Universal Salvation, is everybody eventually led back to heaven/paradise/love?

Science tries to explain reality. If you feel that these explanations trap you because they often contradict with your beliefs then that is your folly.

This is not to say that Science is always right but to deny science as a whole is to deny reality.

 

That is exactly my point.. Science is not always right. As for me denying science. That is a completely false representation of what I have said. A genuine mischaracterization.

 

No it isn't. Often when science contradicts your beliefs you default to " I don't follow the rules of logic" or some other denial of science in general.

 

I have that right to not use logic. I also have the right to not agree with science on particular matters. So where is there a denial of science. There is challenge for those who support certain things in science with evidence or argument that would compel my mind to accept what they say as true, but that is not a denial of science.. that is challenging the person making the claims to see if he/she knows what they are talking about. The non-theist side uses that same methodology on a daily basis... that is why they choose science as the tool to fight against theists. But it proves nothing regarding the subject that is being discussed.

 

That's exactly what I said, you deny logic when it contradicts your beliefs. Science and Logic are synonymous in this respect.

If some theists have beliefs that defy logic, why should this not be pointed out ?

 

No! I deny the form of logic you and others use when that form of logic is directed toward religion when that form of logic was designed for the purpose of studies of the physical world. How can logic possibly apply to something that most logicians would tell you 'that don't exist' (speaking of things of the spirit).
(I reserve the right to edit the above paragraph at a time of my choosing)

You are more than welcome to point out what you believe to be defying logic, however that action of pointing out what you perceive is no proof of anything other than what you perceive. Your perception might well be in error.

IMHO, it would behoove many on this forum to study the information available here ( http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/logic.html ) as it gives vital information pertaining to "logic" fundamentals which seemingly some of the members being more dependent on logic have overlooked. Such as what logic can and cannot do, and the basic requirements to entertain a 'logical' discussion.

 

If you wish to claim that measurement from a ruler is "arbitrary", that somehow a hole dug to the same marking on that ruler are not the same depth within a given (+/-) error, then go ahead.

Just do not be surprised when people that understand logic laugh at you.

 

OMG... Are you now admitting that those measuring devices are subject to error due to interaction with humans? That would make the measuring instruments subjective according to the subjective mind of man. Well, that is what your little notice about the +/- error is indicating.

Laughter is fun.. I do a lot of laughing on this forum also when I see all these 'highly edicated people arguing ' with me and not being able to compel my mind to accept what they say as true. Oh well. That door also swings both ways.

 

You can laugh at yourself all you wish as it is your lack of understanding of science that is at issue here.

That there is a slight difference (billionths of an inch for example) does not make the measurement scale arbitrary. For the purposes of science those measurements are exactly the same = not considered arbitrary.

That you claim have been somewhat of a scientist it is a bit of a joke on you that you do not understand this relatively simple concept.

We do not need to be able to measure things down to the atomic scale to design a garage big enough to fit a car.

That you are feigning not to understand this simple idea is extremely disingenuous. If you are so desperate that you will use arguments that you yourself do not believe then please refrain from commenting on my posts.

Sometimes you have interesting things to say but, it is irritating when a poster is making comments just to troll and that is what you are doing.

 

No! What makes them arbitrary, is the source from which the original increment was derived. Search the history of such measurements.

Concepts are subjective. Want to go on?

Very true.. So why bother with such concepts as billionths of an inch or the atomic scale when building a garage?

That you are presupposing that I am "feigning not to understand" your "simple idea" is also disingenuous. So, now again you presume to know what I believe and what I don't believe?

"trolling" is an official decision that can be assigned only by the Moderators of this forum. Therefore your closing comment is rendered to be merely an opinion ,,, probably caused by your inability to make successfull showing that my comments are invalid.

 

Your claim that having a small known and limited error in measurement makes that measurement arbitrary is false and you know it.

 

Then please show the posting wherein I allegedly made such a claim.

 

What is your problem ... you made this claim only a few posts ago.

Your claim that having a small known and limited error in measurement makes that measurement "subjective" is false and you know it.

Disingenuous trolling.

 

No! You made that interpretation of what I said only a few posts ago.

Again, show that post which you refer to. If it is only a few posts ago, as you claim above, it should not be a problem for you to retrieve that post wherein you allege that I made a claim that "having a small known and limited error in measurement makes that measurement "subjective""

Projecting now I see.

 

I showed you the post in the last quote ? Are you claiming to be blind now too ?

Here it is for the second time and I have bolded the words to make it easier for you so that you do not claim to not see where you made your claim in your own post.

Your claim that having a small known and limited error in measurement makes that measurement "subjective" is false and you know it.

This is disingenuous trolling.

Now you are being more disingenuous by pretending not to remember your own posts- even after I quoted that post directly.

This is pathetic.

 

Was the error subjective or objective. In other words, did the error come about as a result of the measuring device or did it come about by the interaction of the human mind? On the other side of that same coin... when the scales (measuring instruments) were originally devised, what method was utilized in determing the increments to be used on that/those scales? Please don't hesitate any further from addressing those questions.

 

Quit asking questions that do not relate to the issue at hand in order to deflect attention away from the fact that ...

Your claim that having a small known and limited error in measurement makes that measurement "subjective" is false and you know it.

 

My questions are related to the issue at hand. You are accusing me of something that you have not been able to support in a manner that would prove you correct... The questions I have asked are directly related to t he arbitrariness of the making of those devices and of the errancy of the human mind in using those devices.

 

Look dude. If you do not have the mental capacity to figure out for yourself that measurements from a ruler are not made subjective or arbitrary by the small (+/-) error then you should not be discussing the issue.

Something is not made subjective or arbitrary by a small error. A 2 liter bottle of Coke if properly filled does not contain 1/2 a liter of liquid. If such measurement were truly subjective or arbitrary then such results such as 1/2 a liter or a few drops would be possible.

That the actual amount from a 2 liter (+/- .01 L) measuring device is 1.99 Liters or 2.01 Liters does not make that measurement arbitrary or subjective.

Get a grip.

I am not explaining this again to you so do not bother responding. Just "get it".

 

Look dude. If you can not comprehend that any mental activity relative to an objective thing is a subjective activity and the results are also subjective, then you should not be discussing this subject.

In one sense of the word you are correct: in the sense that things are not in and of themselves subjective. They become subjective when the mind of man interacts with those things. Without the mind of man, there can be no human mental contemplation of such things and with that mental contemplation comes the subjectivity.

Sure it does. Where did the measurement called a liter come from?

Yes! You should.

Oh! But I have to respond in order to not be in acquiescence with you. Therefore, I do respond with a refutation of the claims you have made. Just get it.

 

What refutation ? According to you the sky is not blue because determination of the color blue is "subjective"

 

Where did I state that the sky is not blue? I did say that physical reality is subjective.. because physical reality cannot be experienced without it being subjectively interpreted. Now come on with that post citation ... oh and don't overlook the other citations that you are avoiding.

 

What are you blubbering about now... do you not like the outcome of your own philosophy? If everything in physical reality is subjective then the blueness of the sky is subjective.

If you wish to claim that the sky is not blue ... that is your right.

Are we done ?

 

I don't own a philosophy. So what are you blubbering about? Absolutely, the blueness of the sky is subjective.. ask any number of people to describe in detail, the color of the sky, and you will likely get numerous variations regarding the 'blueness' of the sky.

I already know what my rights are, you need not to attempt to remind me.

Done with what?

 

Done with your disingenuous nonsense about not claiming the sky is not blue.