Hypothetical Question for Christians

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
That which I think is true.
So why does that definition of belief, when applied to your belief in your spirit-sense, somehow mean that you don't have to demonstrate that this spirit-sense exists, just like any other sense anyone would believe they have?

I wouldn't have the former without the latter.
Doesn't matter. I wouldn't be able to see my computer without my sense of sight, but I can demonstrate that I have a sense of sight without my computer.

That was quite discourteous.
Actually, it wasn't. Do you really think that stating that someone is discourteous - without yelling, swearing, all caps, etc. - is discourteous? I hope you don't think parents are being rude when they correct - calmly and appopriately - their children when their children are rude.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I have noticed that most threads in which you engage myself and other Christians deteriorate into unfounded vague complaints on your part that your points are not being addressed, and even though next to Algor, you are my favorite atheist here, I find that very annoying. We usually start out quite well.
That's because of the behavior of the Christians. I can document that, too. That doesn't eliminate the rare case where I may have gone too far with that.

ETA: For example, it's very difficult - not impossible, admittedly - to directly respond to an issue without using the word that defines that issue, or some synonym or some reference to it. More in a sec.

ETAA:
Jeez, it literally took me ONE attempt to find an example of this. From the following thread,
Howie says that atheists claim that their brains evolved by random occurrences. My reply was this:
Your 7-point proof fails at #1 because it ignores natural selection, which was involved in creating brains and which is the exact opposite of a random process.
BTW, not that this is the point of my example, but my reply was as direct as a reply could be, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

Howie then replies,
Natural selection is insufficient mechanism to produce brains. The human brain is designed and teleological. Not undesigned and unplanned.
The actual issue with my reply to Howie's #1 is what atheists claim, not whether what they claim is correct or not.
 
Last edited:

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
So why does that definition of belief, when applied to your belief in your spirit-sense, somehow mean that you don't have to demonstrate that this spirit-sense exists, just like any other sense anyone would believe they have?

I HAVE to? Says who? I can't, so I don't.


Doesn't matter. I wouldn't be able to see my computer without my sense of sight, but I can demonstrate that I have a sense of sight without my computer.

To a deaf and dumb skeptical paraplegic? No you couldn't.

Actually, it wasn't. Do you really think that stating that someone is discourteous - without yelling, swearing, all caps, etc. - is discourteous? I hope you don't think parents are being rude when they correct - calmly and appopriately - their children when their children are rude.

You implied I lacked courtesy. I returned the mild insult. Get over it.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I HAVE to? Says who? I can't, so I don't.
Please, stop being obtuse. You're telling me you think I meant what I wrote in the sense you took it?

To a deaf and dumb skeptical paraplegic? No you couldn't.
We've been through that without you refuting my objection. If you think otherwise, you go through the thread and demonstrate it to me (hah! - get it?).

I'm running out of patience bending over backwards to make things clear to you, and it's about time the pendulum swung the other way.

Remember that hypothetical?

Remember that hypothetical?

Remember that hypothetical that you SILL haven't replied to?


You implied I lacked courtesy. I returned the mild insult. Get over it.
Tuquoque fallacy.

For the record, in summary, I will state that one DOES need to demonstrate that one has some spirit-sense; failing that - which is where we are now - the rational person concludes that it doesn't exist (until such time as it can be objectively demonstrated). This means that you are either fooling yourself, falling prey to confirmation bias, or being dishonest to some extent, either with yourself or with others, or something similar. I would ask you to seriously consider that possibility, but my experience with you strongly suggest you won't, which is another shame.

It would be different if we were merely disagreeing on the substance of the issue. It's hard enough to maintain patience when disagreements are deep and difficult. But adding in your sophistry pushes it past even my reserves of patience, which are not inconsiderable, according to others (who are not necessarily my friends).

Stiggy, don't bother to reply, I'm done with you in this thread. I'll have to work on developing my patience; that's on me, and I'll do my best in the future. I've said above what I think is on you.

I hope I have enough presence of mind not to engage with you again until you have demonstrated (jeez, that word just can't go away, can it?) that you've eliminated much of your sophistry.

Goodbye.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
The presence of God is as objective to me as the computer screen in front of me.
This seems disturbing to me in that an objective experience of God is a separate one. In other words, one can only view God objectively while separate from him. Everyone else is aware of God within. Paul says that there is nothing that can separate us from God, but anyone who bows down to some objective god is separate from that god, not to mention an idolater.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
This seems disturbing to me in that an objective experience of God is a separate one. In other words, one can only view God objectively while separate from him. Everyone else is aware of God within. Paul says that there is nothing that can separate us from God, but anyone who bows down to some objective god is separate from that god, not to mention an idolater.

God is both subjectively known and objectively known. I sense His presence but not His essence. I strive to know as I am known..
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
God is both subjectively known and objectively known. I sense His presence but not His essence. I strive to know as I am known..
I can see how you say that you're objectively known because you're an object of God's knowledge, but omniscience precludes the known. In other words, all-knowing is not partial knowing. Partial knowing allows room for whatever may be known.

The same is true for consciousness, Pure consciousness precludes an object. Pure consciousness cannot be conscious of anything.

As long as Jesus remains an object of one's faith, he can never subjectively be received. Hence he points out that he must leave before he can send the comforter to subjectively indwell within them. This indwelling is what allows one to receive revelation.

One cannot know another fully unless and until they are the other. Hence we read of being "in Christ".

To say one can be subjectively known and objectively known is a contradiction. No subject is ever known, or we could also say that no subject is an object. As soon as we note it as an object, it can no longer be the subject.

I believe that you sense being the object of God's knowledge. You are known of God, and this is something that can be sensed, but this sense of being known only provides one with the illusion of God as an object. One may grow in knowledge of God's will, but there is no concomitant objectifying of God that comes along with it.

We all agree that to objectify someone is insulting, but we never seem to see how this is just as true with God.

When one receives knowledge of God's will, we intuitively become aware of the reality of God, but it doesn't then follow that God objectively exists. This is an assumption on our part. It's understandable to make this assumption, but it is neither necessary nor does it logically follow.

Biblical authors routinely objectify God with messengers, or angels. When reading, they will flip back and forth giving the impression that two authors are being blended, but the message becomes the messenger. With Christ the messenger becomes the message. He personifies God, or God's will manifest in the objective world.

Jesus isn't walking around with an objective God he worships. Instead, he reflects God out into the world, but he does this from within his own subjective awareness of God's spirit dwelling within him; fully dwelling within his body. The body objectively exists, but the awareness or consciousness (like all awareness or consciousness) is subjectively experienced.

The only reason, you view God as objectively existing is because you are reluctant to let go of your own identity. Paul takes it to the next step by admitting, "not me, but Christ in me". Once you let go of yourself, there is only Christ. Once someone lets go of the persona they have created, the only subject left is Christ. Christ can only be subjectively known within your own awareness or consciousness.

As he points out, "Apart from me, you can do nothing"; "you in me and I in you" etc.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I can see how you say that you're objectively known because you're an object of God's knowledge, but omniscience precludes the known. In other words, all-knowing is not partial knowing. Partial knowing allows room for whatever may be known.

The same is true for consciousness, Pure consciousness precludes an object. Pure consciousness cannot be conscious of anything.

As long as Jesus remains an object of one's faith, he can never subjectively be received. Hence he points out that he must leave before he can send the comforter to subjectively indwell within them. This indwelling is what allows one to receive revelation.

One cannot know another fully unless and until they are the other. Hence we read of being "in Christ".

To say one can be subjectively known and objectively known is a contradiction. No subject is ever known, or we could also say that no subject is an object. As soon as we note it as an object, it can no longer be the subject.

I believe that you sense being the object of God's knowledge. You are known of God, and this is something that can be sensed, but this sense of being known only provides one with the illusion of God as an object. One may grow in knowledge of God's will, but there is no concomitant objectifying of God that comes along with it.

We all agree that to objectify someone is insulting, but we never seem to see how this is just as true with God.

When one receives knowledge of God's will, we intuitively become aware of the reality of God, but it doesn't then follow that God objectively exists. This is an assumption on our part. It's understandable to make this assumption, but it is neither necessary nor does it logically follow.

Biblical authors routinely objectify God with messengers, or angels. When reading, they will flip back and forth giving the impression that two authors are being blended, but the message becomes the messenger. With Christ the messenger becomes the message. He personifies God, or God's will manifest in the objective world.
?
Jesus isn't walking around with an objective God he worships. Instead, he reflects God out into the world, but he does this from within his own subjective awareness of God's spirit dwelling within him; fully dwelling within his body. The body objectively exists, but the awareness or consciousness (like all awareness or consciousness) is subjectively experienced.

The only reason, you view God as objectively existing is because you are reluctant to let go of your own identity. Paul takes it to the next step by admitting, "not me, but Christ in me". Once you let go of yourself, there is only Christ. Once someone lets go of the persona they have created, the only subject left is Christ. Christ can only be subjectively known within your own awareness or consciousness.

As he points out, "Apart from me, you can do nothing"; "you in me and I in you" etc.

One of Paul's most oft repeated desires for those to whom he writes is that they "grow in the grace and KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ.." Did Paul objectify Christ and thus create a false idol on the Road to Damascus, when as subject he heard the voice of the Lord? After all, the OBJECT of the verb heard was Christ. We pray TO our Heavenly Father. The OBJECT of that preposition "to" is God, surely not a false idol, provided we not pray amiss. Yet He is subject, as Kierkegaard so often expresses. We are objects to His subject. He acts on us, not vice-versa. And as such, we experience what Rudolf Otto called the numinous..
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
One of Paul's most oft repeated desires for those to whom he writes is that they "grow in the grace and KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ.." Did Paul objectify Christ and thus create a false idol on the Road to Damascus, when as subject he heard the voice of the Lord? After all, the OBJECT of the verb heard was Christ. We pray TO our Heavenly Father. The OBJECT of that preposition "to" is God, surely not a false idol, provided we not pray amiss. Yet He is subject, as Kierkegaard so often expresses. We are objects to His subject. He acts on us, not vice-versa. And as such, we experience what Rudolf Otto called the numinous..
You make a fine point grammatically, yet I suspect you would agree that unless one has the ears to hear, the gospel is meaningless. In other words, the sheep recognize the shepherd because they're created for each other. The spirit that is proclaimed is only received by the spirit. The carnal cannot receive it at all.

Ultimately, it can only be subjectively received by the Spirit indwelling within the new creation.
 
Top