I'm not sure if any of your replies could not be also applied to
you. It is no good to pick out my disease when you have the very
same ones you paint me to have... unless we should sought to slit
our own throats. The very same accusations of pride and
preknowledge you apply to me may jolly well sit in well with the
many preknowledges you have sought to set up. Of course I do not
deny your right to preknowledge or assumption, for I do not believe
it can be excluded for beginning any rational process... you seem
on the other hand, to dissent from that opinion strongly.
The real question it seems to me is not if anybody claims to have
preknowledge or assumptions, but if whose assumptions are more
valid and true. It is my case, and one I believed I have proved
quite extensively, that your basic assumptions (and entire case
heneforth) are quite seriously flawed.
As for the thing about God is not cheese, this indeed is a curious
thing that has been going on for a while. But I shall not speak
about it as invalid at all for it seems you have completely erased
the line between concept and noun, abstract and actual. Now I have
to dissent strongly from you and say that the point about God and
cheese is still quite valid, for it was never meant to be a
singular 'nounitic' argument. Somehow you can't see the
difference.
It is somewhat embarrassing that I ought to use the concept of
cheese or even Singapore to illustrate God. But if you have been
thinking of me equating God to cheese and Singapore then you are
quite mistaken.
Simply put I was not describing God through cheese of Singapore,
but rather human interaction with concepts that are quite in the
noun. It is my assertation that we cannot know anything about
anything if we do not first start out with an assumption of a first
and non reductable first principle.
In the way I put our actions when translation to God may very well
be similar or even be exactly the very same actions as translating
to a piece of cheese or a nation. This is not to say that the
objects are the same or ever were the same to begin with. I may
speak the same word 'boot' with the same movement of mouth and
motor skills, but I might mean kick with one word, and the noun
with the other. This was what I was trying to illustrate, but by
some curious method it seems you have mixed it up.
First and foremost all I can say is that due to being carnal and
finite creatures, it cannot be avoided that we are going to relate
to God in some ways, quite the same as we relate to a piece of
cheese or a nation. And that is, by thinking about them. Where we
differ is that you say that this can, and should be avoided while I
think it is quite intractable and not really a sin at all, and also
I have pointed out that you solutions don't really offer an
alternative at all, but rather push back the question of similiar
actions and concepts back (which is to your case).
Far from being above religion, it seems your personal brand of
faith is yet another religion. One that claims to be yet again the
one true one. How it is judged is another matter entirely, but all
I can say is that it is not logically consistent. It is okay if you
want to carry on believing in it in lieu of logic, but certainly
not me. If that is the case, then there was never really any
argument to begin with at all, we are on totally different levels
to begin with.
You need not bother with all this at all. But of course I do
because my commitment is to a logical defense of faith, but for an
irrational stance there can be no logical rescue, only submission.
If all logical answers are wrong for you, then it logically goes to
say that there are no logical answers for you and any answers will
be proved wrong by your logic. There is no fight to begin
with.
All I am here to do is to simply demostrate the inadequacies of
your own system to the public, mostly for their sake.
On a footnote, you mentioned God,
Cheese and Singapore and their invalid usage to illustrate
differences in relations of faith (because cheese is not God), but
I might need you to enlighten me on the time when you used to
concept of a human wife to demostrate the difference in relations
of faith.
I am not sure how this is consistent with your argument that my
illustration is invalid. Unless of course, you choose to reject
your earlier one?
