Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

punshhh said:
Humility does not cancel out the thought process or asking questions. The fact of Truth and purpose being unknowable is fairly easy to arrive at.
Click to expand...
If you knew they were unknowable then you would know one thing about them.

But if you knew one thing about them then they wouldn't be unknowable.
 
punshhh said:
You are correct, I have never seen any kind of conflict or parting of the ways between mysticism and materialism, they address entirely different things.

The materialists on this forum have repeatedly told me that materialism doesn't address issues such as existence, what anything is, or why existence is the way it is.

I have repeatedly stated that I have no argument with materialism, I am in agreement. I see no supernatural aspect to reality, only a subtle complexity to nature which we may not fully understand at this time.

This notion of conflict or that theists are misguided appears to be held on this forum. I don't see it, can some one explain to me what is wrong with subscribing to theistic or mystical views?
Click to expand...

First you'll have to explain what you mean by "a subtle complexity to nature which we may not fully understand at this time".
 
dafydd said:
You haven't been paying attention. Behind the event horizon of the formless,where else? :)
Click to expand...

That's probably where you see "a subtle complexity to nature which we may not fully understand at this time".:eye-poppi
 
Dancing David said:
Or they make you fast, purge, suffer privation, give you drugs, terrify the **** out of you and the tell you a funny joke.

Afterwards you tear apart a sheep, have a few drinks and then an orgy.

You wake up the next day and say "What a strange dream I had" and they all go

"Exactly" and then roll around laughing so hard thier sombreros falls off and they drop thier tacos
Click to expand...

Then you turn into a crow.

Afterwards you become a guru cult leader.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Its a weasel description of what most people would call supernatural phenomena.
Click to expand...

Yes. If I'm going to be lied to I'd rather they do it directly rather than dancing around the edges with semantic shuffling.
 
tsig said:
First you'll have to explain what you mean by "a subtle complexity to nature which we may not fully understand at this time".
Click to expand...

If I were to develop a complex about this complexity then I would have a complex complex. If complications set in then I would have a complex complex complex. It doesn't bear thinking about. Lucky it's just newagespeak.
 
punshhh said:
The materialists on this forum have repeatedly told me that materialism doesn't address issues such as existence, what anything is, or why existence is the way it is.
Click to expand...
You are misrepresenting previous discussions. The position of Materialism is that science can answer the meaningful questions about existence.
I don't see it, can some one explain to me what is wrong with subscribing to theistic or mystical views?
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with it. Everybody is free to subscribe to whatever views they want.

But they just have no value when it comes to answering questions and seeking truth.
 
Dancing David said:
Or they make you fast, purge, suffer privation, give you drugs, terrify the **** out of you and the tell you a funny joke.

Afterwards you tear apart a sheep, have a few drinks and then an orgy.

You wake up the next day and say "What a strange dream I had" and they all go

"Exactly" and then roll around laughing so hard thier sombreros falls off and they drop thier tacos
Click to expand...

You been there & done that?
OMFSM, you are my Guru, my Guiding Stench from now on...
the one lung coughing, the one clap dripping and burning
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
If I were to develop a complex about this complexity then I would have a complex complex. If complications set in then I would have a complex complex complex. It doesn't bear thinking about. Lucky it's just newagespeak.
Click to expand...

Are sure your policy will cover you for all that and your family?
Maybe you should learn how to cook cristal meth, also...i mean, now!
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
If you knew they were unknowable then you would know one thing about them.

But if you knew one thing about them then they wouldn't be unknowable.
Click to expand...

We may know the truth and the purpose without realising it. We could not know if we knew it if we concluded that we did know it.

I can see no way of determining if we can know or not or if there is such a thing. I am assuming an intellectual posture of them being unknowable, as I can see no other considered option.
 
punshhh said:
We may know the truth and the purpose without realising it. We could not know if we knew it if we concluded that we did know it.

I can see no way of determining if we can know or not or if there is such a thing. I am assuming an intellectual posture of them being unknowable, as I can see no other considered option.
Click to expand...

Are you assuming the position that they are unknowable by inference? Or are you purposely keeping yourself out of the pool of knowledge that can give you inference? I only see you performing the latter punshhhh

It's ignoring inference that makes your position so weak.
 
lemurien said:
You been there & done that?
OMFSM, you are my Guru, my Guiding Stench from now on...
the one lung coughing, the one clap dripping and burning
Click to expand...

lemurien said:
Are sure your policy will cover you for all that and your family?
Maybe you should learn how to cook cristal meth, also...i mean, now!
Click to expand...


There are other boards you may wish to visit if you insist on posting such snidely insulting things towards members. Any good points you wish to make are quickly being drowned out.
 
punshhh said:
We may know the truth and the purpose without realising it. We could not know if we knew it if we concluded that we did know it.

I can see no way of determining if we can know or not or if there is such a thing. I am assuming an intellectual posture of them being unknowable, as I can see no other considered option.
Click to expand...

If we knew that we did not know then we would not know that we knew what we did not know was unknowable and could not be known by knowing that we knew what we knew not but did know unknowingly.......


Gibberish. In both cases.
 
Lowpro said:
Are you assuming the position that they are unknowable by inference? Or are you purposely keeping yourself out of the pool of knowledge that can give you inference? I only see you performing the latter punshhhh

It's ignoring inference that makes your position so weak.
Click to expand...

I have no training in formal logic, so have to learn it as I go along.

I have arrived at my own metaphysical position using my own reasoning process. It may or may not approximate formal inference, I don't know.

However to claim my position is weak is an appeal to authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom