The Light ??

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
proverbs 18:10 says?.............

"The name of Jehovah is a strong tower; The righteous man runs into it and is safe." (Prov. 18:10)

Amen to that.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]"The name of Jehovah is a strong tower; The righteous man runs into it and is safe." (Prov. 18:10)

Amen to that.[/b]

Lol, 😀

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
My brother claims to have had an out-of-body experience but doesn’t make the absurd claim that he REALLY was outside his body and just excepts that it was just a hallucination and certainly doesn’t claim anything supernatural from it (which isn’t surprising given he is an atheist) and I have absolutely no reason to di tnesses.

Doesn't this indicate that we all kind of select the people whom we will trust ?

…I am surprised a little, that you are not as rigorous in examining you're brother's testimony as you are examining that of the New Testament witnesses.
..…[/b]

No reason to be surprised; what reason is there to by “rigorous in examining my brother's testimony” when he isn’t claiming anything implausible? If he claimed to actually BE outside his body then I would be “rigorous in examining my brother's testimony” because I wouldn’t find that claim very plausible just as I wouldn’t find the claim made by anyone that they actually met a “god” or a Santa or a ghost etc as I would find all of these claims implausible.

…Doesn't this indicate that we all kind of select the people whom we will trust ?
..…

Select how? I select on the bases of what the plausibility of the person’s claims and certainly wouldn’t trust those claims at all on the bases of him being ‘a nice person’ etc if I find those claims implausible.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…I am surprised a little, that you are not as rigorous in examining you're brother's testimony as you are examining that of the New Testament witnesses.
..…

No reason to be surprised; what reason is there to by “rigorous in examining my brother's testimony” when he isn’t claiming anything implausible? If he claimed to actually BE outside h ms at all on the bases of him being ‘a nice person’ etc if I find those claims implausible.[/b]

====================
No reason to be surprised; what reason is there to by “rigorous in examining my brother's testimony” when he isn’t claiming anything implausible?
=====================================

I guess I don't understand what occured or what he claimed occured. You said he claimed to have an out of body experience.


=====================================
If he claimed to actually BE outside his body then I would be “rigorous in examining my brother's testimony” because I wouldn’t find that claim very plausible just as I wouldn’t find the claim made by anyone that they actually met a “god” or a Santa or a ghost etc as I would find all of these claims implausible.
========================================

I guess I just don't understand your point.

Where can we go on the Internet to read your varied arguments debating the existence of Santa Claus ? Since they are in your mind roughly equivalent claims to Theism, you must have spent some pretty equal amount of intellectual time and energy to deal with Santa.

Any formal debates on Santa you have online ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================
No reason to be surprised; what reason is there to by “rigorous in examining my brother's testimony” when he isn’t claiming anything implausible?
=====================================

I guess I don't understand what occured or what he claimed occured. You said he claimed to have an out of body experience.


===== ectual time and energy to deal with Santa.

Any formal debates on Santa you have online ?

…I guess I don't understand what occurred or what he claimed occurred. You said he claimed to have an OUT of body experience.
..…[/b] (my emphasis)

Yes; but he didn’t claim to be literally physically “OUT of his body” (which I would assume to be physically impossible) but rather said it must have been a hallucination (which we know can happen due to misfiring of signals in the physical brain) thus he wasn’t claiming anything that I would find implausible.

….Where can we go on the INTERNET to read your varied arguments debating the existence of Santa Claus ?
...… (my emphasis)

Nowhere; but why do you need the INTERNET to look as the plausibility of there being a Santa? why can’t REASONING be used to look as the plausibility of there being a Santa? -you could ask questions like “is it physically possible for a few reindeer and one man to deliver billions of tons of presents across the whole world” and then do some physical calculations that show that this is implausible.

….Since they are in your mind roughly equivalent claims to Theism,
…

Correct.

…. you must have spent some pretty equal amount of intellectual time and energy to deal with Santa.…

No -because although they are few people that claim Santa being real. That doesn’t mean it is in my own mind roughly equivalent hypothesis to theism for these two hypothesises share one fundamental thing in common; the hypothesises are not reason/evidence based. Note that the words/stories of the Bible doesn’t count as ‘evidence’ for the existence of a deity any more than some words/stories from a hypothetical book about Santa -real ‘evidence’ must be verifiable (usually physical evidence but it doesn’t have to be physical evidence as long as it is clearly verifiable evidence).

why can’t REASONING be used to look as the plausibility of there being a Santa? - Andrew Hamilton

Some people are incapable of reason. They cannot arrive at a conclusion, they must be driven there by a book, a person, or just a feeling. I can respect people's feelings. When you tell me you prefer chocolate to vanilla, or your cherished fantasies to the cold hard facts then I have no problem with that. When you start quoting your "authority" and pretending to "know" something because of it you just sound pathetic. We are all foolish common mortals doing the best we can (or at least my attitude is to treat people that way until they demonstrate otherwise.)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…I guess I don't understand what occurred or what he claimed occurred. You said he claimed to have an OUT of body experience.
..… (my emphasis)

Yes; but he didn’t claim to be literally physically “OUT of his body” (which I would assume to be physically impossible) but rather said it must have been a hallucination (which we know can happen d ...[text shortened]... ence but it doesn’t have to be physical evidence as long as it is clearly verifiable evidence).[/b]

============================
Nowhere; but why do you need the INTERNET to look as the plausibility of there being a Santa?
================================

I didn't say I was interested in Santa Claus. I said where are your debates on Santa Claus on the Internet.

You are fond of lumping God together with Santa Claus. I think you spend a disproportional amount of time reasoning to deny the reality of God.

If they are basically the same I doubt that you treat them the same.

Essentially guilt by association, lumping God with Santa Claus, is just your ridicule of God.

Originally posted by jaywill

I didn't say I was interested in Santa Claus. I said where are your debates on Santa Claus on the Internet.

You are fond of lumping God together with Santa Claus. I think you spend a disproportional amount of time reasoning to deny the reality of God.

If they are basically the same I doubt that you treat them the same.

Essentially guilt by association, lumping God with Santa Claus, is just your ridicule of God.

You're the one that seems to be hung up on Santa Claus. Why do you deny his existence? There are considerably more sightings of Santa Claus that are reported than this god you speak of. Why should I not surmise that Santa is real and your god is not? After all, I know people who have reported seeing Santa and they are people I trust, as opposed to you, who I don't know. In addition there is a vast literature (even films) devoted to this Santa character. If I am to accept that Santa Claus does not exist then surely I will need some proof to refute this mountain of evidence.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================
Nowhere; but why do you need the INTERNET to look as the plausibility of there being a Santa?
================================

I didn't say I was interested in Santa Claus. I said where are your debates on Santa Claus on the Internet.

You are fond of lumping God together with Santa Claus. I think you spend ...[text shortened]... Essentially guilt by association, lumping God with Santa Claus, is just your ridicule of God.[/b]

….I didn't say I was interested in Santa Claus.
...…

Neither did I

….You are fond of lumping God together with Santa Claus
…

-for the reason I just gave; yes.

…. If they are basically the same I doubt that you treat them the same.
…

Why?

…Essentially GUILT by association, lumping God with Santa Claus, is just your ridicule of God.
… (my emphasis)

“GUILT” of what?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….I didn't say I was interested in Santa Claus.
...…

Neither did I

….You are fond of lumping God together with Santa Claus
…

-for the reason I just gave; yes.

…. If they are basically the same I doubt that you treat them the same.
…

Why?

…Essentially GUILT by association, lumping God with Santa Claus, is just your ridicule of God.
… (my emphasis)

“GUILT” of what?[/b]

I do appreciate a man of few words.

Never mind.

Originally posted by jaywill
I do appreciate a man of few words.

Never mind.

Don't want to deny the existence of Santa?

there is what is known as 'light',(coloured or white,etc.),and then there is what is known as 'super-natural' light. This kind of light is difficult to explain but unmistakeable to those who have seen it.
It has been described as the colour of the sky just before the sun comes up-not white or silver...just...somehow transparent (but thats not the right word either)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
there is what is known as 'light',(coloured or white,etc.),and then there is what is known as 'super-natural' light. This kind of light is difficult to explain but unmistakeable to those who have seen it.
It has been described as the colour of the sky just before the sun comes up-not white or silver...just...somehow transparent (but thats not the right word either)

…and then there is what is known as 'SUPER-natural' light. This kind of light is difficult to explain but unmistakeable to those who HAVE seen it.
..…(my emphasis)

How would the people who “HAVE seen it” know that it was “ 'SUPER-natural' light “ and not “ 'non-SUPER-natural' light”?
Exactly what criterion could be used to distinguish the perception of “SUPER-natural” light from merely “natural” light?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…and then there is what is known as 'SUPER-natural' light. This kind of light is difficult to explain but unmistakeable to those who HAVE seen it.
..…(my emphasis)

How would the people who “HAVE seen it” know that it was “ 'SUPER-natural' light “ and not “ 'non-SUPER-natural' light”?
Exactly what criterion could be used to distinguish the perception of “SUPER-natural” light from merely “natural” light?[/b]

Exactly mr.Hamilton, there is no criterion other than that of personal experience which cannot and should not be backed up by anyone. There is just an attempt to communicate the experience to others

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…and then there is what is known as 'SUPER-natural' light. This kind of light is difficult to explain but unmistakeable to those who HAVE seen it.
..…(my emphasis)

How would the people who “HAVE seen it” know that it was “ 'SUPER-natural' light “ and not “ 'non-SUPER-natural' light”?
Exactly what criterion could be used to distinguish the perception of “SUPER-natural” light from merely “natural” light?[/b]

LOok at the sky just b4 the sun comes up. what colour is it?