The Infallible is not a verb. This is part of the problem, You may very well have some coherent thought you are trying to convey here, but you are often not using the language in way that allows us to make sense of what you say. 'The Infallible' conveys no meanings or connotations which we can match to some kind of action, so the rest of this paragraph is literally incomprehensible. Please find some alternative way to express this - you actually have shown in your clarifications in response to specific queries that you can often express the essence of your idea in much more understandable form.Using nouns or adjectives as verbs in ways that are so counter-intuitive, you make it virtually impossible to convey anything, let alone a subtle pointIf Omnipotence is meaningless, then any argument based on using it in anything other than as an example of a meaningless term, is meaningless. If a term is deduced to be meaningless, then it must follow that what it refers to does not, indeed cannot, exist, so denial of its existence is perfectly reasonable, in fact the only logical position.

You come across as someone who could really use a strong does of humility, so your sentiments here are very offensive. You show little or no acknowledgement that your thesis just may be in error, instead insisting it has to be our inability to read it or approach your arguments 'properly'.

 

Eloise, if you are there, please help BobSpence1 understand what I relay. I have only seen one post of yours and you have summed up everything I have written to a tee. But my language is unclear to them.

 

 

The Infallible is only the evidence begotten from the process of uncovering. Omnipotence when uncovered is infallibly evident insofar as ability means potential. But, simultaneously, it is normatively (by normatively I mean in terms of the eye that attempts to discover omnipotence) meaningless because any thing can be said to be omnipotent. Thus, the discovering of omnipotence is in no way special or significant because I can point to any thing and say, 'that is omnipotent'. I can say this 'truthfully' because potential is not a thing that can be seen or touched or pointed at with any faculty. This is why I say it is not a noun.

 

Read with this understanding. If you do not get it ask me or ask Eloise, who seems already well versed in this.

"LOL Ron" is just what the avatar says, not that it's important. Moving on...

Now you've introduced two new undefined terms in your obscurantist question-begging argument, neither of which address what I'd said. You're appealing to consequences, which answers nothing, substantiates nothing; and then asserting an ad hoc, which explains nothing.

Actually I thought I was only very vaguely close on point 3, I could see what you were establishing by it but I was and still am a bit unsure of your means.

Also I've really stretched myself lately by putting up possibly a few too many challenges in last couple of days of posting,  I must be crazy, but I'm going to try to keep up with the king tide of debate I've set myself up for. Wish me luck.

Ok first I'll try to restate the aim in this argument of defining discovering vs uncovering truth, and you can tell me if we're at the same mind on it.

Discovering is distinct from uncovering in that discovering a thing is reliant on the precondition that an unknown is already conceived. So discovery follows from knowing that there is something one does not know. Uncovering OTOH as we are defining it distinctly for this argument will refer to the principle which you expounded in your deafness analogy. Te deafness analogy probably shouldn't get an A+ for realism, on this we can probably all agree, fortunately however the point in question doesn't rely on the realism of the analogy, only it's inductive steps, which are: To be removed from knowledge by the lack of knowledge, ie to not be aware that it is raining outside - is in contrast  to being removed from knowledge by the lack of knowledge that the extension of knowledge is existing - ie the lack of being aware that one can hear rain.

In the first, one can discover the facts, in the second one cannot discover the facts, because hearing is out of the question, so one must uncover them. Uncovering then in this context simply refers to the act of removing the first layer of separation from knowledge. The person will still be separated from the knowledge, but will have the facts at separation which they did not previously have. ie the deaf girl will be aware that one can hear rain, yet still be separated from the instantaneous knowledge of rain via hearing. Thus knowing that there is something one does not know.

So one reaches discovery going 1 step toward knowledge to knowledge, and uncovering by going 1 step toward the same knowledge which is 2 steps away.

The argument provided by 1-24 is relevant to the act of uncovering. If one is metaphorically deaf, then discovery will not follow the proof just as hearing rain will not follow the deaf girls awareness that rain can be heard.

It also merits noting that this is probably also diametric to the standard of proof which is likely to be expected by most people. Most people prefer a discoverable fact to an uncovered one, again with the deafness analogy, the deaf girl might prefer to hear the rain herself to be sure of it's validity. Most prefer it, but the point is the deaf girl, purely by the degree of her deafness, is removed from the knowledge of hearing, it is plausible, but irrelevant that she will desire and possibly achieve the ability to hear in the longer run of things. For the purposes of the argument we match the process of her uncovering the knowledge that hearing exists without thought to any end of her discovering hearing.

At this point I think we are set to proceed with the rest of the argument, correct 1-24?

 

 

Okay, this is where I am a little bit vague on the argument. As I understand it the main point here is that the identity of potency cannot be restricted to the domain in which some potential is realised. Potential need not be realised in order to be potential and we can not identify potency in contrast to it's own definition. This drives us to define potency by unrealised potential, wherewithin we necessarily extract a fuzzy sub-group from unlimited potential. Which in turn implies that realisation of omni-potential is logically prior to the realisation of any potential.

I'm not absolutely sure of the means by which this holds, and I'm not sure if I have the whole argument shiny there, so add whatever I have missed which is pertinent to this point.

I get this part. the case made here is that potential is a normal to omnipotential, so omnipotential is therefore a trivial result as everything is a normal to it once you establish that potency itself has no identity outside of omni-potency.

 

I figure this is where the question of uncovering versus discovering is a factor. We cannot identify potency, because we can not discover omnipotence. This is drawing a similarity between hearing rain and having hearing. A lack of hearing precludes hearing rain, so one must uncover that rain can be heard through the proportion of its manifestation available to one's senses. Likewise only a proportion of the identity of potency is manifest to us in any given juncture, thus we must uncover that the intangible portion has an identity from the revealed proportion.  The identity of potency is not discoverable, but it is uncoverable that potency has no identity external to omnipotence, thus we have identified omnipotence and any claim of potency is inherent of that identity, as claims of hearing rain are inherent to the, intangible to a deaf person, identity of hearing.

1-24, would you mind going over the main supporting statements for point 3 of my summary again. 

 

What we need to make 'potency' meaningful is certainly not 'omnipotence', but some actual specific capability, such as the ability to move stuff around.

The deaf girl argument would be more significant if the phenomena under discussion was not 'rain', which has many other ways to be sensed other than just the sound it creates, but something which only manifests itself through sound. I can't think of anything off-hand, which in itself suggests a problem in the whole argument.

What could exist purely as sound?

If sound is being generated by 'something', that something has to be something other than sound, which means it must have some other attributes which in turn mean that it should be detectable by some other sense, touch or sight perhaps. Or at least some technology to augment our senses, as in something to magnify the magnitude of the vibrations, or enlarge the image of something otherwise too small or too far away, or convert invisible wavelengths into ones we can see, or convert sound vibrations to visible traces on an oscilloscope screen, etc.

So there are many possibilities for making sounds indirectly perceptible, or at least demonstrable as a real phenomenon, to a deaf person, that do not require the deaf person to grasp what sound 'sounds like' to a hearing person. This is analogous to the way we have become aware of the existence of a vast range of forces and energies and radiations which we are completely blind and deaf to with our unassisted senses. So if something is completely undetectable by any of our instruments, then we are justified in being very sceptical about it as a reality. Even if you claim you have an ability to sense something that many other people with or without sensitive instruments cannot detect, we need more than just your testimony. Your testimony only 'proves' that you have experienced a particular feeling or sensation, which can have many purely internal physiological or psychological causes.

Because I believe recognition of this ignorance is a preferable standpoint to inventing a solution and then building political structures around that belief.



If I don't strive towards meaning, how would I strive to more meaning? Elevating myself with what meaning? Who said that I try to make myself more of an atheist than a baby? I strive to make myself more knowledgable but this has nothing to do with my stance on atheism but more desire to know more about what is around me and how it got there.  This has nothing to do with being an atheist.

I call myself "Mr. Atheist" because it's catchy.  I am an atheist, I am a mister.  I often speak of religion and the promotion of inquisitivness and ignorance as acceptable stances.  I strive for more meaning? No.

What is the error?



I don't distinguish my atheism from that of a baby, I merely vocalize it and promote it as the natural position to take rather than inventing solutions to questions where the solution is unknown.

I affirm that I am an atheist because of the lack of social acceptance of the stance of no-religion.  I express it to vocalize the concept that I am one of many and it is an acceptable position that should not be discriminated against.  I invite discrimination so that those that are afraid to face discrimination can be free of it.

It fuels my meaningfulness? I don't know about that.  It is a tool by which to provide my help in influencing the social curve in a positive manner.

The lieing bit is all pointless as far as I can interpret so I will just ignore it.


What tricks? I asked valid questions seeking clarification of what it was you were trying to say so that I could refute your claims.

How can I attack what I do not understand?

Your abuse of the english language and use of words made it too difficult to actually figure out what your intended meaning was.

You have failed to properly state your own case.  I do not, at this point, believe that you actually gave all of my points and questions a read over and I think you just breezed past it without the intention to take my questions and interest in understanding your message seriously.

Due to your own inability to communicate in a reasonable manner you have failed to demonstrate your "proof".

Only speak clearly, using words with the meaning and mode they are given in normal educated discussion, don't redefine them.

Maybe because when you express your thoughts in a simpler way you make the confused, erroneous thinking behind your whole thesis, perhaps behind your whole thought process, more readily apparent. Your actual 'proof' is so opaque that most of us can find little in the way of specific coherent points to discuss.

Back to the 1-24 OP , "Sacred Bible , Truth , Defining God , Proof", ..... where have we come with all this? Absolutely no where. Communicate ??? 

I AM in AWE. Gawd is Awe, so "God" is. Then there is silly religion god dogma and word games.

I have enjoyed this thread. The saying "Pluck out the eye of reason" has new found meaning for me. The epic Bibull book of battle does contain some wisdom. God of abe is truly the devil of wrong thinking. Yes Jesus/Buddha, I too am ONE with the the "father/mother cosmos". Simple. Occams Razor?

What the hell is wrong with us? > Religion of separate god crap. Philosophy is half junk. Science is the only reasoning that is "sacred".

Yeah we are in AWE, so say hi to God that we are. Take your brain out and play with it. Check out your guts. Jesus scorned dogma. Buddha laughed.

I AM great, God of abe is my enemy ....

"People can lose their lives in libraries. They ought to be warned." Saul Bellow

((( yeah, go fishing, ride seadoos, and go to Mars, learn something meaningful ..... and bring lots of beer ....       or wine,  Me Jesus ! "One One One" ..... simple. No masters .....

 

This in an answer to 1-24's assertion about babies: A baby has no choice in what it believes because it does not have the ability to choose religion or atheism. Being an atheist is a choice; every atheist has chosen to be an atheist after weighing the evidence for the two opposing claims. The atheist looks are the evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity and looks at the evidence against it. The atheist makes a choice based on the evaluation of that evidence.

A baby not believing in God is not based on any evaluation of evidence. In fact a baby doesn’t really believe or not believe in God. An idea has to exist in your world for you to believe or disbelieve it. Belief or non belief is a choice a baby does not choose to believe a baby is a blank slate. An atheist has evaluated the evidence for both claims and has chosen to be an atheist.

So when 1-24 says that a baby is a baby because of a lack of reason to believe he shows us how much of an idiot he actually is.

I AM TIRED OF THE BULLSHIT!

This guy suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. In other words this guy is fucking nuts. None of his points are logical, nothing he says makes sense.

He considers himself a prophet that speaks with a Godly tongue and that sees things we cannot. He then goes on to suggest that our beliefs are on par with the beliefs of the undeveloped mind of a baby. So we have undeveloped minds and he has a great mind that sees beyond what normal humans see.  

He has the audacity to mangle the English language beyond comprehension and then tell us that it is our fault we do not understand. He tells us that we do not understand because he speaks the Godly version of English, a language the poor layman cannot understand.

In an atheist vs. theist debate in front of an audience this guy would look like a delusional idiot (even to Christians) and he would be laughed off the stage. This guy has no basis for any of his claims.

Oh and 1-24, if your God uses adjectives as verbs he is a fucking idiot.

I appreciate the clarifications by Eloise which I did not read prior to my last post.  I am impressed you are able to understand him as I really did try to give everything he said a solid consideration and I just couldn't figure out some of those basic concepts that he was trying to get across.

Even with the clarification, could someone please fill me in on what the actual "evidence" is? The suggestion that some people can see a layer that we cannot is one thing, but this is not "evidence" to someone who cannot, and none of us can so I can't help but to suggest that this is not evidence in the slightest.  Any of the examples of abilities or senses that one may have over another I can think of there are ways to provide evidence for it, but in this case there is no evidence that the ability itself exists much less the evidence of a deity.

Is that the only evidence here? "I can see it and you can't"?  None of the other talks about omnipotence etc seem to have to do with evidence towards a deity, so is that all really just filler?

Eloise, he appears to have taken a liking to you due to your ability to apparently understand him much better than most of us have been able to.  Don't take this as offensive as it's intent really is for his benefit rather than ours: do you have this ability that we do not?  I don't imagine that you will claim to which brings me to a question for the OP: Are you the only one that has this ability?  Who else has it, could you please identify figures that would possess it? Why are you not able to provide evidence for it?

I want to chime in on the frequent comparison the OP makes between an atheist, who claims no knowledge of, and doesn't believe in, a god, and a baby who does so passively. This is not a universal Christian appraisal, since there is the odd Christian argument that everyone on earth is somehow imprinted with a knowledge of a Christian god, but may choose to deny it. I point this out to show the wild variation in interpretations between believers of the "same" religion. That aside, the OP seems to appeal to ridicule here in saying that an atheist has not 'advanced' in his or her knowledge from infancy. But what we have not seen is anything that demonstrates that advancement in knowledge of a deity exists. I've asked specifically for support for this idea, and got back gibberish and question begging about combat.

 

Have you paid attention to the postings? I never said I was a Christian. I said no religion has me. Stop categorizing me so that you can find a way to attack me. Why don't you attack what I have already proven.

You have not proven shit. You live in some kind of fantasy world in which you believe yourself to be some kind of superior being. You are crazy, thats what it comes down to.

What do you think you have proven?

 

Great question.

So are you saying that babies are not atheists then? That is not what Mr.Atheist seems to be saying. Maybe you guys need to figure out what your stance is. Oh, that's right, 'atheists' don't have a unified stance. That's fine too, though. I don't like that you all seem to clump me into the works of any unified religion. But really, what is true that atheism is a lack of reason to believe in a gods or is it the more strong case that a person denies the existence of gods? you tell me.

[quote=1-24]Nick B. That post was for magilum.