great debate update #6
So it turns out it's not over. After only 8 days arulba managed to come up with this crushing blow to my entire argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not answered your questions for the same reason I don't answer
the questions asked of me by literalist Biblicists. You are demanding
that the argument be based on your foundational beliefs and I don't
share them. A Biblical Literalist will say - you are wrong and here is
why and quotes from the Bible. From the Biblical Literalist
perspective, I am definitely wrong. What is there to argue? I don't
really care that I am wrong from their perspectibe because I don't
believe in the Literalist understanding of an omniscient, omnipotent
God and I most definitely don't believe in the literalism of the Bible
as a means to absolute truth so there is no argument to be had based on
their demand I conform to their foundational belief. It's not an
argument worth having.
It took me a while to figure it out, but it seems to me your questions are based upon the foundational belief that there is only materialism. I don't share this belief therefore no matter how I answer, from your perspective my views are necessarily wrong. You are right from your perspective I just don't share your perspective. I'm not willing to conform to the foundational belief in materialism as the means to absolute truth. Again, any argument based upon this belief to me is not an argument worth having because we don't share the same foundational basis to have a valuable argument in terms of what Kristen originally posted. Based on your perspective, you will necessarily have to reject it so it seems to me any argument you make based upon this post is based upon a desire to convert, not to understand.
It took me a while to figure it out, but it seems to me your questions are based upon the foundational belief that there is only materialism. I don't share this belief therefore no matter how I answer, from your perspective my views are necessarily wrong. You are right from your perspective I just don't share your perspective. I'm not willing to conform to the foundational belief in materialism as the means to absolute truth. Again, any argument based upon this belief to me is not an argument worth having because we don't share the same foundational basis to have a valuable argument in terms of what Kristen originally posted. Based on your perspective, you will necessarily have to reject it so it seems to me any argument you make based upon this post is based upon a desire to convert, not to understand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. That makes sense. You didn't answer my questions, because you
knew we had different foundational beliefs, making our whole
conversation pointless, according to you, but you had the conversation
anyway. You drew the conclusion that we had different foundational
beliefs off of my first few posts, because you determined not to answer
questions very quickly. On top of that, all my questions indicates a
desire to convert you, not a desire to understand. Questioning never
means a desire to understand. /rolls eyes And even on top of that, in
order to tell me your reason for not answering my questions, you
answered one of my questions.
I present a list, in order, of all the questions asked by me over the course of our discussion. I exclude that giant one at the start of my previous comment. Hopefully, reading the list will help you see how these questions clearly demonstrate a desire to understand what you were saying.
Who framed Roger Rabbit?
How is "lived experience" not just a series of really bad scientific experiments?
So how does trust, love, or reverence get you closer to the real reality out there?
What? (In reference to the description of the holy trinity, love, reverence, and trust)
How exactly do you think science works?
How does "lived experience" offer any insight into the nature of reality that is superior to the insight offered by science?
Could you explain how science works without an external reality?
Why do you never answer any of my questions?
Regardless, I offer arguments for answering questions. Even if all questions directed at you are designed to convert you to an alternative belief, one should attempt to answer them for the following reasons:
1. A good answer, or series of answers, may convert the questioner.
2. Attempting to answer the questions solidifies and fleshes out ones understanding of ones beliefs.
3. An inability to answer a question will lead to a conversion when it is appropriate, or thought that will lead to a more complete personal belief system, one in which the question is answered.
I present a list, in order, of all the questions asked by me over the course of our discussion. I exclude that giant one at the start of my previous comment. Hopefully, reading the list will help you see how these questions clearly demonstrate a desire to understand what you were saying.
Who framed Roger Rabbit?
How is "lived experience" not just a series of really bad scientific experiments?
So how does trust, love, or reverence get you closer to the real reality out there?
What? (In reference to the description of the holy trinity, love, reverence, and trust)
How exactly do you think science works?
How does "lived experience" offer any insight into the nature of reality that is superior to the insight offered by science?
Could you explain how science works without an external reality?
Why do you never answer any of my questions?
Regardless, I offer arguments for answering questions. Even if all questions directed at you are designed to convert you to an alternative belief, one should attempt to answer them for the following reasons:
1. A good answer, or series of answers, may convert the questioner.
2. Attempting to answer the questions solidifies and fleshes out ones understanding of ones beliefs.
3. An inability to answer a question will lead to a conversion when it is appropriate, or thought that will lead to a more complete personal belief system, one in which the question is answered.
Comments
Just a thought: I wasn't trying to convert you. I had no sense that you were in need of conversion. I was simply upholding my understanding of a post you had slammed, nothing more. If you want to slam it, feel free. No skin of my teeth.
The reason I answered your questions was to flesh out my understanding and you helped me in this regard. Thank you.
Not answering a question is not always about an inability to answer a question. Especially if it is obvious the question is an attempt to manipulate the answer. Would you answer such a question. Would you deem such a question "scientific"? I wouldn't.
Also, I'd like to point out I never said or implied you were trying to convert me... so I dunno where you got that idea, but you shouldn't have it.
The famed arulba everybody.
I was replying to this. I wasn't trying to convert you. I was working through my own understanding.
Are you so famed that you can fame me? Now I am doubly honored.
I responded: I appreciate that. :)
Gene was actually discussing with you, and not just asking questions without considering what you said. Throughout the entire discussion, it was as if you were on parallel rail cars, loudly speaking your responses to each other, but never actually intersecting and only diverging in your trains of thought and reasoning. And that also leaves out much.
In any event, not answering questions from others you are debating or discussing with only devalues your own point. By providing no defense or response, you are not opening the discussion and viewpoints to what the question provokes. This alone would have turned me off from considering your writing at all, regardless of who you or Gene are or what you were talking about.
Giving responses will only do you good.