« What Do "Artificial Life" Projects Demonstrate About the Need for a Divine Creator? | Main | How Do You Deal with Name Calling? »

February 08, 2014

Comments

It's great if you can draw strength from your certainty. Go ahead. Sometimes my questions sound rude and aggressive, but you can feel assured that I have no certainty - only doubts and questions.

I'm certain I exist. Perhaps Mind can have certainty of A or B or C after all.


As for the Final Regress being that Love is, in all possible worlds, the Highest Ethic, the person that is the little i-am which is I, which I am certain exists, is certain also of that end of ad infinitum.

What lay between this little i-am and that Final Regress of Immutable Love, well now, there in that arena this little i-am has many questions and doubts, some within the intellectual, some within the existential.

As Love's robust nature becomes more evident, my oceans of blurry shadows laden over with fog ever so casually find love's gently unstoppable slivers of persistent light slicing into, through, my doubts. We see as through a fog.

I understand the concept of "seeker sensitive" and those on the journey to discern that which is true. I have a great deal of respect for those on the path, as these are sincere efforts.

I only wish for an equal understanding of "finder friendly." Those of the faith should not be pigeonholed as arrogant, superstitious, et al et worse. These need to be seen as "on to something" and granted dignity of belief. We all are believers in the end to some degree.

Mr. Moore, You stated : "...you can feel assured that I have no certainty - only doubts and questions."

Are you certain of this statement?

Ah, the old Roadrunner trick. The simple answer is no, I'm not certain. It's just a rhetorical shortcut when I imply I'm certain. This is so we can get on smoothly with our discussion.

those of u above who are seekers, I totally respect you; ive been there, but do not fail to open the Bible and read here and there--you will be blown away; be sure to read the book of John but the other 3 Gospel accounts also. If u have never read the Bible , get a modern translation, like the NIV (New International Version). Jesus was either a crazy man or indeed the incarnate son of God he ascertained he was when put on trial by the religious authorities (thats in Matthew 26:64
"v.63...tell us if you are the Christ, the son of the living God!" v. 64: "It is as you said"v. 64 is Jesus' answer. Jesus performed incredible miracles, he raised people from the dead, he turned water into wine an fed thousands with just a few loaves of bread and fish. He healed people right and left, never for gain but because of his compassionate heart. He predicted his death and resurrection.a propos resurrection, dont you think the God who is powerful enough to create the Universe could not raise Jesus, his beloved son, from the dead? Jesus also said he did not come to judge the world but to save it (John 12:47, check it out). Wow! He went willingly to his death although he himself said he could have easily wiped out his captors (Matthew 26:53). Why did he let himself be killed? "this is my blood.... which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28). "Many" includes you, dude, and me and anyone else on this planet who will accept this gracious act of atonement for the big and little sins we commit every day, How can u resist this man and hold back trusting Him?! We put our trust in so many things and people all of which will sooner or later disappoint., why not Jesus, who is totally trustworthy. Good luck in your search and questioning. I hope and pray this search leads u to Jesus.

The bible is fiction. This person is insane.

Mr. Moore,

Quote: "Ah, the old Roadrunner trick. The simple answer is no, I'm not certain. It's just a rhetorical shortcut when I imply I'm certain. This is so we can get on smoothly with our discussion."

Roadrunner trick? Care to elaborate?

If you are as uncertain as you claim to be, and your responses are simply "rhetorical shortcuts", how do we know anything you say is what you actually hold to be true. This knowledge of you and your "rhetoric" makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion, much less a smooth one.

cj, your overwhelming evidence and convincing argument for a fictional Bible have persuaded me. I am hereby burning mine. (Sarcasm, for those who weren't sure.)

The true fiction here is the aura of solid scientific research and scholarly pursuits claimed by the atheist. The legacy of Gerald Massey is that of pseudo-intellectualism. I've found most atheist posts to be based on misinformation and concepts not quite grasped.

>> This person is insane. Not so, but this was definitely the case for Friedrich Nietzsche, declared so at death and who knows for certain how long prior.

Please leave the cheap retorts at home. Sarcasm only begets sarcasm.

John P., the Roadrunner Tactic is the name given by Geisler and Turek (and possibly others before them) in their fantastic book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" to the method of exposing self-refuting statements. So, it's nothing more than the name given to the apologetic used in your excellent reply to John Moore's first comment, exposing a portion thereof as a self-contradiction. I believe that they gave this name to the tactic in honor of the way that the coyote used to get caught by the roadrunner hanging in mid-air after running off of a cliff. (In this example, you are the roadrunner, and Mr. Moore is the coyote. :-))

It would indeed be a contradiction if I claimed certainty about my lack of certainty. But I don't. What I called a "rhetorical shortcut" is simply that I don't want to preface each of my statements with "I'm not sure but I think ..."

You ask, "How do we know anything you say is what you actually hold to be true?" And I ask you in return: Don't you see a difference between certainty and "hold to be true"?

I hold lots of things to be true, for practical purposes, although I'm open to the possibility that they might be false. For example, I'm assuming the trains will run on time, but if they don't, I might have to take a cab.

And yes, I'm not even certain about my lack of certainty. Gosh, I might really be certain without knowing it!

The so-called Roadrunner tactic works nicely on people who claim certainty, but you can't use this tactic unless the people really claim certainty. You can't assume they are certain unless they explicitly say so.

The question of moral certainty is a good one. Some may be skeptics in regress even up to, "I exist" and beyond, such that to claim certainty of such is to engage in escapism for we may be, for all we know, the figment of a mad scientist's experiment.


John, if that is the regress you're on, then no thanks. Enjoy the ride.

I don't think you're on that regress, though.

But I do think you would stop your regress short of any moral certainty at all, ever.

By that I only mean that perhaps you stop at cultural / normative ebb and flows layered over irrational neuronal conditioning.

Or, perhaps not, perhaps such things transcend such layers in your regress.

To get on talking smoothly about such things, one would need a straight answer.

"I don't know" is a straight answer, only, the question of certainty is simple enough. I have a head. I exist. And so on.....

Easy stuff.

If the human Mind is capacitated for certainty, then it is, if not, then it isn't.

I hold that should you give me good evidence that I don't, in fact, have a head, then I'll concede that I do not have a head.

Moral certainty requires a peculiar substrate.


You can level your subtle charge of egoism at me for this next one if you feel the need:


I am certain that Child Sacrifice cuts against Ultimate Actuality's grain (it's wrong) in all possible worlds.


If that makes me an egoist, then I cannot help that.

I feel comfortable, and confident, that such is the fact of the matter.

Even in our world.

Despite cultural ebbs, normative flows, serotonin surges, and dopamine fluxes.

Hmmmm....

Typo:

....level your subtle charge of egoism....

Should read:

....level a subtle charge of egoism....

I don't think you can assume that because a person is hostile that it's any indication that they are unsure of themselves. Sometimes, just the opposite is the case. When people believe things that are ridiculously absurd, it's sometimes difficult to resist responding with anything other than ridicule. The more ridiculous the belief or statement, the more indignant we feel, and "the mouth speak from what which fills the heart."

I think motive mongering can be an indication that somebody is just trying to comfort themselves, though. I see this kind of silliness all the time on the internet. It happens here sometimes.

A few years ago when Steven Hawking came out with The Grand Design, and STR had several blog posts about it, a fellow named Eric said:

STR's fear of Hawking and his new book seems to have reached levels previously reserved for Bart Ehrman. It is natural to protects one's weakest points, and I think STR is telegraphing where they think some of their weakest points are.

- See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/09/stephen-hawking/comments/#sthash.9kKqzYre.dpuf

If you respond too much to something you disagree with, it's because you're afraid, and you're compensating because you're position is weak. But if you don't respond enough, it's because you're position is weak because you don't have a good response.

It is all too easy to minimize somebody else through motive-mongering. I think we should just stop doing it. When somebody is rude to me, I don't care what the reason is--whether it's because they lack manners, they're afraid, or whatever. I do what I can to get them to be civil, and if that doesn't work, then I don't deal with them anymore.

I am certain of this: there is such a thing, an actuality exists, that is Justified/Proper Anger. Immutable Love perfectly manifests such a Justified/Proper percentage in purity. I am also certain of this: I myself am – as far as I can tell – for all practical purposes incapable of that percentage of Proper/Anger. That is to say, whenever I find myself employing a bit of bite, such has never been free of contaminants. I find myself there under a rebuke by Him, by Immutable Love, and, as the OP hints at, I find Him clarifying my lack of trust as one of those contaminants. You’d think He’d stop there. But He doesn’t. He seems to focus on something else, while I seem to focus on my lack of trust as the business at hand. He does touch on that, but, then - immediately - Love moves past that and presses me to love, to value, to acquiesce, to be kind, to take a hit. His goals are not my goals. He’s an amazingly patient Father. He seems to have His Head in another world or something…….

Jesus was either a crazy man or indeed the incarnate son of God he ascertained he was when put on trial by the religious authorities

Or he was a literary creation like Achilles or Oedipus. There are more than two choices, you know.

No AJG there are not. Even the most rabid anti-Christian historical scholars agree, Jesus the man actually existed. Now you have to deal with what He said.

No AJG there are not. Even the most rabid anti-Christian historical scholars agree, Jesus the man actually existed. Now you have to deal with what He said.

Aside from the fact that not all scholars do believe this, even if it is true that a messianic prophet named Jesus lived around this time, there is no reason to believe that the gospels accurately depict what he said and how he lived and died. And there is certainly no reason to believe things like a virgin birth, the dead rising from their graves and that Jesus was god incarnate. A rational approach to these stories is that they are complete fiction or literary embellishments.

It will be opaque skepticism in some bizarre amalgamation with mereological nihilism, or, it will be that I do in fact exist. If there is I, if i-am, then mereological nihilism is false, and a whole new reality has been stumbled upon. In such a reality, statements like, "In all possible worlds, love is the highest ethic" become perfectly plausible as statements of Knowledge, even of Certainty.

[Enemy] = [Beloved]

There's more, but the word count permitted seems to be about 30-ish.....

AJG,

Mereological Nihilism falling into absurdity, we then at such a juncture come to the business of Love itself, of Civility, of Valuing the Other in, at least in this format, conversation, and, in other more harsh formats, such as Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. found himself in, every bit of life to its bitter ends.

I find within myself, within this i-am, the pressing need to follow love more precisely in such arenas, for I find a great chasm, a great lacking (within my own Self) of such Immutable Love, wherein He spreads His arms wide and pours Himself out for His enemy, who is His beloved. Enemy = Beloved seems an odd Fact Statement, but then, when all regresses begin and end within that fully singular, that fully triune Self-Other-Us Who is Himself E Pluribus Unum, Who is Immutable Love, we can begin to see where such Fact Statements become statements of Knowledge, even of Certainty, for Love is, therein, the Highest Ethic in all possible worlds.

The comments to this entry are closed.