Probably about the time he referred to me as a monster.
Do you claim absolute knowledge?
Do you read my posts?
That's a pretty big "should", isn't it? Yuk......
I do walk that line of uncertainty, but I don't walk it because I seek knowledge as the quote implies. It is because I seek knowledge through a process of logical judgment and the discovery of absolutes that the line gets further and further away.
Maybe I just like them extra crunchy...
But eating popcorn cold wouldn't be illogical, although it would certainly be unusual.
In other words, if you do 5 things right, and then 1 thing wrong, it wouldn't be wrong as you still are far away from "the line"? You cant remove yourself from the line. You may walk steadily, and in good balance but on the line you must stay.
Btw, how did you interpret that quote as somehow being me or anyone forcing their views on you?
Because I question you?
Hehe. Not quite. Try this way:
If I do the same thing 5 times right, chances are I won't do the 6th wrong.
I don't. I view the quote as being the author's way of contradicting himself.
You're always welcome to question me!
First of all, maybe you could clear up this contradiction I'm seeing in the logical process for me. You say: "Judgments based on faulty premises are incorrect." If logic is built upon the premises that may be faulty, how do you come to know if they are faulty or not?
Really? Each judgment is either right or wrong. It can go either way.
She said: "It is true that every judgement teeters on the brink of error. Every judgement could easily have gone the other way."
--I hear: Every judgement can go either way: that of error, or that of correctness.
She also said: "Can't a person be declaritive anymore? I guess he should have added IMO at the end of his quote".
--I hear: Can't people make a firm statement in expressing their view? Or do they have to distinguish between their view an absolute truth by adding "imo" in order to qualify each statement?
Obviously, I don't know if I'm hearing what she intends. From what I hear, I agree.
It sounds to me that you've missed the author of the quote's intended point along with abook's point. Ironically, I think you agree with them: You are agnostic, because you realise the potential huge error of judging God to not exist. I assumed you recognise that you can trap yourself in a bubble of subjective opinion/judgment, rather than be open to learn and understand from your surroundings. Do you choose to believe you must use a fork and only a fork will do for your purposes? Is it not possible to also use a spoon? Or do you recognise that even if you do feel only a fork will work, other people's purposes will be defined by differing frameworks and your "absolute judgment" may not be absolute to them? Do you understand that while science holds absolute truths, they also hold that tomorrow that same truth could be rendered lacking?
Do you disagree with these points? I believe the author alluded to this type of thing. And "when you're green you grow, when you're ripe you rot". In other words: If you think you are "right", you are no longer open to understand and learn.
Are you condemning, then, also science's certainty of knowing that whatever you know, there is always more to know?
More power to you on your personal journey and your approach.
I agree. So the truth you start with--the clarity of perception determines whether the logic serves you or deceives you. Again, how do you ascertain the truth of your premise? By the logic built on the questionable premise? By the logic that can only show truths/untruths in light of the validity of the premise? If you have a bad computer program and you use the bad computer program to determine the validity of the program, how valid will your findings be?
I say that by removing a predeterimined right/wrong judgment from one's self, one begins by accepting that all in nature is exactly as it is for a reason. Then one starts with the intent of looking to understand what that reason is. By saying this, it does not mean that in the growth process, one does not make adjustments. It does say, though, that everything happens for a reason, at-one with nature and therefore it cannot be "wrong" (which is a subjective personal judgment, not an objective one)
thanks angelica, I can see you don't need me to type out a whole paragraph to understand a simple thought. But I also know anyone can percieve a thought differently, on the brink of error.
I think this quiz is written by a midly intelligent (with computers) 16 year-old atheist Emo kid. Here's what I got: I was 'hit!' for claiming that God is all powerful, knows all, etc. and yet there is loads of suffering in our world which is totally purposeless. I didn't deny that there is a higher 'meaning' for the suffering in the world; just that there was no higher 'purpose', and the word 'purpose' implies that it's Someone up there's plan to make people suffer, that it's someone's fault, and I don't believe that. How is that inconsistent?
'You have claimed that God exists, that he knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don't think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering?'
Actually, most of the questions could (and probably should) be answered essay style. Instead what you are forced to do is give a simple, absolute, true or false response to a series of very baited questions. The "quiz" is ridiculous.