How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@mark noble,

Precisely because the wording be sure is so troublesome, being sure is a hell of an headache...my point being that RL is probably trying to make the opposite case without recurring to a direct statement...its a go around and bite tactic RL loves this kind of approach ! Very Happy

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5304412)
The problem is worse Frank...the problem is just like Russel's paradox...if you do not know then you know something, you know that you cannot know...but then in order to cannot know you must know...

another formulation could be:

This sentence does not exist !

Fil...that only works if you posit that you know nothing.

I have never said that I know nothing.

I do know many things. (I may have mentioned that before...dozens of times, in fact.)

One of the things I know is that I do not know the true nature of REALITY.

1 Reply

Having Mark here pretending to be ignoring almost everyone should be fun. I am really looking forward to this farce.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Set membership Frank...if you do not know the ultimate nature of reality all things that you believe to know can be turned upside down since reality by definition it is the ultimate container...all other things knowledge no matter what you pick are member dependent on the nature of reality being established...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Set membership Frank...if you do not know the ultimate nature of reality all things that you believe to know can be turned upside down since reality by definition it is the ultimate container...all other things no matter what you pick are member dependent on the nature of reality being established...

Lots of English words there, Fil.

But that does not make it a coherent thought.

Try again.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Lets see if I can break it to you:
Can you understand the argument that if you don't know what 1 is any other number is also compromised ?

Any sub set of reality is defined by the nature of reality !
Knowing Reality's nature is fundamental to know anything else inside reality !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Precisely because the wording be sure is so troublesome, being sure is a hell of an headache...my point being that RL is probably trying to make the opposite case without recurring to a direct statement...its a go around and bite tactic RL loves this kind of approach !

If you ask me why he is doing it I have a theory...it is not for the sake of God or Religion either...RL loves to wonder about non trivial events in a trivial manner...that is to mean he is an adept of conspiracy theory's, extraordinary events, oddity's of all sorts...so he feels compelled to make a stand for magic time to time, then after getting his azz kicked he retreats to reason for a little while, and so he goes back n forth... Wink

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5304516)
Lets see if I can break it to you:
Can you understand the argument that if you don't know what 1 is any other number is also compromised ?

Any sub set of reality is defined by the nature of reality !
Knowing Reality's nature is fundamental to know anything else inside reality !

Well...ya live and learn.

Anyhow...I do not know the true nature of REALITY.

How does that fit in to whatever it is you are trying to get across, Fil?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

If you don't know reality you CANNOT know nothing which is a sub set of reality...but then you know that you don't know and that is a part of reality...the paradox fits !

I've told countless times...tell ya what, make a loop on what I said n what you said n knock yourself out up to infinity ! Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5304557)
I've told countless times...tell ya what, make a loop on what I said n what you said n knock yourself out up to infinity !

You never actually make a point, Fil. You type words that fill space. I have no idea of what impact what you wrote in that comment has to do with my comment:

I do not know the true nature of REALITY.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

read above !

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You never actually make a point, Fil. You type words that fill space.

That is you after years of "I don't know" babbling Frank, not me ! I am Magnificent ! Mr. Green

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Okay...I re-read my post.

I think it was excellent.

Now what?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

That is you after years of "I don't know" babbling Frank, not me ! I am Magnificent !

Actually, you are. I like you.

I watched the first episode of the new Da Vinci thingy on the History Channel.

What a disappointment. When compared with something like The Borgias it actually sucks. But...one of the major characters is Lorenzo the Magnificent of Florence.

So your remark resonated with me.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

WTF ??? I said back there read my above post geeeeeez it was edited...wake up !!!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am VERY CONSISTENT in my acknowledgement of my lack of knowledge about the true nature of REALITY.

I have lots of other things about which I have a lack of knowledge...but I am not here to discuss them.

The point isn't that you have lots of other things about which you have a lack of knowledge; it's that you're selective about which ones you dismiss offhandedly as concerns your declarations of a lack of knowledge.

Quote:

Why would the fact that I am not disposed to discuss all the things about which I lack knowledge cause people to suggest that I do have knowledge of the things that I say I do not have knowledge of?

It's not that people are suggesting that you do have a knowledge of the things that you say you don't, but that you're arbitrairily selective about what you dismiss and what you're serious about.

Quote:

If I want to have a discussion about World War II...would you require that I also must have a discussion of the Boer Wars in order to do so?

But then we aren't discussing WWII or the Boer War; we're discussing supernatural things.

One of the problems is that you're categorical about supernatural things. You dismiss some supernatural things from your consideration about declarations of what you know and don't know, and treat other supernatural things with the uttmost earnestness.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Well Frank I like you to but you are too damn stubborn you sometimes drive me nuts...

You watched Da Vince's code ? I didn't ! Laughing

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5304573)
WTF ??? I said back there read my above post geeeeeez it was edited...wake up !!!

Actually, you didn't say "read my post above."

You said, "read above"...which is what I did.

I was breaking your balls.

Seems like it worked. Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Nice trick ! Yes the average reaction fucks up my perception when ppl are pulling my leg... Laughing

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

The point isn't that you have lots of other things about which you have a lack of knowledge; it's that you're selective about which ones you dismiss offhandedly as concerns your declarations of a lack of knowledge.

I dismiss frivolous things. If you don't...good for you.

Quote:

It's not that people are suggesting that you do have a knowledge of the things that you say you don't, but that you're arbitrairily selective about what you dismiss and what you're serious about.

Well...this comment means you have not actually read the comments that have been sent my way...because you are dead wrong about what some people are suggesting.

Quote:

But then we aren't discussing WWII or the Boer War; we're discussing supernatural things.

Perhaps you are...I am not. If there is a GOD...or if there are gods...they are not "supernatural." They are a part of what IS...and they are as natural as dandelions.

Quote:

One of the problems is that you're categorical about supernatural things. You dismiss some supernatural things from your consideration about declarations of what you know and don't know, and treat other supernatural things with the uttmost earnestness.

I do not deal with supernatural things at all, but I get the sense of what you are almost saying.

I am, as I said, dismissive of frivolous nonsense...and I am not dismissive of other stuff.

I am interested in the nature of REALITY. Discussing whether gods exist or do not exist is germane to that discussion. Discussing some of the nonsense that comes into action when that is being discussed is, IN MY OPINION, frivolous.

If you want to discuss elves and pixies and unicorns...do so. I will never fault you for that. If you don't want to discuss them...I will never fault you for that either.

So what is your problem?

2 Replies

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know