Quote:
Originally Posted by galenrox  To assist you in figuring out, I've emboldened the parts of this that I haven't said. |
I never said that you stated the bolded parts. I made a logical deduction of the premises that I believe you hold that COULD lead to the beliefs bolded.
Your statements have been quite vague and it appears I am still having difficulty understanding what your position actually is. I believe the next paragraph cleared things up a bit for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galenrox There is no gap, I don't know how I could possibly state this more clearly. I've stated I don't understand what God is beyond being a force that is in and of all things and all things are in and of, and so insofar as I state that I understand what God is, energy fits the bill. |
So which is your hypothesis?
A) God is literally energy.
B) God is not energy but he is able to manipulate energy because its supposedly in and of all things.
C) None of the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galenrox You have assigned God sentience, I have not. You have personified God, I have not. |
(Feel free to ignore the following paragraph if you answered 'B')
Then what about the Old Testament and all that proactive interfering with human affairs that God did? I'd say thats pretty characteristic of something intelligent.
Also, the divinity of Jesus had to come from somewhere. If you believe he is more than just a mere mortal and performed the miracles recorded in the New Testament then he couldn't of been born out of mere chance. It only makes sense that God caused his birth doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by galenrox I acknowledge it for what it is, an attempt at explaining a pattern that we know we don't understand. Now if an explanation proves useful, by all means use it, and if we can perform experiments that decrease the likelihood that we misinterpreted the pattern, then it becomes more likely that it's been properly explained, but it's just a question of degrees, as it's still fundamentally attempting to explain something that we know by nature of the means we have to use to attempt to explain it that we don't understand. |
That IS reality. As I said before we only know one thing for certain, self-awareness, the rest is merely inductively derived.
Isn't logic based on inductive premises?
Quote:
Originally Posted by galenrox How exactly has my wording suggested that? Can you please provide a quote, because if I am miswording my positions so badly that would need correction. |
When you said this:
I am demonstrating how the reality is that in all things you can still basically "know" things without fully understanding them. This is my and anyone else's understanding of God, and my and everyone else's understanding of everything else.
Since the first sentence was ambiguous about how you attained "knowing" and because you were talking about God, which is something that is purportedly incomprehensible, I could only assume that you were somehow trying to tell me you could know somehow know something without experience.
I'm still confused on what you meant by the sentences I quoted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galenrox What I am saying is that induction is like saying "I know cars transport me" without knowing how an engine works, and then realizing that you in fact do not KNOW cars transport you places the time you try to start your car and the engine won't turn over. |
lost me there