The Blue Board

That's not what I said, that's your understanding b/c you don't want to see the airtight logic. We're rational. But, since we don't have the full frame of reference to help us understand things correctly we need more than we can provide ourselves. You can have a concept of a football but you can't really know it's purpose until someone shows you a football field, goal posts, explains the rules, etc.

Oh give it up goodnews. Your logic is anything but airtight. Even with just the football there is knowlege. There is the aerodynamic shape, the texture, weight, laces, color. So even though I have a limited understanding on what it is used for, I still can try and come to some conclusions on how it is used. Sure, it might not be a complete picture at first, but I can make some REASONABLE guesses on what it is used for. Maybe initially I think it is used as a pillow for when I am laying down on the ground. (wrong conclusion, but consistant with the facts I have on hand) Then one day I see some people throwing it back and forth to each other. Guess what?!??! New information has been discovered. I revise my initial assessment to it being an object used for a game of catch between two people (closer to the real use). Then another day I find 6 people playing a game using the ball with 3 people on each side. One side is trying to advance the ball, and the other is trying to stop them from advancing. Guess what?!??! New information has been discovered. I revise my initial assessment to being a game played with teams with one side advancing the ball while the other tries to stop them. This keeps going on and on to even the more complex levels where we are talking positions, strategies, tactics, etc... . As you can see we go from having no knowlege of a subject to having more knowlege. We do it all the time. We had no trouble at all knowing things about football while not understanding the entire game of football (does anyone to this day "KNOW" everything there is to know about football, if not then no one knows anything about football right?)

Of course there's all of those things. We can reasonable understand something about most things w/o God. I never said any different. What I've been saying, that you'd undersand if you weren't so desperate to be right, is that to fully understand the football, and it's purpose beyond the leather, laces, etc, we would need someone with a full frame of reference. It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully it'll get you there. You cannot, regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise, FULLY and TRULY understand anything unless you know everything. That is airtight.

There it is. You can admit that it is possible to know things without knowing everything. You just moved from your postion that we can not understand anything unless we understand everything to, we can reasonable understand something about most things w/o God. BIG position change. Even if you don't admit that you are changing positions at least you realize that your original position was untennable.

The fact of the matter is that you can not 'fully' and 'truly' understand football because it is always changing.

You have repeated in this thread that you can't know anything unless you know everything. Make up your mind.

EDIT: Should have read Omega's posts. Good to see you backed down from that absurd stance.

Condescend more, if that's even possible.

If you want to convince either of us, provide a logical argument. If A, then B, if B, then C.

That was just more baseless rhetoric.

EDIT: The reason it is so difficult to understand, by the way, is because you have provided no rational proof and the assertion alone doesn't make any sense.

Then how in the world can you say Jesus is the bona fide truth? Isn't that just a "fact" obtained by a fallible creature (humans)?

He was originally trying to say that we can't know anything unless we know everything. Then say that we know some things so that must mean there is somthing that knows everything and therefore there must be a 'god'. He now needs to rethink his attack because we got him to admit that we can know some things without having to have a god.

rams, with all due respect, you guys seem to get your feelings hurt easily. I put up with insults and digs from you guys on a regular basis w/o getting upset. I'm not condescending you as much as I'm pointing out where I think you're faltering. I believe in being respectful but direct in debate. My argument is very logical, and airtight. I've given you plenty in order to understand it. No one has refuted it yet. The problem is it flies in the face of what you want to be true. Maybe, we're just done with it right now.

You really cant believe that your logic is airtight...

My post has been sitting here for 7 hours and you responded to his post 1.5 hours ago.

*cue Jeopardy theme*

Thanks for your objectivity. It's a straight up ontological argument in response to another poster who asserted that we can know nothing about death until we've experienced it, and he/she seemed to imply that we were silly to think otherwise. I made the statement that the issue really comes down to ones opinion regarding greater beings (e.g God). If you don't believe in "god" then you cannot know about what happens after death b/c we have such a limited frame of reference. If you do believe in certain omniscient "gods" (e.g. the Biblical God) then it's not difficult to say you know what happens afer deah b/c of what God has revealed. So, the real question, in my estimation, is what one believes about God. At some point I threw in the ontological premise that I've peddled during the rest of the thread in an effort to move the discussion along.

So the human who doesn't believe in an unproven god is limited by his on existence, but the human who believes in god can know claim knowledge that is not limited to his own existence? Yeah....