this.

for most of us the sense of that presence is drowned out by the worldly clamour in our own heads;

I don't believe your claim, can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support your claim?

that the ego, in order to protect it’s own primacy, is constantly working to drown out the knowledge of that divine presence.

I don't believe your claim, can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support your claim?

 

[Sheldon]

When you say evidence, what do you mean?

noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Can you clearly and precisely explain what you mean by evidence,

noun

1. 
   
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

and if you can provide an example, its good.

It wasn't my claim, it was Trailblazer's claim, so no.

 

[Sheldon]

We have a choice between misguidance and guidance. If we choose misguidance, we don't choose which type but rather Iblis takes control and chooses for us. If we choose guidance, then we will be attacked from all sides by sorcery and forces of Iblis till we succumb to misguidance, and so you have to refuge in the asylum of God. There the barriers are strong, the weapons sharp, and the sustenance powerful and luminous.

When you join God and his forces and friends, you have a choice on how you want to contribute and what goodly loan you want to give God to earn a place of honor in the next.

When you choose misguidance, you aren't free but rather intoxicated in love of Dunya and Satan controls all your decisions practically.

To be free we have to worship God sincerely. Then we can make real life decisions.

That makes no sense sorry, and I see multiple claims, but not even the pretence of demonstrating any objective evidence for them? So I have no choice but to disbelieve such claims.

 

[firedragon]

noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

noun

1. 
   
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It wasn't my claim, it was Trailblazer's claim, so no.

Forget about TB's claim for now.

1. You said "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.". Does that mean scientific facts, scientific evidence, empirical evidence as an empiricist, or rational proofs, philosophical arguments, logical arguments?

2. Giving your own example is not reliant on someone else's claim. When you ask for evidence you should know what evidence you will accept, why, etc. You should know your epistemology.

With out it, the question and answers are all going to be invalid.

Cheers.

 

[Sheldon]

I found this passage which I see supports the concept of predestination but shows that we are guided in the process, which would to me logically mean we face choices.

The Lord has created and balanced all things and has fixed their destinies and guided them (Surah 87:2-3) .

I can quote passages from the Harry Potter books that support the idea wizardry is real, but I'm disinclined to believe things just because another human being has claimed them in print, even if they make the unevidenced claim the source is divine.

 

[Sheldon]

1. You said "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.". Does that mean scientific facts, scientific evidence, empirical evidence as an empiricist, or rational proofs, philosophical arguments, logical arguments?

Well not to be pedantic, but the dictionary defines the word as commonly understood, it's just a reference tool, otherwise words have no meaning. It's not for me to say what others can offer, I suggest the most compelling they think they have would be a prudent start.

2. Giving your own example is not reliant on someone else's claim. When you ask for evidence you should know what evidence you will accept, why, etc. You should know your epistemology.

I disagree, if concepts are asserted as real, that are vague or even unfalsifiable, it's for others to determine what should be offered in support of such ideas. The burden of proof always rests with the claim, or at the very least with the bigger claim.

With out it, the question and answers are all going to be invalid.

Well I can only question what is offered, the expectation I should do the heavy lifting for others who make unevidenced claims is silly. If I claimed invisible flooflangs existed, it would be absurd to expect you to tell me what sufficient objective evidence would be for the claim.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you identify if a poster is male or female?

Look under the tail.

 

[Sheldon]

Look under the tail.

Kudos to you, I just spat out some moderately expensive Shiraz...

 

[QuestioningMind]

Sorry, but that is the fallacy of black and white thinking. We can know 'something' about God but not much, and we cannot know the Essence of God. That is what wiki site means by COMPLETELY UNKNOWABLE.

The Black-or-White Fallacy is the provision of only two alternatives in an argument when there are actually more options available. ... It's also sometimes called the Gray Fallacy, between black and white options, or the middle-ground fallacy, after a middle ground between two warring camps.
black and white fallacy examples in politics - nazwa.pl

Sorry, but if you can know SOMETHING about a thing then it obviously is not COMPLETELY unknowable.

All you've done in conveniently created a situation where your god is unknowable enough that you could never expect to get verifiable evidence for its existence, but it happens to be JUST knowable enough that you can know it exists. Your definition of COMPLETELY UNKNOWABLE changes, all depending on what's being asked of you. IF someone wants actual verifiable evidence THEN it's SO unknowable that it's ridiculous to expect any such evidence... HOWEVER, when it comes to being able to KNOW that this god is real, your god SUDDENLY becomes KNOWABLE, at least to that small degree.

You insist on having it both ways, but you can't. Either your god IS completely unknowable or it isn't. If it IS, then you're just pretending that you know. If it ISN'T then there should be some verifiable evidence to back up the claim.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. many people believed the world was flat, it turned out they were wrong, go figure. The number of people that believe a claim tells us nothing about it's validity, only a demonstration of sufficient objective evidence can do this.



I don't believe your claim, can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support your claim?



I don't believe your claim, can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support your claim?

You would have to find the evidence for yourself. It has been said that the Kingdom of Heaven is within you, so that may be the place to begin searching; but you would have to search for it with an open mind.

Saying things in Latin doesn’t help your claim that you’re not in the wind up btw. Just makes me think you’re pretending to be Harry Potter.

 

[Sheldon]

You would have to find the evidence for yourself.

No I really won't, the burden of proof rests with the claim, this is an epistemological fact.

It has been said that the Kingdom of Heaven is within you, so that may be the place to begin searching; but you would have to search for it with an open mind.

It has been said we live on a flat planet at the centre of the universe, I put no stock in unevidenced platitudes. Open mind means unbiased, and since I set the same standard for all claims and beliefs I am open minded, claiming to know an immutable truth is the very definition of closed minded.

Saying things in Latin doesn’t help your claim that you’re not in the wind up btw. Just makes me think you’re pretending to be Harry Potter.

I have no idea what you mean sorry, if you are content to make irrational assertions that is your choice, if you now are content to ignore it when it is pointed out, then it's risible of you to talk to others about being open minded. I didn't invent the method of logic, and I linked explanations of why they applied to your claims.

No point shooting the messenger.....

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, but if you can know SOMETHING about a thing then it obviously is not COMPLETELY unknowable.

I already explained that. It is the Essence of God (God's intrinsic nature) that is completely unknowable.

All you've done in conveniently created a situation where your god is unknowable enough that you could never expect to get verifiable evidence for its existence, but it happens to be JUST knowable enough that you can know it exists.

I did not create that situation, it is simply the way it is. there is no way to 'objectively verify' that God exists because God is not a material object. the only way that we can know if God exists or anything about God is from what the Messengers of God reveal. I did not set it up that way, God did.

Your definition of COMPLETELY UNKNOWABLE changes, all depending on what's being asked of you. IF someone wants actual verifiable evidence THEN it's SO unknowable that it's ridiculous to expect any such evidence... HOWEVER, when it comes to being able to KNOW that this god is real, your god SUDDENLY becomes KNOWABLE, at least to that small degree.

No, I have never changed my definition of COMPLETELY UNKNOWABLE. As it says about God on the wiki site:
"his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable."

God's attributes are not God's Essence. We can know from scripture that God is Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Immaterial, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient but we can never know the intrinsic nature of God (God's Essence).

You insist on having it both ways, but you can't. Either your god IS completely unknowable or it isn't. If it IS, then you're just pretending that you know. If it ISN'T then there should be some verifiable evidence to back up the claim.

God is not completely unknowable, only God's Essence is completely unknowable.
I don't know what you mean by "some verifiable evidence to back up the claim." What are you wanting to verify?

 

[firedragon]

Well not to be pedantic, but the dictionary defines the word as commonly understood, it's just a reference tool, otherwise words have no meaning. It's not for me to say what others can offer, I suggest the most compelling they think they have would be a prudent start.

Dictionary meanings of words is not good enough. But that's only for people who are prepared for their own epistemic validity. Upto you.

I disagree, if concepts are asserted as real, that are vague or even unfalsifiable, it's for others to determine what should be offered in support of such ideas. The burden of proof always rests with the claim, or at the very least with the bigger claim.

You can sit all day and speak of burden of proof. But if you are not sure of your own epistemology, it is just an arbitrary situational pleasure for you. Nothing more, nothing less.

So as usual, either you respond with a bit of humility, or respond with ad hominem.

Go ahead Sheldon.

 

[firedragon]

Look under the tail.

Please give a link for the tail in this forum and where to click to look under it. Thanks.

 

[rational experiences]

God came from a higher body mass released into burning first. O bodies that owned no space they are from the beginning.

As God O first was in eternal mass O each burst burnt. The surrounds burnt too leaving empty space. O burnt now sat in space as gods.

God is just burnt mass that men claim is a mass of fused energy. And can create new reactions from O God the mass as the body had factually come out of another bodies converted form.

The eternal. The story where how and why.

To be enabled to re convert it. O God as a planet mass.

God the state in science.

If it were not true then how did you cause conversion of Earths CH heaven spirit gas into lesser as Jesus?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I can quote passages from the Harry Potter books that support the idea wizardry is real, but I'm disinclined to believe things just because another human being has claimed them in print, even if they make the unevidenced claim the source is divine.

Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) was a Messenger of God. That is what 8 see when I read the power contained within the Message recorded in the Quran.

It is your life to see faith, however you choose to do.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sorry, but if you can know SOMETHING about a thing then it obviously is not COMPLETELY unknowable.

Yes it is a tricky concept, but we are told all we can know of God is the Messenger and the essence of the Messengers are the attributes.

Those attributes do no define God.

There is much written in this, but it really needs to be studied.

Regards Tony