Evidence That The Bible is God's Word

**Caprisun** · 07-11-2010 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Well clearly. Perhaps that is why the Two-Element Metaphysics never developed in history.

That certainly is one possibility. And it most certainly would be the democratic solution.

But I really think you would have a harder time redesigning the psych tests to prove I am insane than I would writing such things as The Delian Quest.

And that was written in MathCad and Geometers Sketchpad.

Both use the language of form and material difference.

Call me mad, but then you would end up well, perhaps you can follow the train of thought but I doubt it.

I will give you a leg up, however, in proving my insanity. Disprove what I did in the Delian Quest--and it is something you surely might gain some fame for, because the existence of that work, The Delian Quest, actually disproves something no one has yet suspected. Read why the Cartesian Coordinate system was developed--because man could not parallel Algebra and Geometry.

Yet in the Delian Quest there is no Cartesian Coordinate Systems yet every Algebraic train of equations is perfect. ---

Try it. Oh, It just occured to me what this last means, you might think that I am off in space again.

It amounts to the fact that it is historically documented that man could not say the same thing in the two different languages without developing a third.

I did and can do, what it is claimed cannot be done.

I can see it now! One mad fool defending himself against the military powers of the world defending himself only with Occam's Razor! Make a nice tv series.

PS Once you demonstrate, as I did, the direct parallel between the two languages, you automatically disprove all the science based on non-Euclidean Geometry. Because, my friend, to claim otherwise, it is you, not I who are mad. And instead of changing your gibbish you are confined to one, and only one linguistic expression. Saying the same thing in every language you choose to develope. It is not consistency that is insane, it is never saying the things twice about the same things.

It is not those who claim that there is one, and only one conceptual foundation for the languages of man that are mad, it is man himself who claims otherwise. The two classes are concentually distinct, and I grant you have democracy on your side---but I have truth.

You have lived a life with inconsistency of thought. Any real consistency will make you dizzy.

Now I came to this site looking for a soul mate, one who just might be tired of being a dog that chases its own tail. But you see my problem, there is certainly many people like you in your world, but only one of me. My words are strange, but on some level, she can see some truth to them.

That well may be, for in consciousness there is no reality. One must coceptualize the magnitude of his thoughts to see all other absractions are fickle and, indeed, prone to pathological discrepencies. What is music you ask? Well, first you must not forget that only two conceptualizations must exist at any given time. So what was George Washinton's disposition? It is not the question you ask, but the reality in which you ask it that must prove the distinctly democratic conquest once predicted by our great countrymen. Then you will see the forlorn nature of their abmitions. Because, you see, the foundations of language are not concrete in the abstract nature of the universe. How do we know this? First you must sacrifice a goat and you will see. As everyone knows, if you stare at a goat for more than twenty minutes, you will see that it is not really a goat. Then you can really know the construction of a symphony. For this wobegone test of fortitude, it is important to remember that too much gun powder in a bullet can make one mad. What does this mean? Hell if I know. But you can be sure that when the die is cast, it really boils down to your skill in critical thinking. Can you subtract from abstraction? Certainly you can. But it isn't for the faint of heart. This scene will mark the comencement of your quest for indignation. Here you will find a beleaguered prohet by the name of Barry Bound. He will thrust upon you an invaluable epithet for the feasting glory of your insatiable soul, and it will go like this: "Cerebral palsy is not indicitive of cat scratch fever." With this newfound wisdom, you will bask in gratitude of your savior Jesus Christ as you enter a life of gracious servitude in honor of your eternal slavation. The real meaning of life can now reveal itself as a predication of the first priciple of causation reproduction, thus consummating your status as ultimate composer of cosmological entities. Do you get me?

**Universal Mind** · 07-11-2010 12:59 AM

We had a debate on it in a previous thread, and Philosopher8675309 will have a hard time countering what we learned in our quest for truth.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ley+playground

**Philosopher8659** · 07-11-2010 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Philosopher8675309, I did not say that reality is a quality. I said that it has qualities. I said that something that has qualities is a thing.

I have still said nothing about my position on the expansion of space. Now I will. I am not yet convinced that space itself is expanding. It seems that space is probably infinite, but some scientists disagree. If there is an end to space, space would exist between an object in space and nothingness, or where space ends and nothing is beyond it.

Now you are making more sense. If you study Aristotle and actually log his synonyms ( he was a synonym freak) You will find that a things qualities are its forms and material differences. I actually made a Windows Help file once logging the synonyms, definitions, and adding Venn diagrams to what he was saying. His conception of what predication is was entirely wrong, however. How Plato had it right but Aristotle never grasped it is beyond me, but I do see how normal people seem to find it impossible to grasp.

Space is a material difference, and thus has no limit. If it did have a limit, it would be, by definition a thing. You can apply limits to material difference and create things.

One thing to be noted, We can only know things and make either abstraction from them, either form, or material difference. Aristotle did say that these two elements can never exist in of itself. This is the real difficulty in the concept of Universe--which is on some level a collection of things, or a class of things.

By definition any lenght of line in a line segment is infinite--when you include the limits, the boundaries, then it is a finite segment.

What does all this have to do with Grammar? We name our abstractions, but an environmental acquisition system can only abstract qualities, ie. material difference or form. Thus, grammatically we have three primitive naming categories. Names of things, from which we abstract forms and material difference, and the names of forms and the names of the material difference in those forms.

How these names are manipulated in accordance with the truth of things is when predication is the inverse function of abstractions.

Since names are conventional, it means that all truth is constructed when one can simply keep their word, i.e. the original naming convention.

So, one of the first principles of any logic system is, there is no process or thought or theory in a grammar that violates the original naming convention. It can only be violated, as Aristotle did point out, when we assert when we should have denied, or denied when we should have asserted, since the unit sentence is so very simple.

Grammar books, books on logic, math, science, today violate these simple ideas wholesale--because it is not known, or taught, what the constraint upon words are--it is simply the definition of a thing.

One can see the difficulty in not understanding this when you read the commentators on Plato's Parmenides--they don't understand what the gibberish is about. It is written to get the reader to start realizing what happens in the mind when it treats these names not in accordance to what they name. Using the name of a form as if it were a thing, or a thing as if material difference. It makes all the difference in the world when you cannot, because you are unaware, keep these names distinct in your mind.

This is why Parmenides was an example of a mental exercise. Normal language training is completely oblivious to these distinctions. And it is true, unless you understand the use of names in accordance with the primitive form of language, you will never know when you are speaking non-sense.

Myself, I am not subtile. I often give people a swift kick in the head to see if you can do more than bite back. See if they can wake up just a little. Subtilty has been done, but man sleeps on.

**Caprisun** · 07-11-2010 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

And it is true, unless you understand the use of names in accordance with the primitive form of language, you will never know when you are speaking non-sense.

Interesting.

**Philosopher8659** · 07-11-2010 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Interesting.

Plato also stated that if you do use words in accordance with the primitive form of language, it would be so strange to people you communicate with, they will think you are quite mad. Thus, methods of passing the ideas on, were myths, fables, and stories.

Both in Scripture and Plato it is written the world will be turned upsidedown when this is understood (a metaphor). And the Scripture that what was knowledge, will dissapear. It denotes a radical change in psychology--this has been somewhat noted in psych books.

However, the truth must start to become open in history. There is a long way yet to go.

**Universal Mind** · 07-11-2010 10:54 PM

**Philosopher8659** · 07-12-2010 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No thanks, you are still not my type, but thanks for the offer.

**Universal Mind** · 07-13-2010 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

No thanks, you are still not my type, but thanks for the offer.

Then the debate is settled. However, which would you rather do or run up a hill?

**Sekhmet** · 07-14-2010 01:16 AM

"The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true!"

Circular logic, and bronze age mythology, FAIL.

**Replicon** · 07-14-2010 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Sekhmet

"The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true!"

Circular logic, and bronze age mythology, FAIL.

Haha yeah you just beat me to it. It's amazing that there is ANY back-and-forth debating going on in a thread whose premise is to prove that the bible is the word of god by quoting the bible. It is, in fact, failsauce.

**Marvo** · 07-14-2010 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Sekhmet

"The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true!"

Circular logic, and bronze age mythology, FAIL.

That's not the argument presented in the OP though. The OP claims that because the Bible has knowledge about certain scientific things, it must be the word of God, because humans possibly could't have such knowledge back 2000 years ago. That claim is, of course, false. Circular logic is not being employed here though.

**Sekhmet** · 07-20-2010 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Marvo

That's not the argument presented in the OP though. The OP claims that because the Bible has knowledge about certain scientific things, it must be the word of God, because humans possibly could't have such knowledge back 2000 years ago. That claim is, of course, false. Circular logic is not being employed here though.

I didn't read the WallO'Text of the OP and I was mostly responding to the title of this thread. What I said is still relevant though because the OP is using ONLY the Bible to justify things found in... the Bible. Circular logic.

**RooJ** · 07-21-2010 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

No thanks, you are still not my type, but thanks for the offer.

You seem to be having difficulties communicating your idea's effectively with your target audience.

An idea that can't be shared will inevitably die with those incapable of sharing it. You should try a little harder to bridge the gap for your listeners... If they're still listening.

**horsey101** · 07-24-2010 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by RooJ

You seem to be having difficulties communicating your idea's effectively with your target audience.

An idea that can't be shared will inevitably die with those incapable of sharing it. You should try a little harder to bridge the gap for your listeners... If they're still listening.

I read his posts mostly just to marvel at how convoluted his sentences can get, and how vague and unclear he manages to be. I'm impressed at how he can write 5 paragraphs without communicating a single thought. But seriously, for someone so obsessed with names and grammar, his own spelling and grammar blows.

Thread: Evidence That The Bible is God's Word

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Similar Threads

Keep a word/ Drop a word game!!

What evidence do you need?

Bible being edited.. again.. word of God??

Word 2007 In Classic Word Layout?

Where is the evidence?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions