17 Mar 08
the problem with long threads is that they often degenerate into fights, and after a few more posts nobody remembers what the fight was about because most are too lazy to read through all of the pages they missed. much easier to assign names than to argue your case and see the case the other is making
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI don't believe you! Instead of *you* being wrong - now the dictionary is wrong! incoherent is derived, as I'm sure you're well aware, from the latin cohaereo which "of a whole" means: [to cohere , hold together] - which underlies the meaning of coherent in English, either of particles which hold together, or of parts of an argument which hold together logically. By the generally accepted definition then, I find k's argument coherent (this definition is not "subjective" as such, but an inability to understand the argument will result in underqualified persons not being able to judge the coherency of a statement).
Like I said earlier, you and KM seem to operate at about the same level, so this comes as no surprise. You might want to look at other definitions of coherence.
Which definition were you thinking of?
17 Mar 08
5 edits
Originally posted by cpbrownLet's take a closer look at what you've posted here. We'll start with a review and move on in.
I don't believe you! Instead of *you* being wrong - now the dictionary is wrong! incoherent is derived, as I'm sure you're well aware, from the latin cohaereo which "of a whole" means: [to cohere , hold together] - which underlies the meaning of coherent in English, either of particles which hold together, or of parts of an argument which hold togethe g able to judge the coherency of a statement).
Which definition were you thinking of?
I said the following to KM:
"Take your "time" threads for example. Your premises are so incoherent as to be ridiculous."
For whatever reason you felt compelled to state the following:
"Incoherent means "expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way" (New Oxford American Dictionary) - which is a subjective quality, since depending on the level of skill of the reader in parsing and interpreting information, text could be coherent or incoherent.
Knowing that there are alternate definitions I suggested the following:
"You might want to look at other definitions of coherence
You responded with:
"I don't believe you! Instead of *you* being wrong - now the dictionary is wrong!
An assertion made with such great conviction. An incoherent assertion, but one made with great conviction nonetheless.
Like I said, you and KM seem to operate at about the same level. If you truly find his assertions coherent, more's the pity. If you still find your assertion coherent, you might be hopeless.
Read the basic premises of his "time" threads again. I know there's several of them, but KM's a "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS kind of guy." Try to bring greater discernment than you've shown here. You pretty much only need to read the first post or two of his on each thread to see where he goes wrong.
Spare me the "what about the rest of my post business". It's flawed also, but I really don't feel like laying it all out for you.
17 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou really are just here as a wind up right? Or am I overly optimistic?
Spare me the "what about the rest of my post business". It's flawed also, but I really don't feel like laying it all out for you.
My post was a clarification of my initial statement, to dismiss it would be to dismiss my argument, and hence reject the challenge - living up to your reputation.
I don't want to believe you're serious, but if you are, you have my sincerest sympathies. Cognitive impairment can be so debilitating.
(oh and i just noticed, you refused to answer my question once again! also, i don't take issue with my previous line of argument, aside from the slightly different interpretation of coherency, which is pointed out and corrected in my last post)
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownI could save you a lot of trouble here by telling you that you are being optimistic , but some things have to be found out the hard way. I've been trying to get him to answer a straight question for months to no avail.
You really are just here as a wind up right? Or am I overly optimistic?
My post was a clarification of my initial statement, to dismiss it would be to dismiss my argument, and hence reject the challenge - living up to your reputation.
I don't want to believe you're serious, but if you are, you have my sincerest sympathies. Cognitive impairment can be s ...[text shortened]... ly different interpretation of coherency, which is pointed out and corrected in my last post)
Mind you , he will keep challenging you anyway , or have you forgot , it only works one way. 🙄
17 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by cpbrownIf you can't understand the incoherence of your assertion, I guess I'll have to assume that you're hopeless.
You really are just here as a wind up right? Or am I overly optimistic?
My post was a clarification of my initial statement, to dismiss it would be to dismiss my argument, and hence reject the challenge - living up to your reputation.
I don't want to believe you're serious, but if you are, you have my sincerest sympathies. Cognitive impairment can be s ly different interpretation of coherency, which is pointed out and corrected in my last post)
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneRead the basic premises of his "time" threads again. I know there's several of them, but KM's a "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS kind of guy." --- ToOne----
Let's take a closer look at what you've posted here. We'll start with a review and move on in.
I said the following to KM:
"Take your "time" threads for example. Your premises are so incoherent as to be ridiculous."
For whatever reason you felt compelled to state the following:
[i]"Incoherent means "expressed in an incomprehensible or c ...[text shortened]... s flawed also, but I really don't feel like laying it all out for you.
But Jesus himself spoke of foreknowledge of the future by his Father and his entire ministry was prophecised by Isaiah et al. So maybe the Jesus you are so fond of quoting with authority and conviction was just deluded about the eternal nature of God and his existence beyond time?
Why do you pick and mix with Jesus so much. One would have thought such a fan of Jesus would be very pro an eternal God , or is it silly just to expect some consistency here? Do you not believe God knows our future ? Do you even believe in God? If not , why use quotes from his Son and expect others to take heed of your position?
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterIs cpbrown an alternate username for you? If not, you must be pleased 🙂 I'd think it rare for you to actually find someone that thinks on the same level as you do.
He's hopeless of course! You don't have to assume it , you just know it. He challenged you remember!
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownNow I know that you're just messing with me. Nobody (except for the possible exception of KM) can be as clueless as you pretend.
You really are just here as a wind up right? Or am I overly optimistic?
My post was a clarification of my initial statement, to dismiss it would be to dismiss my argument, and hence reject the challenge - living up to your reputation.
I don't want to believe you're serious, but if you are, you have my sincerest sympathies. Cognitive impairment can be s ...[text shortened]... ly different interpretation of coherency, which is pointed out and corrected in my last post)
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNo , there's quite a few of us out there who have yet to attain your level yet. We are all blind to the truth and compulsive liars. Thank God there are some , like you , who have "overcome" and can tell us how to find the light ............ Except , it seems to take such a long time ?! 😴
Is cpbrown an alternate username for you? If not, you must be pleased 🙂 I'd think it rare for you to actually find someone that thinks on the same level as you do.
17 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou sell yourself way too short. It's actually quite rare to find someone as blind as you are. Quite rare indeed.
No , there's quite a few of us out there who have yet to attain your level yet. We are all blind to the truth and compulsive liars. Thank God there are some , like you , who have "overcome" and can tell us how to find the light ............ Except , it seems to take such a long time ?! 😴
I mean how many people actually believe that two half-truths equals the whole truth? No, no, you're much too modest.
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownif they had no knowledge of good or evil, how could they be expected to know which to choose from, satan or god?
i'll address the points by number:
1) this raises an interesting point. adam and eve had no concept of good or bad, other than what god told them, in terms of which fruit to eat. however, when satan came to tempt them, if they had no knowledge of good or evil, how could they be expected to know which to choose from, satan or god? when presented with a new ...[text shortened]... ses the way my consciousness "emerges" from a vast array of molecules.
Using terms He knew they would clearly understand, God told the man and the woman, the day they eat of the fruit, dying, they would die. Wishing knowledge (experience) over faith, the woman saw that the fruit was good and ate thereof. The man joined soon after, lonely as he found himself to be.
and so random choosing prevails and eventually the fruit gets eaten.
Rubbish.
there is clash of primitive morals
What in the hell are you talking about?
this disrupts your model of "his system" to some extent by rendering it meaningless
Just because you say so, right?
but were unaware of the consequences of either
'Dying, you will die.' Sure, I can see where someone might mistake that for 'you might feel a slight pinch.'
in which case he realised that in his creation, he would be sentencing people to hell.
Only if they so chose. Unlike the majority of sperm who fail to make the grade, the sacrifice by the Lord Jesus Christ paved the way for ALL to enter into heaven--- none are excluded except those who reject Him.
but we could never understand god's motivations could we?
Well, "we" couldn't but some can: those who submit themselves to His authority are shown the marvels of His mercy, of the wonders of His acts.
that phrase represents a poor and illogical argument which plays to our emotional wishes.
If you've learned anything about me in the scant two or three weeks you've been on this forum, it is that I am unflinchingly un-emotional with regards to my thinking and theology. Any other suggestions?
some, myself included, have just taken to trying and "come to terms" that there is no truth which is accessible directly to us.
Sounds like you've really stumbled onto something with that. Just think, if you get enough ground support, you could start your own religion based on, um, nothing. Your motto could be "We know that nothing can be known."
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneComplimentary truths actually. It's the nature of an all or nothing thinker to not be able to appreciate the finer sublties of a balanced position.
You sell yourself way too short. It's actually quite rare to find someone as blind as you are. Quite rare indeed.
I mean how many people actually believe that two half-truths equals the whole truth? No, no, you're much too modest.