Is knowledge of God natural knowledge?

[IndigoChild5559]

Not sure if I'd put it in the same category as those things. Rather than a creative means of expression and escape, organised religion is a regimented means of control and assimilation.

ROFL. Gee your bias isn't showing at all.

 

[KWED]

Yes, science is objective as a human behavior, but not all human behavior can be do objectively. Nor can all human behavior be done subjectively.
So yes, science is important, but that it is important is subjective. And that people can believe differently about how science works on the subjective, is subjective.

So we end here in practice. Science has limits and how different humans deal with that is subjective. Just as religion has limits and how different humans deal with that is subjective.

You claimed that science is a part of human behaviour. I was pointing out that it is not. It is a process that humans make use of to arrive at explanations.

Your link that was supposed to show that "science has limits" merely listed things that are not part of the scientific process and that science makes no claims about. It was a meaningless claim.

 

[KWED]

No, I never said that.

I never claimed you did. I was replying to someone else.

Physical is real and the mental is real. The objective is real and the subjective is real.
I am a skeptic and I don't believe that the world is just physical nor just mental.

Depends what you mean by "mental".
Our ability to imagine things is based in a physical reality, but not everything we imagine is.

You are dealing with 3 variants:
The world is material.
The world is immaterial.
I don't believe in either of those.

So you believe that the world is neither material nor immaterial. Good luck with that.

 

[KWED]

ROFL. Gee your bias isn't showing at all.

Note: an observation you disagree with is not evidence of bias.

If you think my observation is flawed, feel free to explain why.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You claimed that science is a part of human behaviour. I was pointing out that it is not. It is a process that humans make use of to arrive at explanations.

Your link that was supposed to show that "science has limits" merely listed things that are not part of the scientific process and that science makes no claims about. It was a meaningless claim.

That is your opinion in the end. I have a different one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never claimed you did. I was replying to someone else.

Depends what you mean by "mental".
Our ability to imagine things is based in a physical reality, but not everything we imagine is.

So you believe that the world is neither material nor immaterial. Good luck with that.

So what is the ontological status of "not everything we imagine is."?

 

[1213]

...
1. How does one become "righteous"?
2. Why would anyone want eternal life?

1. I have understood righteousness means basically wisdom of the just, right understanding, which makes person do good things, not because he has to, but because he understands it is good. That right understanding can be achieved for example by listening what Jesus said. His words can cause the change in person for righteous. Bible tells about righteousness and how to become righteous also these:

…He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10
…as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

2. I think the eternal life is not by people wanting it. It is a gift for righteous. And I believe it will be nice, because there will be no evil.

..."Eternal punishment" is inherently an unjust concept.
So basically, belief in god is based on threats of violence and promises of reward?
How very rational and civilised.

I don’t think It goes like that, because I think, if you do right only because you fear, you are not really righteous. And if you do good only to get reward, it is not really good nor righteous.

Death is an eternal punishment, because there is no coming back, it will be permanent solution. I don’t think that is bad, if unrighteous evil people have only a short moment of time so that they can show why it is better that they don’t get the eternal life.

 

[KWED]

1. I have understood righteousness means basically wisdom of the just, right understanding, which makes person do good things, not because he has to, but because he understands it is good. That right understanding can be achieved for example by listening what Jesus said. His words can cause the change in person for righteous. Bible tells about righteousness and how to become righteous also these:

Do you believe that a person can be wise, just and do good things without accepting god, the Bible or Jesus?

2. I think the eternal life is not by people wanting it. It is a gift for righteous. And I believe it will be nice, because there will be no evil.

You misunderstand. Why would anyone be happy with the gift of eternal life?
Imagine having done everything that it is possible to do, and done them all a trillion times - you would still have eternity left to fill. It would drive anyone insane. The very concept of eternal life is ridiculous.

I don’t think It goes like that, because I think, if you do right only because you fear, you are not really righteous. And if you do good only to get reward, it is not really good nor righteous.

OK. So if you believe in a god that rewards or punished depending on your behaviour, you cannot be "truly righteous" as there is always the element of threat and reward.
Therefore atheists who are just and kind and do good are more righteous than religious people who behave the same way.
Seems reasonable.

Death is an eternal punishment, because there is no coming back, it will be permanent solution.

But if you are dead, you don't know you are dead. It is only difficult for those around you. A bit like being stupid.

I don’t think that is bad, if unrighteous evil people have only a short moment of time so that they can show why it is better that they don’t get the eternal life.

But your god does not propose that. He punishes people for ever, for the "crime" of not being convinced by outlandish claims. That is patently unjust and unreasonable.

What's more, people can be genuinely evil during their lives and still get to heaven if they accept Jesus before they die. How is that just or reasonable? It also shows that it is not evil behaviour itself that god objects to, it is just people rejecting him. Sounds pretty needy and insecure.

 

[KWED]

So what is the ontological status of "not everything we imagine is."?

What, precisely, do you mean by that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never claimed you did. I was replying to someone else.

Depends what you mean by "mental".
Our ability to imagine things is based in a physical reality, but not everything we imagine is.

So you believe that the world is neither material nor immaterial. Good luck with that.

Take #2 Forget the old post in response to you. I misunderstood what I asked about that.

Well for bold one there is how it works.

The world is material.
The world is immaterial.
Of these one is false as with logic, yet both beliefs works for the everyday world.

I as a true non-religious believer, who have learned for the best atheists know how answer both beliefs and their believers, thus I am the most rational one, because I believe in one less than all of them.

 

[KWED]

Well for bold one there is how it works.
The world is material.
The world is immaterial.
Of these one is false as with logic, yet both beliefs works for the everyday world.

1. It is not a 50/50 issue. The world is almost certainly material, despite what you believe.
2. If the world is immaterial, it only works if you behave as if it is material, so claiming the world is immaterial is meaningless.

I as a true non-religious believer, who have learned for the best atheists know how answer both beliefs and their believers, thus I am the most rational one, because I believe in one less than all of them.

You are not "the most rational one" because you keep making irrational and unsupportable assertions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1. It is not a 50/50 issue. The world is almost certainly material, despite what you believe.
2. If the world is immaterial, it only works if you behave as if it is material, so claiming the world is immaterial is meaningless.

You are not "the most rational one" because you keep making irrational and unsupportable assertions.

Maybe if you use another set of axiomatic assumptions, you could do it differently. Not that you have to, because yours is one of those that works in a limited sense. And so is mine.
No, I am the most irrational one, but I am still here as far as I can tell, and some people like you keep telling me, that I really can't do it differently than them. And that is not just of you as non-religious. Some religious people do in effect the same.

That is in effect the actual falsification of your world view. No matter how material the world is, you can't reduce it to be only rational and indeed rationality is in a sense not material.

 

[1213]

Do you believe that a person can be wise, just and do good things without accepting god, the Bible or Jesus?

I think just and wise person would not say “God does not exist”.

You misunderstand. Why would anyone be happy with the gift of eternal life?

Imagine having done everything that it is possible to do, and done them all a trillion times - you would still have eternity left to fill. It would drive anyone insane. The very concept of eternal life is ridiculous.

Maybe you should learn to live in a moment. Time can lose its meaning. I think it all depends on what can be done and in what company. But, don’t worry, I don’t think people who would not want it will get it.

….But your god does not propose that. He punishes people for ever, for the "crime" of not being convinced by outlandish claims.

Why do you think so?

What's more, people can be genuinely evil during their lives and still get to heaven if they accept Jesus before they die.

Only if they become righteous, which means, they would not be evil anymore. I don’t think there will be many evil people, who in the last minute becomes righteous. But if so, why would I be against it?

It also shows that it is not evil behaviour itself that god objects to, it is just people rejecting him. Sounds pretty needy and insecure.

Rejecting God means that you reject for example the idea “love your neighbor as yourself”, which means, you reject good and do bad things.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think just and wise person would not say “God does not exist”.
...

I would never say that and I am an atheist.

 

[KWED]

I think just and wise person would not say “God does not exist”.

No true Scotsman/question begging.
Also, a wise person goes by the evidence and rational argument, so they would at the very least say that there is no reason to believe a god exists.
A wise person certainly wouldn't insist that something for which there is no evidence must exist.

But anyway, so you don't think that people can be wise, just and do good things without accepting god, the Bible or Jesus?
So how do you explain all the wise, just do-gooding atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc?

Maybe you should learn to live in a moment. Time can lose its meaning. I think it all depends on what can be done and in what company. But, don’t worry, I don’t think people who would not want it will get it.

How would "living in the moment" make an eternity of existence bearable? It's just an expression you know. It doesn't mean that you are actually unaware of everything that has happened, or the existence of a future.

Why do you think so?

Because he tells us. Who else are we to trust over what god intends?

Only if they become righteous, which means, they would not be evil anymore. I don’t think there will be many evil people, who in the last minute becomes righteous. But if so, why would I be against it?

So you would be happier with Hitler who genuinely repented on his deathbed being in heaven, than a pacifist, vegan, teetotal doctor who spent their whole life volunteering for disaster charities but rejected Jesus as nonsense.
Crikey!

Rejecting God means that you reject for example the idea “love your neighbor as yourself”,

Utter nonsense.
The concept of "love thy neighbour as thyself" exists independently of god - although I don't subscribe to it as I think people should only be treated according to their behaviour. The Golden Rule is a better maxim.

which means, you reject good and do bad things.

So anyone who rejects your version of god is necessarily a bad person who does no good?
Are you high?

 

[Sheldon]

I can explain it in a way that proves it beyond doubt that these are designed

Yet you wasted that sentnece on a bare claim?

but since it won't convince anyone not convinced

Well convincing people who are already convinced is pretty easy.

who am I compared to your big scientists right?

Someone unable to demonstrate any objective evidence?

So there is no point.

Well it's your call of course.

 

[1213]

No true Scotsman/question begging.
Also, a wise person goes by the evidence and rational argument, so they would at the very least say that there is no reason to believe a god exists.

Wise and blind person could maybe say so. But, if one sees all things created, it would be quite stupid to say that there is no evidence. Whole life is the evidence for the Creator.

Because he tells us.

Where?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wise and blind person could maybe say so. But, if one sees all things created, it would be quite stupid to say that there is no evidence. Whole life is the evidence for the Creator.
...

Your subjective reason as individual works both ways. From another person's perspective your assessment of other peeople apply to you as other people.

Here it is in all its simpliticy:
You: I am right and you are wrong.
Someone else: No, I am right and you are wrong.
That method is not that wise as I see it, because it doesn't work as far as I can tell.

 

[KWED]

Wise and blind person could maybe say so. But, if one sees all things created, it would be quite stupid to say that there is no evidence. Whole life is the evidence for the Creator.

Could you explain how the world around us is evidence of gods?

Where?

The Bible. You should read it. It is quite interesting.

 

[KWED]

Your subjective reason as individual works both ways. From another person's perspective your assessment of other peeople apply to you as other people.
Here it is in all its simpliticy:
You: I am right and you are wrong.
Someone else: No, I am right and you are wrong.
That method is not that wise as I see it, because it doesn't work as far as I can tell.

No, you are wrong.