Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Member
  • Posts

    10,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

  1. Unattainable facts about God? I think that's for each individual to decide for themselves. I'm an Apatheist. I'm tired of arguing metaphysics. Without facts, all we have is an argument. I don't care whether or not God exists. Beyond love. Beyond hate. There is not caring.
  2. Then you agree with me? We have no objective facts about God. None at all.
  3. If you think that we have objective facts about God; then by all means, list them. It's going to be a short list, since even "God exists" does not qualify. We can't even define God. Without common reference points, we can't even agree on what we are discussing. The only objective fact we have about God is -- We have no objective facts about God. I want to be clear here that I am not taking an Atheist stance. Possibly, Agnostic. God's existence is not an objective fact. God's non-existence is not an objective fact. We have no objective facts about God.
  4. The current system for spreading the word, would make perfect sense, if God were evil -- or a fantasy. If the all powerful really were in charge, and was good, and cared -- for one thing, I would expect a lot fewer books. Only the real books would be published. They would agree with each other and we would not need professional clergy to explain them. We would not, for instance, have the Bhagavad Gita and the Koran. Say what you will about contradictions within the Bible. The World's great sacred books do not agree with each other. Or, as you say, no books at all. If God were both real and good.
  5. Why does God need scribes? God created everything from nothing -- time, space, energy, matter -- everything. The entire Universe. God can't created a book without scribes? What's a book, compared to the Universe and everything in it?
  6. Welcome to the quagmire. I think that you will come to regret this. You have entered a world where facts don't matter and faith trumps reality. You will be told that you don't understand. That you're out of context. That you need the Holy Spirit. It's a long way down the rabbit hole. When you do make a solid point, the topic will shift. In the end, nothing good comes of it. You'll find out.
  7. I'm the wrong person to attack the Bible's flaws. I can't take it seriously, long enough, to mount a proper attack. There was a time when I cared enough. Not any more. Life is short. I can't be bothered.
  8. The topic is drifting. We were speaking of the evidence for God's existence. I stated that there were no objective facts about God. That turned into this exchange about evidence. What you are now asking is vague. The topic will drift further.
  9. I mean this as a real question. In order for the Bible -- or anything else -- to be considered evidence -- does it or does it not; require more than the assertion that it is evidence? Behold the stars. Is this not evidence of God? Behold the mountains. Is this not evidence of God? Look. Trees. Is this not evidence of God? We can keep that up for ever. The gleam in a newborn's eye. Whiskers on kittens. Behold, the Bible. No. It's not evidence. Claiming it as evidence is an assertion. Nothing more. Unless you want to open Pandora's box and accept all the assertions as evidence. Look at that cloud formation. That's evidence of God. Look. A cat with extra toes.... No. Calling something evidence does not make it evidence.
  10. I don't normally think of evidence -- which has been exposed as fraud -- as evidence. Think of the incentives that the religious world has to find evidence that the Exodus happened. Nothing. If said evidence existed, the pious would be rubbing our faces in it. Alright. What is the motive to accept the Bible as evidence -- aside from the desire to see the Bible as inerrant? Christians don't accept the Koran as inerrant. Or the Book of Mormon. Or the writings of Sun Myung Moon. Or Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy. All additional revelations from God which build on the Bible -- if we believe. What is belief? A strongly held opinion. We all have opinions. This is not evidence.
  11. You probably don't believe that their are green kangaroos on Mars. It is not that the evidence for God is inadequate. There is no evidence at all. None. What objective facts do we have about God? None at all. What then is the foundation for belief? Only assertions, made without evidence -- which can be dismissed without evidence. You make simple things complicated.
  12. When the community of organized "skeptics" goes on the attack -- because they know with supernatural certitude when something is bull ** -- I get to be "skeptical" of their "studies".
  13. An addendum: That should have been Doloris Krieger. Not Deloris.
  14. An emotional response on my part, based on two sets of experience. I have taken workshops with Janet Macray and Deloris Krieger. I actually know something about the subject. Unlike the critics who foam over theory. Yes, foam. I have been harassed out of a few Skeptic groups. They never studied Therapeutic Touch and never had a session -- but they knew. Oh, how they knew. Mean, nasty and vicious hardly covers it. A true fuster cluck. And they always lead off with the Rosa papers -- like a Fundamentalist waving Scripture. Yes, I reacted badly. The slights have been very personal. In the best of all possible worlds, I would respond with equanimity. Alas, I am neither a Buddha nor a saint.
  15. Oh. Those studies. Pure gotcha, from Holy warriors defending medical orthodoxy. The worst kind of "skeptic". I didn't respond to your link. You must be thinking of someone else. Are you sure you posted to this board? It's something I would have remembered. As to my opinion of the studies in question …………… They were a touch lacking in objectivity. They are well known.
  16. If I understand meredog correctly -- always a big "if" : He is saying that the evidence itself is objective. Interpretation of that evidence is subjective. It's a fine point. It could have been expressed better -- but I don't see bad intentions.
  17. I don't remember any evidence. What am I over looking?
  18. You have watched me have my own heated discussions with meredog. I have become convinced that meredog is a prisoner of his own inhuman standards of intellectual purity. I am persuaded that he has no bad intentions for us. The problem is his standards. I think he's making himself even more miserable with his standards than he's making you. You want to know where meredog stands? On intellectual razor's edge. It's not a good place to stand. A man can really cut himself up. We all have our issues. I urge you to be patient with meredog. He has his issues. We have ours. It's part of being Human. There are times when we all stink. Nothing for it but to try to be kind to each other, and move on.
  19. In a long past thread, when the discussion was about Agnosticism -- meredog has been purist about what is knowable. I'm not seeing that here. Possibly I'm simply not finding it. I suspect that your reacting to something old that isn't here now. There have been other threads, where people argued that external reality is subjective. I don't see that happening here. Still, sometimes the past echoes. In this instance, I think you're getting stuck on past arguments, instead of current stuff.
  20. How odd. It seem to me that the natural expression of Torah, is Orthodox Judaism.
  21. Maybe. Are you talking about Jews? Or Christians?