Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 285
  • Darwins +2/-39

jaimehlers you portray my beliefs as having only a foundation in feelings when you know that they are based upon God's direct demonstrated interventions in my life.

I know no such thing.

 You simply refuse to differentiate my evidence which has a solid basis with the kind of faith you usually pillory.  You act like I don't have you off guard with the reality of intervention but it shows by you resorting to the feelings thing when you know it doesn't apply.

The reason is because you have consistently refused/been unable to provide any solid evidence to back up your stories.  You believe them to be true because they feel true to you, but that is not even close to the same thing to being able to demonstrate them to be true.  This goes back to your mistake of certitude when there's nothing solid to base it on - you might as well build a house on sand.

It would be a mistake not to have certitude with the evidence I have.  It would be a mistake for you to have certitude that my evidence is true, but not for me.  If you were honest with your fellow bloggers here that speak with certitude that god isn't real, or that it is a fairy tale you would correct them.

Certitude that there is no God is a bigger fallacy than ones certitude that there is one, particularly if that person has the evidence I have.

So let's hear it, "It is wrong to speak with certitude that Wayne's God is a fantasy".  "It is wrong to speak with certitude that confirmation bias controls Wayne's accounts of intervention, thus renders them invalid."

Can you be honest and make those to declarations, or are your peers going to punish you for going off the reservation?

On the contrary, it's exactly like the following quote:  "Search your feelings, you know it to be true."

Are you saying I said that?

Quote from: WayneHarropson
What you are trying and failing to do is box me in with others whose faith you have managed to dislodge that base their "beliefs" on un-demonstrated faith.  You cannot do that with me though you're doing your best.
I'm not trying to 'dislodge' anyone's faith.

Really.  Let me think about that.  Let's take a poll and see how many of you here can make that declaration.  Having heard that statement I will look at your arguments differently than before because I may have been under a false impression.  Maybe you could suggest that it become a Forum Maxim.  Would anyone else here like to make that statement?

This isn't about 'dislodging' faith in the first place.  I couldn't care less that you believe in your god.  It's about getting people off of the idea that their faith can substitute for actual knowledge.
  Who said it was a substitute for knowledge?  Men of faith have helped get us to the moon.  Give me an example of how I've substituted faith for knowledge, that you need to save me from.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
But what has happened is you discredit your arguments and diminish the credibility of your reason to continue hounding me about having unsubstantiated faith, when you know all too well that I would be unreasonable to dismiss the continual interventions.  They may fail your standards of courtroom evidence but only if a circumstantial cases were never allowed, but you know that a circumstantial case can be a good case, and in my case it's open and shut.

This is not a courtroom, Wayne (thankfully).  It isn't about technicalities, or objections, or any of the other things you see in courtrooms.  What it's about is providing us with evidence to support your argument.  And you've not been able to do that.  What you're actually giving us are stories which you believe are so compelling that a person who hears them all cannot help but agree with you that your god exists (which, incidentally, is why you've declaring that I know your stories are true, etc).  But they aren't compelling, especially to someone who doesn't share your belief system to begin with. 
  Thee's that belief system thing again.  If you put together all the interventions and remove the Christianity, you would still have a bunch of supernatural stuff to rationalise. 

You would have to attribute it to something unnatural.  I know that philosophically belief systems exist for other people, but you must allow for the possibility that there is one overarching truth of which those who are aware of it, and point themselves to it,  end up transending the world of "belief systems".  Jesus Christ was the truth incarnate, so much so that a whole lot of faulty belief systems make the best use of his name as they can, but apart form the fallacies that men are afflicted with there is a core truth, Christ, and he is that one solid rock.  With regard to that truth, belief system seems a little inappropriate... for me anyway.

Your certitude that you know the truth is blinding you to the way things are actually working out.  That's why it's such a serious flaw for you.

Things could work out bad for me, and it wouldn't change the reality of God. It couldn't change the certitude that is the natural result of all the interventions.  It was like with Job.  He may not have liked what was happening to him but it didn't cause him to say God didn't exist.  I suppose you could even curse God as many have but in cursing him they acknowledge him. 

Quote from: WayneHarropson
I'm absolutely uncertain of my interpretations of God's intentions, but in all that uncertainty of myself is absolutely no uncertainty about God's repetitively demonstrated power in my life. That repetitively demonstrated power does find its counterparts in the Scriptures so my reasoned judgement is that those that wrote the scripture were  experiencing the same repetitive demonstrations that caused them to write of the phenomena that characterizes my experience.  It is both reasoned and rational to arrive at the certainty that God exists, and for me it would be the height of idiocy to arrive at any other conclusion.

You having "no uncertainty about God's repetitively demonstrated power" is exactly the problem.

It's funny to hear you say that. You should feel funny saying it.

For all that you actually know, for all that you've actually been able to prove, it could simply be coincidence (you've admitted as much by saying that my explanations are plausible).  Therefore, your certitude is built on a foundation of sand.

I like that.  Where did you get that building on sand thing anyway?

I may be the biggest fool in the world in how I have conducted my life, and for being that way it would be true that I've built my life on a foundation of sand, and earthly failure may be my just dessert, but none of that has any relevance to the fact of God.  I am a man, I am imperfect, but none of my folly changes the truth of God.  Your sand argument is good for me, but irrelevant to the reality of God.

It may seem solid to you, in your own mind, but it doesn't stand up to examination.  Yet your certitude is actually leading you to ignore the warnings of others who are able to see the problems that you've blinded yourself to.  It is leading you astray. 

Again, don't make the mistake of equating my certainty of God with a certainty of my understanding of God.  My faulty understanding of him and his machinations doesn't make him not exist.  The interventions prove Him, my understanding of it all is subject to scrutiny, even my own.

Blindness takes more than one form.  Convincing yourself that what you want to believe in exists and then refusing to even consider the slightest possibility that it doesn't actually exist is also blindness.

What if I didn't want to believe and all this stuff happened to me?  Would you not be hounding me for not allowing for the possibility that he exists?  What you are exposing here is your flaw not mine.

  What you're actually asking us to do is to take your word for it, and that isn't going to work.

I just can't wait to here one of "you say, well, now, I guess God could be real if what Wayne is saying is true'.  But I'm not sure if any of you are honest enough about it to concede that point. You have this certitude hang up. I'm waiting.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
What's so touchy feely about an earthquake for heaven sake?, give up jaimehlers.
Earthquakes happen all the time, as you said yourself.

I don't know how my conceding that earquakes happen all the time has any relevance to my having been specifically placed, and directed, and given visions.  Of course they happen just as often as they happen, that has nothing to do with diminishing the impact of my experience with them.  You have a useless argument to even point out frequencies.  A lightning strikes happen all the time as well, so what?

You hold your own arguments in high regard, yet how many people have you actually managed to persuade with them?  And how many of those didn't already share your religious belief?
You wanna know something?  I don't have a particularly high regard for my ability to argue, I just have true incidents to report, and against the background of that reality all I need to do is navigate to the best of my ability around all the unnecessary scepticism.  Now, OJs defense team, they have the argument down to a science, and they better, because they are perpetrating a lie.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Your explanations were worthy of regard even though they fell short of overturning the repetitive pattern they sought to dismember.

That 'pattern' only exists in your own mind and those you've successfully managed to convince, you know.  To everyone else, it's meaningless.  And as long as you refuse to provide verifiable evidence, you're not going to succeed in proving that this pattern you've detected has any real meaning.

It's funny to hear you say it is a pattern in my mind, when, truth be told, some of this is as bizarre as a mind can conceive.  Now if Idi Amin that I had only a passing knowledge of was driving a big black Crown Vic ascending a hill with US Government Plates and a big Obama Grin in nineteen ninety and he was conceived from a pattern that I picked up in my sunday school class when I was eight years old... that is some pattern.

I will remind you that I was awakened, lead to the scriptures, and was made to read one passage specifically that said that the Holy Ghost would teach me all things and then bring those things back to my memory.  John 14:26

He instructed me with the obscure dream of Idi Amin, and then lead me to find it 20 years later when I had forgotten completely about it to remind me so I could write about it.  Hardly the stuff of patterns in the mind.  Re Read the account here and then use your critical analytical skills to determine how that could be a pattern in my mind.  http://tinyurl.com/ObamaAmin   

Here's some trivia.  Why would we need 2700 of these puppies?  http://tinyurl.com/2700mrap
Changed Change Reason Date
caveat_imperator arrogantly refuses to acknowledge he's wrong March 06, 2013, 12:49:46 AM