God's Creation, and Some Misconceptions

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, but that doesn't stop other people form believing differently than you. Since we are in science and religion that is in the end a consequence of the replication part of the replication of the fittest genome.
We humans have to make our own purpose in effect. And they do it differently than you. That is one fact of how the natural world works. The joke is that if you claim they do it wrong, then that is not just science in the end, because they can do differently than you.

One still has to follow the various laws of logic here. One does not need to follow scientific evidence, but no one religion gets to declare it is the one true religion in this section. One needs to treat one's beliefs better than as a piece of fan fiction.

 

[idea]

agreement from multiple sources? so are you saying the majority is correct? yes, or no.

101G.

We are all blind mice describing an elephant, it is all relative. If multiple labs independently measure, say gravity to be 9.8 m/s^2 or multiple cultures all agree everyone's well-being is better with honesty, justice, kindness - general observable principles of natural laws are better trusted when many cultures agree.

The Quran, the Bible, the Rig Veda, the Dhammapada - all blind mice. I only take as doctrine what all agree on, those simple general principles of kindness, working together, honesty, and believe confining oneself to any single group limits perception.

SBNA for me abd so many others. Spiritual, yes. Affiliated-no.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

without the assumption, of either being true, or false, based on the writing itself is this the same person or not? yes or no.

again, without acceptation, the basic question is mathematical. can you deduce two or one person from both writings.

101G.

Yes, I get your question if I accept your assumptions. But I don't know if the text refers to actual persons at all.

Here is the problem.
If we assume the text is true, it doesn't mean it is true. It just means we assume it.
You again don't seem to understand the difference between a valid deduction versus sound/true premises.

Premise one. 101G is not a real person.
Premise two. Texts not written by a real person that is claimed a real, but by someone else can't be trusted.
Conclusion: Therefore the texts by 101G can't be trusted.
Do you understand the problem? The deduction is valid, but premise one is not sound/true.
Even premise two can be doubted.

In the same sense your deduction might be valid, but that doesn't mean that the premises are sound/true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

NO, because 101G never beat his wife at anytime..... (smile). lol, lol, lol, Oh dear. next.... please.

101G

So you cannot answer the question. It requires a yes or a no.

I can play the same silly games that you play.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One still has to follow the various laws of logic here. One does not need to follow scientific evidence, but no one religion gets to declare it is the one true religion in this section. One needs to treat one's beliefs better than as a piece of fan fiction.

Is that true? I do get your point and I use it myself in some cases. But it is not true, it is a norm. You do understand the difference?

 

[101G]

We are all blind mice describing an elephant, it is all relative. If multiple labs independently measure, say gravity to be 9.8 m/s^2 or multiple cultures all agree everyone's well-being is better with honesty, justice, kindness - general observable principles of natural laws are better trusted when many cultures agree.

The Quran, the Bible, the Rig Veda, the Dhammapada - all blind mice. I only take as doctrine what all agree on, those simple general principles of kindness, working together, honesty, and believe confining oneself to any single group limits perception.

SBNA for me abd so many others. Spiritual, yes. Affiliated-no.

"We are all blind mice describing an elephant". is this not what the bible is for, the "BLIND" to see/KNOW when describing the elephant? so we, the blind, make no mistakes in describing the elephant?

101G.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are all blind mice describing an elephant, it is all relative. If multiple labs independently measure, say gravity to be 9.8 m/s^2 or multiple cultures all agree everyone's well-being is better with honesty, justice, kindness - general observable principles of natural laws are better trusted when many cultures agree.

The Quran, the Bible, the Rig Veda, the Dhammapada - all blind mice. I only take as doctrine what all agree on, those simple general principles of kindness, working together, honesty, and believe confining oneself to any single group limits perception.

SBNA for me abd so many others. Spiritual, yes. Affiliated-no.

I find that there is worth in many religious texts. The problem is that people that are literalistic tend to lose the only worthwhile parts of their holy books. They lose its message, and that often makes them worse people than they are when it should be making them better people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that true? I do get your point and I use it myself in some cases. But it is not true, it is a norm. You do understand the difference?

I do not understand what you are asking here.

 

[101G]

So you cannot answer the question. It requires a yes or a no.

I can play the same silly games that you play.

I said no, but U did not hear it, deftness in understanding? ..... (smile)..... game over.

101G.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

let 101G help you out. everything written in the bible is not necessary a statement of TRUth, but ... EVERYTHING written in the Bible is TRULY STATED. i.... (smile).

101G.

That bold claim itself has a truth value or it is a dogmatic assertion. I use the former and treat it as unknown in the end for if there is a God at all. You do it differently as far as I can tell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"We are all blind mice describing an elephant". is this not what the bible is for, the "BLIND" to see/KNOW when describing the elephant? so we, the blind, make no mistakes in describing the elephant?

101G.

If you say that elephants are only like a tree, or only like a snake, then yes. That would be an error on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said no, but U did not hear it, deftness in understanding? ..... (smile)..... game over.

101G.

You said too much. By your own rules you lost the game.

Your question was answered. You did not like it. You could not follow your own rules.

 

[101G]

That bold claim itself has a truth value or it is a dogmatic assertion. I use the former and treat it as unknown in the end for if there is a God at all. You do it differently as far as I can tell.

there are not any unknows. only temporary to the seeker.

101G

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I said no, but U did not hear it, deftness in understanding? ..... (smile)..... game over.

101G.

So you have beaten your wife in the past.
Well, no, but that is the trick of phrasing question a certain way and demanding only yes or no answers.
So of us have learn not to use the assumptions behind a question.

 

[idea]

They were wiser than the OP. The fastest way to refute the Bible is to assume that it is literally true front to end.

A pity, as the point of the parables seems lost within literal interpretations. The Bible is a beautiful book with many thoughtful passages if not read literally.

I do not read any history book literally. All books are incomplete, contain mistakes. Kindness is real, principles are real, understanding principles seems to me the best focus.

Highest stage,
Believe own values, respect others, be ready to learn
"I know what I believe in and what I think is valid, others may think differently and I'm prepared to reconsider my views"

William G. Perry (psychologist) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It is difficult to reconsider views, but I seek to listen to all and remain a responsible student with good research practices - use multiple references, multiple views, open to change.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

there are not any unknows. only temporary to the seeker.

101G

Yeah, I do that differently, since I am a skeptic.

 

[101G]

If you say that elephants are only like a tree, or only like a snake, then yes. That would be an error on your part.

that's because you read the bible without the WISDOM of the Holy Spirit, the TEACHER... (smile). that's why many are IGNORANT.

101G.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

that's because you read the bible without the WISDOM of the Holy Spirit, the TEACHER... (smile). that's why many are IGNORANT.

101G.

Well, I do wisdom differently than you, since I use another tradition/culture.

 

[101G]

So you have beaten your wife in the past.

is that a fact or your oponion?

Well, no, but that is the trick of phrasing question a certain way and demanding only yes or no answers.

no trick, just fact. did U not hear...... see, that's the problem U DID NOT HEAR TO "UNDERSTAND". that's why U could not answer the John 1:3 and Isaiah 44:24 question. LISTEN,,,,,,, OK.

101G

 

[101G]

Yeah, I do that differently, since I am a skeptic.

why be a skeptic.? ,,,, KNOW.

101G