Now, we are getting into Philosophy. OK, I'll bite since I am not too busy
yet.
As to the issue of "unverfiiable source". You need to define what you mean
by unverifiable. How does one go about verifying a history book like the
Bible? You call it unverifiable because you choose to not believe it
despite evidence as to its integrity. Archeologists have verified many of
the statements in the Bible. Long lost cities, locations, practices and
cultures have been verified to have existed according to what is written in
the Bible. Most notably, the existence of theAssyrian Kingdom have recently
been verified. For decades, nobody can find proof of the existence of the
Assyrian Empire and its capital Nineveh. The Bible stood alone in its
defense for the existence of the Assyrian Empire and its capital Nineveh.
People scoofed at the Bible because it was "wrong".
Well, lo and behold, Nineveh has been found and replete with amazing
cultural and archeological finds that establishes once and for all that it
existed at the time period and location that the Bible said it was. But,
did that increase you belief in the integrity of the Bible? I do not
believe so. You still call it a "fairy tale" and unverifiable. Despite
this kinds of discovery occuring hundreds and thousands of time, in all
fields of science, you still call the Bible unverifiable.
The Bible has verifed that the Earth was round in 3 different locations in
the Bible. Yet, that is not enough to "verfiy" it. There are literally
hundreds of statements about scientific facts we did not discover until
recently, that is in the Bible. Yet, that is not enough to "verify" it.
What will it take to verify the Bible for you my friend? You will finally
believe that the Bible is true when you see Demons and fallen Angels descend
down on you. But by then, it would be too late for you.
You see my friend, you do not believe the Bible because you chose not to
believe it; not because you CAN NOT believe it. Facts are there if you
choose to believe it.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig" <cchayniepub...@gmail.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
On 12/30/2012 11:09 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
OK, since you asked, do not call me a troll by answering this.
Genesis chapter 6 is the source of this. This passage is the reason
why God destroyed the Earth
I think this is the source of the conflict:
Epistemology dictates that all knowledge comes from observation. When we
converse with each other in an attempt to exchange knowledge, we use the
Universe around us as a reference point in the exchange of truth. There
is no such thing as communication without this common reference point.
Words refer to existents and communication is act of exchanging
observations about the Universe. There is no other source for knowledge
since the Universe is all that exists, by definition. This epistemology
is at the foundation of science.
Using a book, such as Genesis, as a source of information is not valid.
It is heresay from an unverifiable source. Likewise, faith is not a
means of cognition, since there is no independent way of ascertaining
which faith is correct -- and what correct even means without a
reference to the Universe.
So Jaro, what you're seeing as insults, are challenges to your
epistemology. They are not insults, but you may interpret them as such
since such challenges rip at core beliefs. I also see a problem with
definitions you use. You use terms like 'God' and 'Angels' without
defining these terms. When I've spoken with Christians before on such
terms, they have never provided a definition. With 'God', they will
typically say that he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present, but
such descriptions defy definition. To define something is to delimit it
from other existents. Without a way to delimit its characteristics, it
simply cannot exist. There is no difference between something that is
'everything' and something that is 'nothing'. Which characteristics
would be different? There can't be a difference when there are no
identifiable characteristics.
Craig
