Thread: Evidence That The Bible is God's Word

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

And I suppose you think your ability to comprehend what is in their work, or the abilities of those who came after them, were commensurate enough to comprehend them? I know otherwise.

Oh, all right. I'm sure you do. That is an interesting faith you have. It might shock you to learn that I minored in philosophy and have read what Aristotle and Plato wrote. I read English translations, which are not the same as mere commentaries. Golly, the Allegory of the Cave was really neat stuff, man.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

But let me give you the gist of it. Imposed on the Legit works of Plato are forms, the dialogs are the material in the forms. The forms Plato used, mostly, were principles of logic. No one has before or after him written in that manner. Relation to Self- Charmides. Where do words get their meaning. Ion. Principles of predication Parmenides. Duplicity of meaning Euthydemus. etc.

Imagine using principles of reasoning to develope the outline for a literary piece of work. Language is the key to psychology and Plato used like no other in history, except the Judeo-Christian Scripture.

Plato was good with words? Yay for him. Now tell me about Aristotle's belief concerning atoms and what John Dalton later showed to be the actual truth, for example. Do you see where I am going with this?

I already told you that Aristotle did not contribute to the two element metaphysics, do I need to say more?

I see by your questions that what I am saying is not registering--So, I will leave you to your frustration.

If the primitives of grammar are not clear in your mind, you cannot use words in accordance with the truth of things (Confucius). Which means job one, is simply learning to speak all over again, only this time using a guide for the construction sentences, i.e. ideas.

If you insist on ignoring that fact, no one can help you. And that is my projects, in the main, rewritng grammatical introductions based upon a single metaphysics. Common grammar, math, etc.,

And this is exactly what pisses everyone off about me. Oh well. Attempting consistency is both my arrogance and my insanity. God save you all.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I already told you that Aristotle did not contribute to the two element metaphysics, do I need to say more?

That was an edit job you pulled while I was typing my post. He didn't just not contribute. He said complete bullshit. There are plenty of other examples of Aristotle being very wrong in his scientific assertions. Aristotle argued that the other planets and the sun revolve around Earth, no plants come in two sexes, there are only three spatial dimensions, heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones even when air resistance is not a factor, and the heart is the seat of consciousness. Would you like to use Aristotle as a scientific authority on those matters too?

Aristotle was a philosopher, not a scientist.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I see by your questions that what I am saying is not registering--So, I will leave you to your frustration.

I am sure you are being sincere.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

If the primitives of grammar are not clear in your mind, you cannot use words in accordance with the truth of things (Confucous). Which means job one, is simply learning to speak all over again, only this time using a guide for the construction sentences, i.e. ideas.

If you insist on ignoring that fact, no one can help you. And that is my projects, in the main, rewritng grammatical introductions based upon a single metaphysics. Common grammar, math, etc.,

Oh, then I change my mind completely. What phenomenal scientists Aristotle and Plato were. However, who was "Confucous", and how can "that" be your "projects" concerning grammar?

I am sure there are plenty of people you do know that can try to explain the fact that what I have said so far is clearly beyond your ability to even stay on topic.

I do a lot of editing. I am a very busy single parent. This system is in my basement, where I download from the internet. Other times I am at work, on a company computer while keeping machines running.

This post is about God, and in scripture, God is a metaphor for truth. I hope you can see the connection.

Now I have a lot of housework to do.

Instead of coming at me with the mere assertion that I am a moron, try actually countering my points. You used Plato and Aristotle as scientific authorities, and I showed you the absurdity of doing that. Now get after it with that housework.

Clearly you do not see that the topic is about how language is constructed, ie. how things can be said, and you insist on staying with what was said. Now if you are not a moron you can see the distinction, otherwise, it is you who have displayed what I can only name.

I.e. ONE MORE TIME, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN FORM AND MATERIAL DIFFERENCE.

And one more time, unless you can display the unity of language based upon a common metaphysics, you are simply thinking with and speaking gibberish.

And that is no mere assertion, that is a physical fact.

And I will say it one more time: Truth is not sent to man to destroy man, but through it man might have life and have it more abundantly.

That you can curse me for all you want.

This is like arguing with somebody I am watching on television. You said that the universe is not expanding, and you used appeals to the supposed authority of Plato and Aristotle and mixed them in with a whole lot of bizarre sophistry and leaps to conclusions that you pulled straight out of your anal canal. Now we are at the issue of why truth was sent to man. WTF? Did you escape from an insitution and find your way to a library compter?

Well, we both have something in common, our displays both point to the truth of each of our abilities of comprehension. Enjoy.

You keep on thinking that space can expand into space, and then have a fit when I am so stupid as to laugh at you.

Now I'm completely convinced that the universe is not expanding. Nice work. Have you thought about becoming a street preacher?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You keep on thinking that space can expand into space, and then have a fit when I am so stupid as to laugh at you.

No, I keep thinking that your argument is shit. I haven't even told you my position on the issue of universe expansion. Now think about your point concerning reading comprehension.

The expansion of the universe is not supposed to be happening through space. It is supposed to the expansion of what exists with nothing at all existing outside of it, not even space.

Also, by "the universe", some people mean "the full set of matter that exists in space".

Yes, you see that stupid Aristotle, it is all his fault. For he even correctly stated that every logical train of reasoning will boil down to assertion or denial, the same or difference. (Our shit two element metaphysics again) Your kind must always reduce your arguiments to a blatant contradiction, I, on the other hand, disagree with you.

And again, expanding into non-Space. Very good. Nothing like the space that is not a space.

I accept your challenge. Choose. Is space a thing, the material difference of a thing, or the form of a thing. Choose and let us see what the consequences of the admission lead to.

Or use the name Universe.

I must insist, however, that you abide by some very simple rules.

1 A thing is any material difference in some form.
2) Neither the form nor the material difference in a form is a thing. (The part is not equal to the whole.)
3) Material is not a form, nor are materials things.
4) Form is not a material, nor is a form a thing.

For example: Space is a difference to which one can assert boundaries to. The boundaries and the difference in the boundary are then a thing.

All things are created by these two not things.

Not hard at all. All craft make things by bringing together form and material difference.

That is it. The same mental exercise these stupid ancients engaged in. You are a superior man, you can do it.

So how about that Bible?

Oddly enough, it does well wilthout us. It has more suprises left than you can imagine. However, you would be quite unaware of them, until the mind of man begins to see.

However, pay attention to my last post. Everything is created from nothing. Two very specific nothings. One cannot predicate of these nothings, one can only name them. Check out Plato and Aristotle, foolish though they be. They were aware than in the use of language, names start at a first name, of which nothing else can be predicated, unlike those who run infinite circles with names.

Or to put it in mystical terms. In the beginning was the Word.

Space is a dimensional reality. It has characteristics, and it follows laws of science, so it is a thing. It can even be curved. This is confirmed by the assertions of Abba.

So, if space is a thing, it has boudaries and material in a boundaray.

What is the bounary of space called, and what is the material difference of space called?

From our original stipulations, The name of a thing equals the names of that things forms and the names of that things material differences. You know, like Tom (thing) is a (material difference) cat (form.)

And, as far as your definition goes, notice that things are real and not things are not real, so, calling space a dimentional reality is a linguistic violation-gibberish-you cannot predicatae reality. See Parmenides.

I like the word dimention. di-two mention-assertions, for it originated from the fact that it takes two assertions (boundaries) to create one segment-one and only one thing.

No, I am a banana.

Hard isn't it. Trying to say something being constrained by meaning? Forgive my past post, I have been too busy to notice the page change. It is this difficulty that led the early Philosophers to develope these exercises and note that correct thinking took a long hard road.

Man, if you want to say something extra to me, please say it in a new post instead of editing an old one. Have you gone back and edited every post you have left today?

I called space a dimensional reality not just to put a label on it. I don't offer the label as proof of space's reality as a thing. I called space a dimensional reality to show that it has qualities. Something has to have certain qualities to be a dimension. Only things have qualities.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Hard isn't it. Trying to say something being constrained by meaning?

Say what?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Hard isn't it. Trying to say something being constrained by meaning? Forgive my past post, I have been too busy to notice the page change. It is this difficulty that led the early Philosophers to develope these exercises and note that correct thinking took a long hard road.

Talk with less self assurance and smug arrogance

i don't even know what the argument is, but you just come across smug. you'd do better to take an element of modesty into your posts

be humbled. tis a virtue

You forget the original stipulation.

You say that dimentionality is the material difference and reality is the form of space.

Now, I ask, can you predicate reality? Is a part equal to the whole?

If things are real, than reality is not a part or a quality of a thing. They are synonyms. Only the two abstractions are qualites. If reality is a quality, then so too is something that is not reality.

Secondly, if space has a boundary called reality, it must be between two different things space which you call one, what is the other?

Please to try again. Oh, and I lost my internet connection, I live on WiFi and had to find another source.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Talk with less self assurance and smug arrogance

i don't even know what the argument is, but you just come across smug. you'd do better to take an element of modesty into your posts

be humbled. tis a virtue

If you dont like my assurance, piss off.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

If you dont like my assurance, piss off.

If you don't like my disliking of your assurance, piss off.

Then keep your simian distrractions out of a conversation you have contributed nothing to.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Then keep your simian distrractions out of a conversation you have contributed nothing to.

enjoy yourself

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.