The question is, what ground do you have to make *any* knowledge claim? If you can't tell me even one thing you know for certain, then what do you actually know? As I gave in my example, if you asked someone what time it is and they said I think it's 3 pm, do they actually know it?

The point is that we do know things, and we operate in a world of certainty, but the only way to justify that knowledge is by pointing to God. You can't justify it by pointing to yourself.

I happily admit that there is a theoretical possibility that everything is a computer program designed to deceive me into believing a particular state of affairs, but as a sane person, I go about life assuming that my senses do a pretty good job of telling me about the world around me. If you have difficulty with this, you are deranged.

Do everyones senses work equally well? Is everyones reasoning equally valid? If you're satisfied with circular reasoning, ie, that your senses are valid because your senses tell you they're valid, then you should have no problem with the argument that God exists because He exists.

So outright, I reject the notion that there is any need for absolute certainty, much less that someone's imaginary friend they keep telling me about can provide it.

There is when making knowledge claims. Again, if you can't make any, what do you actually know?

Reality is invariably self consistent, the coincidence of that alone is enough to convince me to pay attention to people who do their darndest to understand it (reality) and do my darndest to understand it myself.

What's your theory about why it should it be "self-consistent", or comprehensible by human beings at all?

And no, even if there is some way to improve our current degree of certainty by the ten to the power of negative eighty two percent we lack to achieve absolute certainty, then you don't get to arbitrarily claim that God is that way because a book says he knows everything. And especially not if you had a personal revelation.

That isn't the argument. The argument is, there are only two routes to truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Two is revelation from an omnipotent being. Everyone else is living in a world of uncertainty and does not really know anything. The argument is, without God, you can't prove anything.

My buddy Shane told me yesterday that the buck stops with him, and he was simply born with complete omniscience. He knows absolutely everything. He's coming over to dinner tomorrow, if you stop by my place he can tell you about it too. It's crazy, some weird and rare genetic defect from what I understand. But I'll tell you, boy am I glad he has that defect because if he didn't, I'd only be about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that it's a bad idea to get shot in the head by an AK 47. I mean, you never know. There are times when I want to test those odds.

I'm sure you could name any number of situations where it seems very likely that you know something, but the question remains, how do you prove it? You don't have any proof for your claims no matter how obvious they may seem.

So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

The topic of the video is what academics think about God. And when they're talking about God, they are really talking about the Christian God, so it is relevant to the conversation.

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.

I don't have any problem with science. I think the exploration of the creation reveals the glory of the Creator, which is something I highly esteem. I only take issue with the hubris of men who exalt mans position in the Universe over God. It's kins of like that joke..

"God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to
Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally
figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other
words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and
form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and
starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.""

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

What's different in the world? 30 thousand people starving to death every day in a world that has a 70 trillion dollar GDP. The inequity in the world today is greater than at any other time. Most people aren't aware, and don't really care about anything which is happening outside their limited sphere of interest. There is no actual difference between the man of yesterday and the man of today. If anything, he is even more corrupt than ever.

As far as infant morality rates, God didn't create the world like this. It became this way because of sin.

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

It doesn't really matter if you hate religion, it's whether you love Jesus that is important. Did you?

Newton gave the credit to God, and said all of his inspiration came from Him. The value of his faith in God was very tangible to him, and the fruit it bore benefited all humankind.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions.

What scientific inquiry will answer them?

There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The vast majority of Christians have agreement on all of the core teachings of the bible, going back to the early church.

I don't expect you to agree with me that they are important; you of course have your own ideas about what is important. However, God did put you here for a reason, and you can only find that reason out from Him. If there is no God, there is no purpose, truth or meaning for anything. Did you catch this video?:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-about-Atheism

I notice that you put the word truth in quotation marks. Do you know what truth is? Without truth, you are living in a world of uncertainty. You are staring down a hall of mirrors, not knowing which is the true reflection.

There are only two routes to know what truth is. One is that you're omnipotent. Two, is that you are given revelation of the truth by an omnipotent being. I am claiming the second option; that's the only way I know what the truth is. What is your route to the truth?

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

These are rational beliefs until you are given revelation by God, and then you throw these theories out the window and start over. That's where I was at before I was saved, because I didn't grow up in a Christian home like you did. I grew up in a secular home without religion, and I thought along these same lines, and I was equally skeptical about all supernatural claims. It's only because God had mercy on me and showed me He is there that I know that He is.

The way it works is, God gives you enough information/revelation to know that He is, and then He puts the onus on you to seek Him out. You probably believe you are rejecting God for intellectual reasons, but you're really not when it comes down to it. You are rejecting God because of the sin in your life, because sin is what separates us from God. Sin corrupts your intellect and twists your logic just enough to keep you from seeing reality. If you honestly want to know the truth, and are willing to give up everything in your life to have it, then you will find it:

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the truth. Those who are seeking the truth end up on his doorstep. The way you know God is true is when God reveals Himself to you through personal revelation. Would you give up everything in your life to know the truth?

A Christian is someone who has surrendered their life to Christ. It sounds like you, like many others I've spoken to, grew up in a Christian home and were never taught how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You had your parents faith and didn't really understand why you believed. When you encountered the skepticism of the world, you found you couldn't justify your belief to yourself and fell away. Does that sound about right?

You don't become a Christian through osmosis from your parents; you need to be born again. Without the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, you won't have any reason to believe. You have nothing to stand on if your entire experience of Christianity is is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. Why would you do any of it if you didn't experience the tangible presence of God? To know God is to know Him personally, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

Now this is interesting, what you're saying here, when you mention "incorruptible knowledge". I'd like to explore this, but before we do, could you answer two simple questions?:

Tell me one thing you know for certain, and how you know it.

Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible?

Ecclesiastes 1:14 I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.

This world is temporal; it is passing away. These monuments of human achievement we have constructed to declare our own glory are all sandcastles awaiting high tide. They are grains of sand being washed into the cosmic sea. We will leave this world the same way we entered it; at the complete mercy of forces beyond our control or understanding. This American dream is a shadow play; there is nothing from this world that can completely satisfy us:

Ecclesiastes 3:11

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

We know there is much more to this life than the gratification we can squeeze out of this moment. There is a perpetual, lingering dissatisfaction, when your hope is resting on shifting sands. Uncertainty is lurking at the doorstep, trying to sell us a lifetime subscription. A guest pass on a prison ship made of mind and sinew. We hunger for we don't see; a sense of permanence. A place called home. Something to fill the gap between heart and mind. We thirst for an eternal wellspring, welling up into life everlasting. A joy inexpressible and full of glory. We know there is more because He set it in our hearts to seek after Him. We know all of the ways of this world lead to death, but when put away uncertainty and seek after Him with all of our hearts, we will the find the bridge to eternity; we will find our Savior.

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Spain is in serious trouble because it spends too much money, money it does not have. The Spaniards are rioting over ginormous tax HIKES, which is what American taxocrats continue to demand at every turn.
Obama has already brought market chaos and uncertainty. However you want to polish his crown jewel, the turd known as Obamacare, the results are/will be huge tax hikes, reduction in services, continuing skyrocketing medical costs, and STILL, by their own admission, 30 million without health insurance.
Even if reelected, Obama is a fool and will be forgotten as a symptom of a larger malaise that began a century ago.
At this point, no president is capable of stopping out-of-control government spending. President Romney will only buy us a little more time before imminent revolution; it won't be an MTV version of revolution either, with underwear models with little smudges of black on their multiculural cheeks beating back government stormtroopers with the force of love. It's going to be blood up and over your knees, cities leveled, hell on earth.
Hey, sometimes it's necessary.

>> ^volumptuous:
QM, Pennypacker et al... They will respond to this in one of two ways:
1- "That's what these Spanish OWS losers get! go get a job!"
2- "This is what Obama is going to bring to America!"
Both are equally repulsive, and fictions of their imagination.



If the Market didn't like Obama, why does it support him soo much monetarily? You need to do your homework man, it's the Rich against guys like us, join the proper side.

Spain is in serious trouble because it spends too much money, money it does not have. The Spaniards are rioting over ginormous tax HIKES, which is what American taxocrats continue to demand at every turn.

Obama has already brought market chaos and uncertainty. However you want to polish his crown jewel, the turd known as Obamacare, the results are/will be huge tax hikes, reduction in services, continuing skyrocketing medical costs, and STILL, by their own admission, 30 million without health insurance.

Even if reelected, Obama is a fool and will be forgotten as a symptom of a larger malaise that began a century ago.

At this point, no president is capable of stopping out-of-control government spending. President Romney will only buy us a little more time before imminent revolution; it won't be an MTV version of revolution either, with underwear models with little smudges of black on their multiculural cheeks beating back government stormtroopers with the force of love. It's going to be blood up and over your knees, cities leveled, hell on earth.

Hey, sometimes it's necessary.


>> ^volumptuous:

QM, Pennypacker et al... They will respond to this in one of two ways:

1- "That's what these Spanish OWS losers get! go get a job!"
2- "This is what Obama is going to bring to America!"
Both are equally repulsive, and fictions of their imagination.

What about that poor research assistant job creator? She should get to keep all the grapes and give the monkeys one cucumber slice to split. With all this uncertainty she might have to let the monkeys go.

Don't try and pawn this off on me. It's not my "excuse". I'm closed only to one idea: of my being absolutely certain about anything. I'm not closed to any other idea, period. You have failed to convince me. That's why I don't accept your story. And after all this, you revealed yourself to be absolutely certain of your own judgement that your numinous experiences are coming from God.

Let me get this straight..you're completely closed to the idea of being absolutely certain of something. Think about that for a minute and see if you can spot the inherent contradiction contained within this idea.

If I say there is absolute truth, and someone says no there isn't, and I say are you absolutely sure about that?, this isn't a trivial question. That's what I used to think, that it was some kind of cheap trick, and ultimately meaningless. Don't be like I was and just dismiss this without giving it a great deal of thought. The fact is, you can't deny the idea of absolute truth without confirming it. It's not a cheap parlor cheap of logic, it is a revelation of the framework of reality, of how things really work. That there really is a certain truth, and everything you ultimately believe, flawed logic and all, ultimately points to it. It actually could be no other way. There is a ground for everything we know and understand. The atheist says though that's he is standing on air. The issue is that subjective beings can't know anything about objective reality so they grope around in the dark trying to understand what truth is. An atheism has no route to get beyond his subjective understanding. The only way you can understand truth then is by the light of revelation. IE, someone without objective understanding (an omniscient being) would have to enlighten you. If you've never seen light then you won't understand what darkness is. Jesus said if the light in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

What I believe is that you were not systematic in trying to understand your experience. When you woke up from it and figured out that you were being led down a path to insanity, you just wrote the whole thing off as being entirely in your mind. I would liken this to coming home one day and finding a group of thieves moving furniture out of your house and loading it into a truck. You ask them what they're doing and they say that they are a moving company and that you called them and set up an appointment 2 weeks ago to move you out, and don't you remember? Oh wow, you say, it must have skipped my mind! It looks like it was just a rash idea of mine, really sorry for this inconvenience! You then proceed to help them move your furniture back into your house.

As you're moving everything back in, you notice the door has been busted open and the house has been ransacked. You ask them about this and they say that just earlier you were here trying to let them into house but you couldn't find your key so you kicked the door in because you didn't want to keep them waiting. You then tore the house apart looking for your keys, and when you found them you left to go get something to eat and that's where you've been this whole time. Pondering this you decide that if you could forget about calling them in the first place then you could most certainly forget about doing all of those other things too.

So you finally get everything back in the house and you again apologize profusely for wasting their time, but as they are leaving, they say don't worry about it because we were never here. We're just part of a dream you're having. Goodbye! You think to yourself, considering the memory problems I've been having, this seems very reasonable. The next day a friend stops by and asks you what happened to your house. Oh, it was all a bad dream, you say. I apparently did all of this in my sleep, but it's over now, not to worry!

I don't know what your experience was; typically, they try to convince you that you're some kind of Messiah-like figure, or that reality is centered around you in some way. What I do know is that things happened to you which you cannot explain; signs and wonders, strange "coincidences", etc. These were the signposts in your journey that reinforced your paradigm and kept you on that road. You want to believe that it was all in your head rather than a strategic plan to destroy you, so you chalk it up to delusion. It wasn't all delusion, though; you were being herded down a path, probably with the goal of getting you to kill yourself, and it's only because they went too far that you woke up from that spell.

You have failed to convince me. That's why I don't accept your story.

I can't convince you of anything. This isn't an intellectual problem that you're having, it is an issue of your heart. Only God can convince you, but your heart is hardened towards Him and you refuse to come near to Him.

And after all this, you revealed yourself to be absolutely certain of your own judgement that your numinous experiences are coming from God.

That's just what I've been saying all along, that there is a certain truth, and God reveals it to those who seek Him. That truth is Jesus Christ. You've admitted that God could convince me, so it isn't an inherently irrational position.

All you're telling me is that you are convinced of something, and FWIW, I believe that you are. You have no grounds to believe that your human perceived conviction is warranted, especially given that you know of many other humans who are equally convicted about things that contradict what you believe. That alone should give you doubt about your convictions, as it gives me doubt. If it doesn't give you doubt, you're not being rational. What's more likely: that you alone are correct among all the millions of equally convicted people, or that all equally convicted people, including you, are wrong? What makes you so special?

Nothing makes me special; I simply responded to Gods calling. I can explain why people follow false religion in imitation of the true God, which is that Satan blinds the eyes of unbelievers so that they cannot know the truth about God. He backs up their experiences with supernatural signs and wonders so that they believe they are on the right path. Satan is an imitator of God:

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

I DO doubt my own existence -- at least, I don't take it as fact that I exist. I could be a brain in a vat, etc. I don't accept my own senses either as categorical evidence. I live as if they're accurate because it's instinctive and it serves me to do so. Skepticism is not ignorance. Accepting something absolutely and uncritically is ignorance. You expect me to accept your word on faith. Why should I believe you? You're just some random person on their internet soapbox who claims to have visions of god. See how stupid it would be for me to change my life because of that? You wouldn't.

I don't think you're actually that skeptical, because I haven't really seen you critically examine your own presuppositions. You say that you don't have any preference for the truth, but that is clearly not true. You are very slanted in favor of a liberal/humanistic/naturalistic mindset, and you oppose any ideas which contradict it. You clearly do accept some things, like evolution for instance, as the gospel truth. This is very inconsistent with your statements about uncertainty. You've seen the human capacity to delude itself, so you keep saying, but you don't seem to question the thought process that leads you to any of these conclusions.

The reason I came to be a Christian, and no one ever witnessed to me by the way, is because I wanted to know the truth and God showed me what it is. I had sufficient evidence from God to give my life to Jesus, and then Jesus completely transformed me and made me a new person. I didn't expect any of that to happen. I had no idea what it would mean to become a Christian. But it did happen, supernaturally, and I found out later that it matched up to everything the bible said would happen. It's one thing to use confirmation bias to make a bunch of coincidence and happenstance into some kind of experience of God. It's another to be transformed at the core of your being into an entirely new person, losing all the negatives and gaining an unlimited supply of peace, joy, hope and love. Even more so when it happens within a moment in time. I've seen miracles, and I've seen things like demon possession. I am certain because God made me certain, but there is plenty of evidence to justify my certainty.

You are certain about God's revelation to you because God has given you certainty of it. That's tautology, if you're a rational agent.

Actually, it's circular reasoning. You will find that every inductive argument suffers from this problem. You cannot actually ultimately justify a single one of your beliefs to me. The conversation could go like this:

You: (objection to a stated fact or belief)
Me: Is that a rational statement?
You: Yes, it is logical.
Me: How do you know it is logical?
You: Because I reason it to be so.
Me: How do you know your reasoning is valid?
You: Because I reason it to be so.

Repeat ad infinitum. You've admitted that you can't trust your senses, and you just assume that you're rational because it's instinctive, which provides you no ultimate justification for anything you believe. That you're telling me it's wrong to use circular reason is absurd since everything you believe is based on it.

Circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious because you cannot point to an ultimate authority for any claim without using it. Look at the issues this problem of induction causes when it comes to proving scientific theory:

"Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that “using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning”. Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a principle of the uniformity of nature would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, “The method of ‘postulating’ what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

You cannot use empirical evidence to prove empiricism is valid, just as you can't use the scientific method to prove the scientific method is valid. Therefore science cannot be proven scientifically! It needs an ultimate justification which cannot be proven inductively. Therefore, you would have to use a deductive argument by presupposing the uniformity of nature to justify the continued accuracy of the predictions of science. But again, just assuming the uniformity in nature leads you to the same problem. The only evidence you have that the future will be like the past is in the past. Therefore it would be fallacious reasoning to say the future will be like the past because of the past.

This is where the problem comes in for the atheist, because he must use viciously circular reasoning, which is always fallacious. I can point to God to justify logic, truth, the uniformity in nature, and my own rationality. These concepts don't make any sense in an atheistic worldview, because there is no way to justify them. My reasoning isn't viciously circular..I can point to an ultimate authority. Your reason is viciously circular because you must point to yourself as the authority.

You want God to be real so you deny all evidence even to other *possibilities*, let alone facts.

I didn't originally go looking for God. He tapped me on the shoulder. I didn't become a Christian because I wanted God to be real, I became a Christian because the evidence indicated He is real.

I don't want anything in particular to be real. I only want to be as sure as possible of what I do believe.

I don't think you want the Christian God to be real, and would prefer that He wasn't. What you can be sure of is that you cannot ultimately justify any of your beliefs.

Yes, of course a god could convince you, but just because you're convinced, doesn't mean it was God who did it. That would be a faulty syllogism. Minds can play the most amazing tricks on people. That's documented fact.

How is it that when you have evidence that confirms your belief, it's faulty, but when you reject that evidence, it's rational? Just because you can potentially falsify an idea doesn't mean it has been falsified. I have a path to the truth, as you've admitted. God could make me certain, and He could reveal truth, so it isn't irrational to believe it, considering the overwhelming evidence that I have received, and continue to receive, each and every day. When God touches your life, you have a justified true belief in Him. In every case, when God makes someone certain, they are going to justified in saying that they're certain. You would say all these people are delusional, but you have no way to be able to tell the difference. Only the individual could really know that they've been touched by God. The only way you could find out is if you were yourself touched by God. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along. I can't convince you, but God can. He loves you and He is waiting for you to soften your heart and seek His face. That is the only thing which will prove or disprove my claim.


>> ^messenger:

stuff

Don't try and pawn this off on me. It's not my "excuse". I'm closed only to one idea: of my being absolutely certain about anything. I'm not closed to any other idea, period. You have failed to convince me. That's why I don't accept your story. And after all this, you revealed yourself to be absolutely certain of your own judgement that your numinous experiences are coming from God.

All you're telling me is that you are convinced of something, and FWIW, I believe that you are. You have no grounds to believe that your human perceived conviction is warranted, especially given that you know of many other humans who are equally convicted about things that contradict what you believe. That alone should give you doubt about your convictions, as it gives me doubt. If it doesn't give you doubt, you're not being rational. What's more likely: that you alone are correct among all the millions of equally convicted people, or that all equally convicted people, including you, are wrong? What makes you so special?

I DO doubt my own existence -- at least, I don't take it as fact that I exist. I could be a brain in a vat, etc. I don't accept my own senses either as categorical evidence. I live as if they're accurate because it's instinctive and it serves me to do so. Skepticism is not ignorance. Accepting something absolutely and uncritically is ignorance. You expect me to accept your word on faith. Why should I believe you? You're just some random person on their internet soapbox who claims to have visions of god. See how stupid it would be for me to change my life because of that? You wouldn't.

You are certain about God's revelation to you because God has given you certainty of it. That's tautology, if you're a rational agent. You want God to be real so you deny all evidence even to other *possibilities*, let alone facts. I don't want anything in particular to be real. I only want to be as sure as possible of what I do believe. Yes, of course a god could convince you, but just because you're convinced, doesn't mean it was God who did it. That would be a faulty syllogism. Minds can play the most amazing tricks on people. That's documented fact.>> ^shinyblurry:

If that's the excuse you want to use, that's fine. I'm not saying I am infallible, I am saying God has made me certain. By myself, I wouldn't know what the truth is. The fact is, whether you like it or not, God can certainly give someone certain revelation. I have received such revelation and I am not the least bit uncertain about it. I would be a liar if I told you otherwise. Since your mind is entirely closed to the possibility, to you it seems absurd. That's because you have no experience of God and you live every day with uncertainty. You think this is somehow a redeeming quality to be uncertain, just as Richard Feynman does, but the truth is that this is actually ignorance, and it is not good to be ignorant. Unless you doubt your own existence, you consider yourself infallible on the subject of your own existence. Clearly, infallible knowledge is not a problem for you. This is why you didn't want to debate whether you could trust your own senses, because if you couldn't, then everything becomes absurd. You have to make that assumption otherwise you have nothing left to work with. This wasn't my point, however; I wasn't questioning your assumption, I was questioning your justification for the assumption. In any case, I am certain about Gods revelation to me, because He has given me certainty about it. It's not because of me, it's because of Him. If God couldn't give me such certainty, would He be God? No one in scripture who had encountered God ever had any doubts about whether He existed or not. Some Christians may have such doubts, but I do not. To me, it would be as absurd as doubting your own existence is to you.
>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence
Then our conversations are done and you've been wasting my time. All this time you repeatedly accused me of not having an open mind, and it turns out you won't even admit that being human, you may be capable of error. If you'd identified yourself is infallible when this began, you could have saved me a lot of time. So much for civil discussion. I'm really pissed at you.

If that's the excuse you want to use, that's fine. I'm not saying I am infallible, I am saying God has made me certain. By myself, I wouldn't know what the truth is. The fact is, whether you like it or not, God can certainly give someone certain revelation. I have received such revelation and I am not the least bit uncertain about it. I would be a liar if I told you otherwise. Since your mind is entirely closed to the possibility, to you it seems absurd. That's because you have no experience of God and you live every day with uncertainty. You think this is somehow a redeeming quality to be uncertain, just as Richard Feynman does, but the truth is that this is actually ignorance, and it is not good to be ignorant. Unless you doubt your own existence, you consider yourself infallible on the subject of your own existence. Clearly, infallible knowledge is not a problem for you. This is why you didn't want to debate whether you could trust your own senses, because if you couldn't, then everything becomes absurd. You have to make that assumption otherwise you have nothing left to work with. This wasn't my point, however; I wasn't questioning your assumption, I was questioning your justification for the assumption. In any case, I am certain about Gods revelation to me, because He has given me certainty about it. It's not because of me, it's because of Him. If God couldn't give me such certainty, would He be God? No one in scripture who had encountered God ever had any doubts about whether He existed or not. Some Christians may have such doubts, but I do not. To me, it would be as absurd as doubting your own existence is to you.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence
Then our conversations are done and you've been wasting my time. All this time you repeatedly accused me of not having an open mind, and it turns out you won't even admit that being human, you may be capable of error. If you'd identified yourself is infallible when this began, you could have saved me a lot of time. So much for civil discussion. I'm really pissed at you.

Wallace didn't ask for all the details. He just asked ballpark how much the 20% comes out to without reference to the loopholes. If Ryan can confidently say that with the loopholes closed it's revenue neutral, then he must be able to say the amounts on each side.

Also, if it's revenue neutral, that means on average, Romney/Ryan are promising precisely nothing except uncertainty about whether you'll go up or down.>> ^VoodooV:

did Paul Ryan just admit that torture doesn't work? That's gotta honk off the Republican establishment.
In Ryan's defense though. The budget is this insanely complicated thing. He's absolutely correct that you can't just give a few sound bites that adequately summarizes things up. We live in a complex world, you can't reduce lots of things into sound bites that will satisfy the armchair politicians

I'm sure a similar laundry list of accomplishments far and wide could be made about any president. America will be feeling the positive effects of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act and proposal for a new refuge for wild mustangs for years to come.

Mind you, this the best Obama can do with 90% of the media unjournalists taking his side, never vetting him, never asking hard questions or questioning policy...

Where it counts, this President doesn't cut it. And why is there still no budget? It can't be because of the Republican minority in Congress.

Hey, I could be wrong, and the mob will decide in November that government dependency and not working are now more rewarding than the opposite.


As for why the current problems persist:

"The endless proliferation of anti-business interventions by government, and the sight of more of the same coming over the horizon from Barack Obama's appointees in the federal bureaucracies, creates the one thing that has long stifled economic activity in countries around the world -- uncertainty about what the rules of the game are, and the unpredictability of how specifically those rules will continue to change in a hostile political environment." --T. Sowell









>> ^KnivesOut:

Yeah, what has Obama done anyway aside from put up with all this ridiculous nonsense?>> ^quantumushroom:
Don't y'all wish you could simply point to Obama's successful record instead of resorting to this?
Higher taxes and demonizing the rich (who pay the lion's share of income taxes while the bottom 50% pay nothing) haven't worked.
Massive government spending hasn't worked.
Weak, indecisive leadership in dealing with our enemies (and allies!) hasn't worked.
The only reason there aren't riots over Obamacare is the new taxes are on a delayed fuse.
Obes doesn't deserve a second term, and didn't deserve a first term (neither did McLame, but the lesser of two evils...)

@hpqp
I am not at all ashamed of my verbose, self-indulgent dross, so here we go!

Something has to be extra-physical, as least based on our current model. I can fully accept that a brain by itself can receive sensory input, process it against memory, and thus act in a completely human way indistinguishable from a conscious human, but on its own can literally be no more "conscious" than a river flowing down a mountain. Our current view of the physical universe does not tolerate any rational physical explanation of consciousness. Any given moment of human experience - the unified sensory experience and stream of consciousness - does not exist in a single place at a single instant. To suggest that the atoms\molecules\proteins\cells of the brain experience themselves in a unified manner based on their proximity to or electrochemical interaction with each other is magical thinking. Atoms don't do that, and that's all that's there, physically.
I disagree that consciousness is subordinate to cognition in terms of value. Cognition is what makes us who we are and behave as we do, but consciousness is what makes us different from the rest of the jiggling matter in the universe.

A couple of posts back, you challenged my statement about abstinence education as demonstrating a lack of pragmatism. I didn't really address it in my reply, but I'd prefaced it with the understanding that it's not a magical incantation. I know people are still going to have sex, but I suggested that has to be a part of education. People have to know that you can still get pregnant even if you're using the contraceptives that are available. They have to at least know the possibility exists. It's one more thing for them to consider. People are still going to drive recklessly even if you tell them they can crash and kill themselves despite their airbags, seatbelts, and crumple zones, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to educate them about the possibility. I fail to see how that's not pragmatic.

I didn't reply to your comment about adoption vs abortion because I'm not sure there's anything else to add on either side. As I've said, my beliefs on this are such that even a grossly flawed adoption\orphan care system is preferable to the alternative, even if it means that approximately 10 times the number of children would enter the system than have traditionally been adopted each year. (1.4M abortions annually in the US, ~140K adoptions, but there are several assumptions in that math that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.) Many right and just things have unpleasant consequences that must be managed. (The typical counter here is that Pro-Lifers tend to also be fiscal\social conservatives and won't fund social services to care for these new individuals they've "protected" into existence. That's just another issue of taking responsibility for the consequences of choices. If they get what they want, they need to be held to account, but it's a separate issue. A related issue, but a separate issue.)

Criminalizing\prohibiting almost any activity results in some degree of risky\dangerous\destructive behavior. Acts must be criminalized because there are individuals who would desire to perform those acts which have been determined to be an unnecessary imposition on the rights of another. Criminalization does not eliminate the desire, but it adds a new factor to consideration. Some will decide the criminalization\prohibition of the act is not sufficient deterrent, but in proceeding, are likely to do so in a different manner than otherwise. The broad consideration is whether the benefits of criminalization\prohibition outweigh the risks posed to\by the percentage who will proceed anyway. Prohibition of alcohol failed the test, I expect the prohibition of certain drugs will be shown to have failed the test..eventually. Incest is illegal, and the "unintended" consequence is freaks locking their families in sheds and basements in horrific conditions, but I think most of us would agree the benefits outweigh the detriment there.

Is putting all would-have-been-aborteds up for adoption abhorrent or absurd? The hump we'll never get over is asking "is it more abhorrent than aborting all of them", because we have different viewpoints on the relative values in play. But is it even a valid question? They won't all be put up for adoption. Some percentage (possibly 5-10 percent) will spontaneously miscarry\abort anyway and some percentage would be raised by a birth parent or by the extended family after all. An initially unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily equate to an unwanted child, for a number of reasons. I do not have statistics on what proportion could be expected to be put up for adoption. Would you happen to? It seems like that would be difficult to extrapolate.

The "'potential' shtick" carries weight in my view because of the uniqueness of the situation. There is no consensus on the "best" way to define when elective abortion is "acceptable". Sagan puts weight on cognition as indicative of personhood. As he states, the Supreme Court set its date based on independent "viability". (More specifically, I feel it should be noted, "potential" viability.) These milestones coincide only by coincidence.
Why is it so easy for us, as you say, to retroproject? And why is this any different from assigning personhood to each of a million individual sperm? For me, it's because of those statistics on miscarriage linked above. The retroprojected "potential" is represented by "percentages". At 3-6 weeks, without deliberate intervention 90% of those masses of cells will go on to become a human being. At 6-12 it's 95%. This is more than strictly "potential", it's nearly guaranteed.

I expect your response will be uncomfortable for both of us, but I wish you would expound on why my "It Gets Better" comparison struck you as inappropriate. Crude, certainly - I'll admit to phrasing it indelicately, even insensitively. I do not think it poorly considered, however. The point of "It Gets Better" is to let LGBT youth know that life does not remain oppressive, negative, and confusing, and that happiness and fulfillment lie ahead if they will only persevere.
It's necessary because as humans, we aren't very good at imagining we'll ever be happy again when surrounded by uncertainty and despair, or especially recognizing the good already around us. We can only see torment, and may not see the point in perpetuating a seemingly-unending chain of suffering when release is so close at hand, though violence against self (or others).
This directly parallels the "quality of life" arguments posed from the pro-choice perspective. They take an isolated slice of life from a theoretical unplanned child and their mother and suggest that this is their lot and that we've increased suffering in the universe, as if no abused child will ever know a greater love, or no poor child will ever laugh and play, and that no mother of an unwanted pregnancy will ever enjoy life again, burdened and poverty-stricken as she is.
As you said, we're expecting a woman to reflect "on what would her and the eventual child’s quality of life be like", but we're so bad at that.
And all that quality-of-life discussion is assuming we've even nailed the demographic on who is seeking abortions in the U.S.
Getting statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, we find that 77% were at or above the federal poverty level and 60% already had at least one child.

On a moral level, absolutely, eugenics is very different debate.
On a practical level, the eugenics angle is relevant because it's indistinguishable from any other elective abortion. Someone who is terminating a pregnancy because their child would be a girl, or gay, or developmentally disabled can very easily say "I'm just not ready for motherhood." And who's to say that's not the mother's prerogative as much as any other elective abortion, if she's considering the future quality of life for herself and the child? "It sucks for girls\gays\downs in today's society and I don't think I can personally handle putting them through that," or more likely "My family and I could never love a child like that, so they would be unloved and I would be miserable for it. This is better for both of us."
Can we write that off as hopefully being yet another edge case? (Keep in mind possibly 65% of individuals seeking abortion declare as Protestant or Catholic, though other statistics show how unreliable "reported religious affiliation" is with regard to actual belief and practice.)

_{"Argumentation"? I have learned a new word today, thanks to hpqp. High five!}

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I'm in the same boat as @hpqp. I also really don't get IVF. If you really want a child and you can't conceive, why not adopt?
My wife and I did go through fertility treatments (and yes, that and a hefty dose of chance contributed to the outcome of triplets), but only hormone injections and IUI. However, we had decided that if it came down to trying IVF, we were going to adopt. That said, I can see why some might choose that route. We wanted a child who was ours biologically, and we decided how far we were willing to go for that outcome.
>> ^chingalera:
Damn Ted, I feel ya brother, what a wirlwinfd of excitement and trepidation you must be a-wigglin' with right now!! Congratulations and Best Wishes!!
Advice: They have support groups for expecting fathers for gentlemen as such in your state of... uncertainty. I hear they're proctored by fathers of cheerleaders and career airline stewardesses
Thanks for the sentiment, but I'll say I have a peace about it. I know that it's likely to be the most challenging years of my life, and I can't say I'm not anxious, but it is what it is. We almost certainly couldn't handle it by ourselves, and we're thankful that we won't have to. Our friends and families are there for us, and we're so grateful to them for it.

>> ^ReverendTed:

Wife is currently pregnant with triplets. (Watching and learning about their development has certainly influenced my opinion on abortion, which may provide some perspective on a few of my recent posts.)


Damn Ted, I feel ya brother, what a wirlwinfd of excitement and trepidation you must be a-wigglin' with right now!! Congratulations and Best Wishes!!

Advice: They have support groups for expecting fathers for gentlemen as such in your state of... uncertainty. I hear they're proctored by fathers of cheerleaders and career airline stewardesses

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)