Total posts: 816
-->
@RationalMadman
The vaccine secures you as having shallow symptoms vs what you'd otherwise have if you get infected.
I have had the Covid vaccine, and my doctor recommends having the booster, which I will take, as well. I believe in vaccines. But, your statement of security is not an absolute. Virtually any vaccine is a crap shoot with appreciated advantages, but not absolute security.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
The left organizes itself on the basis of exceptions, and not a common sense equitable standard. They mandate, but then create exceptions, and expect this is how rights need to be administrated, when rights need no administration whatever. There are three factors that a vaccine mandate ignores, even by exception:
1. No vaccine is 100% effective, but is effective in a majority of cases.
2. There is proven natural immunity. No, this is not 100% effective, either, but effective in a majority of cases.
3. There are other therapies developed that are effective. They are not 100% effective, either, but are in a majority of cases.
People die of Covid. It is not the primary cause of death in the U.S. That distinction belongs to heart disease, a malady that happens to have a naturral remedy in 70% of cases, according to the CDC: a proper diet that lacks a constant intake of fast/junk food, but, that remedy is not a mandate, is it? Cancer cases wold be eliminated by 60% by the same choice to clean up our diet. But that's not a mandate, either. So, does government really want to ameliorate your heathcare, or does it just want to control your lives?
We already have standing statutes that help control our public interaction that, most of the time, protect the fulfillment of our rights as citizens. No, they are not a guarantee that no one will contract Covid, but the vaccines we have in play now for other diseases are not 100% effective, either, yet we use them, and allow people who do not want to take advantage of them to avoid them. Why not Covid?
Because the left has an agenda of mandated control of society that has enabled economic, religious, and educational shutdowns, demonstrated to be ineffective in preventing contraction of Covid. Yet they insist.
Can someone give me a rational explanation why y'all still insist? No, I don't think you can, primarily because of the three factors above.
Created:
The left organizes itself on the basis of exceptions, and not a common sense equitable standard. They mandate, but then create exceptions, and expect this is how rights need to be administrated, when rights need no administration whatever. There are three factors that a vaccine mandate ignores, even by exception:
1. No vaccine is 100% effective, but is effective in a majority of cases.
2. There is proven natural immunity. No, this is not 100% effective, either, but effective in a majority of cases.
3. There are other therapies developed that are effective. They are not 100% effective, either, but are in a majority of cases.
People die of Covid. It is not the primary cause of death in the U.S. That distinction belongs to heart disease, a malady that happens to have a naturral remedy in 70% of cases, according to the CDC: a proper diet that lacks a constant intake of fast/junk food, but, that remedy is not a mandate, is it? Cancer cases wold be eliminated by 60% by the same choice to clean up our diet. But that's not a mandate, either. So, does government really want to ameliorate your heathcare, or does it just want to control your lives?
We already have standing statutes that help control our public interaction that, most of the time, protect the fulfillment of our rights as citizens. No, they are not a guarantee that no one will contract Covid, but the vaccines we have in play now for other diseases are not 100% effective, either, yet we use them, and allow people who do not want to take advantage of them to avoid them. Why not Covid?
Because the left has an agenda of mandated control of society that has enabled economic, religious, and educational shutdowns, demonstrated to be ineffective in preventing contraction of Covid. Yet they insist.
Can someone give me a rational explanation why y'all still insist? No, I don't think you can, primarily because of the three factors above.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
They don’t specifically; but what you just described for is the justification for current vaccine mandates:
No, because:
If an [unvaccinated worked] fulfilling of work duties might endanger others, then those others' rights to work in a safe environment are endangered. The [unvaccinated person] should take [a vaccine] if that will [minimize] the [risk of passing a dangerous pathogen] that might otherwise endanger fellow workers, or should work under conditions that preclude endangering others.
That argument would hold water if the vaccine were 100% effective, but it just is not. Better-than-nothing is not the ultimate outcome because the vaccinated are not 100% protected, so are also at risk of contaminating others. What of that scenario. We have certain acceptable risks in living in society, because we also contract cancer, lung disease, heart disease, flu, etc, by associating with society. Shall we fire people for having those diseases, and mandate that they must take preventative medicines, if they are even available, too?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Yes, I agree, if an epileptic's fulfilling of work duties might endanger others, then those others' rights to work in a safe environment are endangered. T0he epileptic should take medication if that will prevent the seizures that might otherwise endanger fellow workers, or should work under conditions that preclude endangering others. I expect that a legally blind person should also not work under conditions that could be potentially hazardous for others, such as driving a bus.
I don't see that these situations violate the standard that rights end where others' noses begin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
When roasted, what's your flavor? Seems to me, roast glass of water isn't exactly appetizing nor thirst-quenching. But then, I notice the glass of water has been 86'd.
Created:
No, no need to fear. Remember Joe Biden's campaign promise: "I will beat Joe Biden." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzs7vhHVC0M
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Epilepsy:
"If an employee can perform their job functions in a manner which does not pose a safety hazard to themselves or others, the fact they have a disability is irrelevant."
See the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I said it's unconstitutional, but, unfortunately, SCOTUS ruled 5-4, including Roberts joining the 4 liberal judges on the Court, who determined that while casinos may remain open, because they are businesses, churches, which are not businesses, must close. The four dissenters argued that such distinctions do not matter, since the intent was to limit mass exposure in a public setting, which casinos are, regardless of being businesses. I agree, SCOTUS was not ruling in the public's best interest.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
No, because human sacrifice infringes on the sacrificial victim's rights. All our rights end at another person's nose, so to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
What you position ignores is that Jews, or whoever of a particular identified group, happen to be attracted by a particular industry [they also are attracted to clothing, for example] is it because they are Jewish? Not necessarily. One might as well say Blacks are attracted to eating watermelon, but others are too, including me. Am I to be ostracized too, because someone else is put out by watermelons? Nonsense. Are you saying you are put out by the entertainment industry, or banking, or butchery, or watermelons? The term, if not racist, and that term is over-used, and mostly incorrectly, is bigotry.
You're better off to just ignore your prejudices and find ways to consider celebrating our differences because they are indicative of creative society, and I despise the boredom of all people being and acting the same.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That’s it. From here you get the left’s position.
Exactly. I agree, that is the left's position, and it is flawed. The left must impose the caveat of #2 that the exception is "the natural and necessary effect of upholding right #1" in order to make sense out of right #1 by enabling its exception. When does any right enable its exception but when the rights of another person are infringed? Example: The government [state, primarily] decided to infringe the freedom of religion, a right for all who wish to engage [it is not mandatory that people do], in response to Covid, to prohibit gathering for religious services when, in NV, for example, casinos were allowed to remain open. No, that was unconstitutional. And, what, pray tell, is natural or necessary about abortion; the act of artificially ending the life of the embyro/fetus?
No, sorry, the exception fails the rights test.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
nobody is going to give a shit about the virus once the Biden inflation hits
We are definitively in a repeat of the 70s, and between Biden and Carter, Carter is no longer the scapegoat; evidence that Biden has learned nothing of history, even within his lifetime. He's a more worthless snot that I ever gave him credit for being. He doesn't even get how badly this is being scored by Democrats, who, at least in my personal experience, are just shaking their heads, and hoping they survive long enough to kick him out in '24, if he lasts that long. Some are even missing Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Thanks for successfully belittling yourself, genius. Well done. I'm not here to entertain you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Because faith leads to truth by the application of faith as a sixth sense we have, just as the other five senses we have can lead to empiric knowledge, which we also use as evidence of truth. But I do not mean that faith and belief are wholly synonymous because belief, alone, does not demand action to confirm knowledge as faith does.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
If I understand your question correctly, James knew by the same process he advised others to use, as specified in James 1: 2 - 8, and not just because he said so. Of course, he is experienced in the process he described, or he would not advise it.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
The problem is, the president claims he was never advised of the option of keeping some troops in Afghanistan, then justifies by saying he doesn't recall being so advised [a cop-out], whereas, the generals, and SoD, claim he was so advised.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes, and not just for women. However, the specific right argued by Roe v. Wade was not for a general right of privacy to women, but, exclusively, relative to pregnancy, maintaining that a fetus is part of a woman's body, when it is not. It is contained by the woman's body, but so is a ping pong ball held in a fist. Is the ball part of the woman's body? No. Neither is the fetus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Please point me to where the process is explained.
Again? How many repetitions needed before you process the information I've already given? Fine, once again, from my #3:
Re-read my 3rd paragraph of #1, which contains the argument you missed.Faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11: 1"And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Alma 32: 21Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Let's add another, which I've already mentioned, as well, which actually pinpoints the steps of the process:
James 1: 2 - 8
My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
And another, which covers much of the same steps:
Moroni 10: 4, 5
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Finite, eternally existent, occupied space
Some people may think of God in those terms, but it is nonsense to me. Omnipresence is not necessarily descriptive of God just because many perceive him that way. There's a difference between actually being all places at once, or existing in a finite frame of both time and space, but having an ability to alter occupation of both time and space on a moment's notice. And such does not mean that only where God is, in a finite frame of time and space, that there does not exist infinite frames to be in, nor that any other frame but where God is is non-existent.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I agree there is a reasonable middle ground, and that middle ground to me is that all deserve a choice that satisfies their individual needs, and their willingness to accept the consequences of their choices, whatever they are. But that doesn't mean I cannot have my opinion about any of those choices, nor you.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
the notion of rights doesn't work in any absolute sense.
If you maintain that nothing exists in an absolute, such as life, itself [which I maintain does not end at death - and at a cellular level, there is no chemical, biological, or philosophical purpose to explain why cells die], then I understand your notion of limited rights. But, what if you're wrong, that there are absolutes. I believe there are, and rights are, then, absolute, as well? You're not the only skeptic; I just reside on the other side of skepticism. I believe in the eternal. How's that for absolute?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
1. You equate God and the universe as a single concept. I maintain they are separate entities, Further, God is perfect, the universe is not. Though Genesis describes creation as a formation of Earth, the sun, moon, and some stars [but only those of the latter that figure into being "for signs and for seasons, and for days and years." [Gen. 1: 14] for Earth. Most of the stars out there do not serve that purpose, so are for something else. We're talking about, perhaps, only a portion of the universe that was created by God for our purpose. But, that creation was not and is not perfect, including man. Perfection is, ultimately our purpose, and our local portion of the universe, but perfection is a learned process, and we are supposed to be about it, now, and always have been.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
The difference is that you maintain that the natural state of rights is that they are limited. I'm saying the limitation is because of us. That they become limited is a given. I'm saying we are the cause, not that rights are inherently limited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I have no idea what case you’re trying to make, other than being really wishful
Equating hope with wishing is just the first step off the path. They are not synonymous any more than faith and belief are. Until you get that, enjoy your own path into the wilderness of the unknown.
Created:
-->
@janesix
It is a slippery slope.
Yes, it is, but, relative to your children, depending on their age, leaving the decision to vax up to them risks their making decisions based on ignorance of all the factors involved is not a wise course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Faith =/= Knowledge
No, you are correct, but what you replaced it with is dead wrong, as well. The correct formula is faith > knowledge [that is, faith yields knowledge]. Faith is a process to gain knowledge. A process, not an instantaneous event. I've shown plenty of times how to work the process, but if you cannot dismiss your doubt, nor your arrogance that you already know what is and is not, your attempt at the process will fail. Every time.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
So you assume they had knowledge of god because they said so?
I know many Christians who do not follow the advice in scripture I cited in my #2, but where did I ever say that Christians just say so and that should be good enough to be believed by others? I never said that. Again, I offer the scriptures I cited in #2. They all require effort on our part to learn by the Spirit, which is not mumbo-jumbo Christian magic, They all lay out a process to be followed, particularly James. It's step by step. Miss a step, lack sincerity and a desire to know, and the process, like any process of missed steps, or a so-so attitude, will not achieve completion of a successful process.
When GK Chesterton once said that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has never been tried, this is exactly what he was talking about. Jesus did tell us there are two great commandments, to love God and love our fellow man, and all others fall in line behind them, and make the process of discovery of truth a more simple matter that we yet manage to screw up because it can't be that simple. So we say in our arrogant, 21st century knowledge that Jesus is no longer relevant, that humanism is the path to glory, that God is not just dead, as maintained in 1966 on the cover of a then-relevant Time Magazine, but cannot exist, or he would have just shown us. Chesterton was right. For most, the process has never been tried. Try it.
Created:
The pre-response to the testimony of Generals Milley and McKenzie by Biden that no one advised Joe Biden of keeping troops in Afghanistan, if not sufficiently rebutted by the testimony today from the Generals, was sufficiently shelved by Austin, SoD. Austin sided with the generals. Who is Biden's defense. Jen? Credible Jen? Some President you guys elected. His out: "...that I can recall." The old memory teaser defense. In his case, it may actually be true. But, aren't capable presidents supposed to remember important stuff like whether you're going to leave a small force behind when vacating a country we've been at war in for 20 years?
Anyone have an apology? This guy is racking them up like alleged Tump lies. Forgetfulness on Biden does not wear like an allegation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
What is “true” is what is concordant with reality.
I completely agree, and I would add that faith is the vehicle by which we expand beyond the limits of what we can perceive as reality by our sensory experience. I also think that the exercise of faith will only yield truth/reality. Otherwise, Paul's definition of faith given in Hebrews would not be valid, i.e., that it is "...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11: 1 Paul still considers "evidence" to be accessible by faith, meaning that faith is a vehicle that can properly allow us to acknowledge a thing as true/real, even when it is not evident by the typical senses.
That is why I disagree with...
If “faith” was able to make systematic, reproducible, accurate predictions about reality that could be independently validated - then faith would be used the same way as an x-ray, or electron microscope.But it isn’t, so we don’t.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
I agree, mostly, with you. However, where I diverge is in the balancing act suggestion. I think rights are immutable. We do the balancing act.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
No, I did not agree rights are limited; not inherently. If something you think is a right is limited by its existence, that is not a right, that's a privilege, WE limit rights by our own thoughts and actions, limitations imposed on ourselves by ourselves and toward others, as I previously said.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You offer a good argument. I will consider it.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
schools should teach it too for every child deserves to know what is true.
That implies that teachers only teach truth. Nope. I've encountered the contrary in virtually every year from high school through graduate school. In one undergraduate course in philosophy, the professor challenged me that by the time the course was finished, he would prove to me that God does not exist. He tried very hard, and I made a deal with him early on; if he would agree to not grade me down because of my assurance that God exists, I would accept his challenge to try his best. We ended the year by him telling me, "You've almost convinced me that God exists, and I have not budged you an inch."
So don't you dare tell me that all teachers are open-minded, willing to discuss theory, but entrenched in truth as much as the can. The opposite is definitely true.
Not that parents are all good teachers; they're not. But if children cannot trust parents to guide them, society is in trouble, and it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Atoms prove that there is no faith.
Proof? Where's yours to support that claim? You imply that atoms have conscious thought to demonstrate non-existence of faith.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
All rights are necessarily restricted because absolute rights for absolutely everyone is absolutely impossible. You have asked a loaded question.
Loaded? Nope, because you ignore that rights, which are absolute, are, nevertheless, bound to yield to consequences, but only when our abuse of those rights abuse one another by our insistence of exercising individual rights. We cause the limitations on rights ourselves, but they, themselves, are not limited so long as we choose to think and act correctly. It is one reason why governments do not and cannot create rights; they merely offer rights' availability to their citizens, or take them away by their self-centered greed of power.
Also, there is a difference between making personal decision and a societal decision. The first is a right (bodily autonomy) - the second ...not so much.
No, that misunderstands the nature of rights. It is easier to understand rights as they are used individually, but their use by society merely implies that a collection of individuals have decided to agree to their use and do not abuse others' rights in order to express their own. A person living a hermetic life can use rights to the fullest extent without worry that their rights have trampled another's.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Humans do not approach God/Universe except in a conceptual { Meta-space/Spirit-1 } way;1} concept of non-sensical mythical something { occupied space } that created itself,2} concepts of how Universe/God operates i.e. to find the physical laws/cosmic principles and the collective operational, coor-dinate system { math ergo inclusive of geoemtrty }.
Your premise supposes the God is a spirit. I disagree.
Therefore, your 1] is non sequitur since physical presence is not a myth. It either is, or not.
Your 2] is, in effect, factual because the universe is either ordered and mathematical perfection, or it is disorganized, i.e., not yet formed b y God into an ordered structure of matter and energy, but exists as did the Earth when it was still "without form, and void." Gen, 1: 2
Heart is that of feeling emotion...and has nothing to do with Universe/God.
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Matt 65: 21
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." Proverbs 3: 5
"Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me." Psalms 51: 10
"My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever." Psalms 73: 26
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." Matt. 5: 8
Sorry your heart can do nothing but imagine numbers, and they multiplied by themselves, but draw not unto the perfection of the language of God.
Ex which if any of following to you consider perfection;
Which of your 8 premises is perfection? Those that are pure mathematics, being the language of God, and any other [sorry, none within your eight] that demonstrate the eventual ability for nan to become perfect as God is now, for God was once a mortal man, advancing even as we do, now, just as numbers advance from the finite to the infinite. Your math is a room with no doors; limiting your potential. Our languages do not necessarily define all that we are, just as his does not limit God.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Seriously, the home remedy for coughing up blood, regardless of color, is to forget trying a home remedy. Get to a doctor, stat! You don't know it its origin is the lungs, stomach, or just the throat. Don't guess. Don't wait for other symptoms, or for it to go away. Free blood in any tissue outside the circulatory system is a problem needing addressing immediately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
In the mode this thread is explained, it is in exactly the right forum. We're talking, after all, about empiricism. You're welcome to disagree.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Sorry, but, hands down, that is the worst campaign message I've ever encountered. It rises to a new low. I will not vote for either of you. Actually, I will not vote as I disagree with the position's need.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Animals obviously do not have incomes; payment for work performed. They effectively live under a system of hunter-gatherer status. Thus, unconsciously, they "trade" income, which they don't have, for food, which they typically, in a balanced eco-system, have in abundance.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
In the home, practicing the right of free speech and their right of parentage in matters that do not violate the law, parents can reach their children anything within those parameters they want. We may, individually, not like what they teach, but, our rights cannot impose themselves on theirs, and we expect they do the same. I believe all your examples are best taught in the home. from whatever perspective floats the parents' boats, because all those subjects regard human behavior, and the proper demonstration of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I file a tax return every year that contains my name, address, ss#, my spouse and dependents, by name, if any, their ss#, so they have all the info they need from that annual document. Anything else?
It is the responsibility of each surviving executor of the estate of the dead to file their death certificate to stop SS payments. There are already in place the means to know when the dead die, and we carry that responsibility.
Face it, the Census asks too many questions that are otherwise answered. Let the government clean its house of inter-communication. They've had 230 years of practice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If, by race realism, you mean that there are obvious physical traits which are expressed by the various groups of people on Earth, then, yes, I agree, it is real. But, my response is: so what? Why can't we just celebrate our variety of physical expressions and stop trying to determine if we are all children of God. I believe we are, and in that matter, on absolutely equal footing with one another by every measure that exists. For example, why does the Census care by what race we identify? Are not all infrastructures of service to all? Then why does Uncle Sam care what you are as a different entity than me? I don't care.
As for the Census, I am a nose, and that's all that the government needs to know. Count it. Period. It has access to birth records, so it already knows my age, gender, and other germane qualities that define me for all the government cares. Makes for an easy Census form.
If you mean something else, happy trails, but I'll not join your walkathon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Is there anything in particular you ever asked yourself...
Yes, I have questions all the time. I seek answers by my own reading, studying, pondering and prayer, but only when I have formulated an idea on my own by the best research I can muster, and then in prayer, I seek a confirmation from God. Either the Holy Spirit fires my heart, and a glowing feeling, like a warm light expanding in me swells my breast and extends throughout my body, or I am left with a stupor of thought. I never ask God for an answer I have not already tried to develop on my own, for I believe God responds only to one who will put forth an effort to develop possible answers on their own. He rewards commitment to personal effort. He is not an information desk. This is the application of faith.
Concerning Jane, yes, I have observed the same and will continue to encourage her continued growth in the knowledge that God is, and loves us.
Created:
Is freedom's right to the privacy of our body limited just to women and for specifically the right to an abortion, and, otherwise, the State has that freedom to dictate, such as relative to Covid vaccines? Joe Biden has, as of 9/9, issued his mandate that distances us from this elusive right to our privacy.
Which is it, a restricted right, which is otherwise known as a privilege, and not a right, or does it maintain its universal application, and Biden has committed another unconstitutional act? It's either, or; there's no middle ground.
Progs, you are warned to be consistent, here. Usually, you're not, so I will not be surprised by detractors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You haven’t argued for any expansion of the senses,
Re-read my 3rd paragraph of #1, which contains the argument you missed.
Faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11: 1
"And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Alma 32: 21
Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, thanks. Stay tuned
Created:
Posted in:
"The notion of God and his existence has undergone many changes throughout the history of empiricist philosophy. While the great medieval philosopher Aquinas “felt that the most important concern of the philosopher was with the primary substance or God,” some modern philosophers 'went so far as to say that any reference to things that transcend the senses is cognitively meaningless...'" https://www.jeffgeerling.com/articles/philosophy/god-and-empiricism
Empiricism is defined as the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Locke and Hume, in particular, combated the above notion presented by Aquinas that God was an essential concern of philosophy. Said Hume: "Commit it to flames."
Somehow, Hume seems to believe that we are limited to just five senses to experience reality. Why should that be, considering that other animals of our kingdom experience other senses than these five, which most others also share? I believer faith is [at least] a sixth sense humans can engage and by which experience, and knowledge, is gained. I maintain God is discovered by use of faith, which I maintain is a greater, more powerful concept that mere belief. We can believe anything we choose, correct, or not. But the true effort of faith is realized only in discovery of truth; we cannot have faith in something that is not true; that is the limit of belief.
You may argue that I cannot prove God. By the limited five senses, you seem to be correct. But I maintain we are not so limited. Prove I am wrong. Argue for your limitations; they're yours, but not mine. I choose to allow greater expansion on senses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Since it is already proven to me to my satisfaction, the sure knowledge is one less dependence on faith, alone; one more piece added to the body of knowledge for everyone. And that's what I want; that everyone have the assurance I have without having to have empiric proof.
And Jane would have the assurance she seeks: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6833-it-is-presumptuous-to-think-you-know-anything-about-god
Created: