Miracles

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You have personal knowledge of falling off your bike. You have no such personal knowledge about God or the creation of the universe, to justify any truth claims..

You have no such personal knowledge about God.

If I find a painting left by a painter I would know the painter exists, no?

Gimmicks galore.

Originally posted by FMF
So what do you actually think you are achieving with regard to everyone when you declare that your superstitious beliefs about supernatural things constitute "universal truths"?

If it has no consequence to me, for example, that you declare your beliefs to be "universal truths", what is your purpose for doing it when you talk to me?

Isn't the purpose of our discussions to communicate our beliefs to each other? If I believe in universal truth should I not communicate this to you so that you can try to understand my beliefs?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Isn't the purpose of our discussions to communicate our beliefs to each other?

I don't see why not ~ I understand that you have notions regarding supernatural things about which you are certain, but what is the purpose of you adding the adjective the adjectives "absolute" and "universal" to people with different beliefs and who already get that you feel certain about yours?

Originally posted by FMF
I don't see why not ~ I understand that you have notions regarding supernatural things about which you are certain, but what is the purpose of you adding the adjective the adjectives "absolute" and "universal" to people with different beliefs and who already get that you feel certain about yours?

The purpose is to communicate that I believe truth is universal and not relative. I think you already know this yet you continue to flog a dead horse.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If I believe in universal truth should I not communicate this to you so that you can try to understand my beliefs?

But the thing you communicate to me by attaching the term "universal" etc. etc.to the import and application of your beliefs comes across as a kind of inarticulate bombast. And yet I suspect that isn't what you seek to communicate.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]You have no such personal knowledge about God.

If I find a painting left by a painter I would know the painter exists, no?[/b]

Your analogy is heavily flawed.

I'm not even inspired to address it.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Your analogy is heavily flawed.

I'm not even inspired to address it.

I asked you a question, you are clearly not inspired to say yes, so rather ignore it. 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
But the thing you communicate to me by attaching the term "universal" etc. etc.to the import and application of your beliefs comes across as a kind of inarticulate bombast. And yet I suspect that isn't what you seek to communicate.

You clearly have issues with me using the words 'universal truth', so for now I think 'truth' alone will suffice.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You clearly have issues with me using the words 'universal truth', so for now I think 'truth' alone will suffice.

The "issues" are yours not mine. Every time you use the word "universal" it's as if you are feeling the need to say you're 'very, very, very certain you're right' as if doing so affects the traction of whatever notion or personal opinion of yours it is you are referring to.

Originally posted by FMF
The "issues" are yours not mine. Every time you use the word "universal" it's as if you are feeling the need to say you're 'very, very, very certain you're right' as if doing so affects the traction of whatever notion or personal opinion of yours it is you are referring to.

If I wanted to say I was very very very certain I would. The word 'universal' has nothing to do with my certainty.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I asked you a question, you are clearly not inspired to say yes, so rather ignore it. 🙂

I got the question, it was just encased in a tediously inane analogy that was refuted centuries ago.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The word 'universal' has nothing to do with my certainty.

Your certainty is the only thing your use of the word "universal" has to do with. It has absolutely on other connotation and adds no information other than it indicates your attitude towards the personal opinion you are expressing.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I got the question, it was just encased in a tediously inane analogy that was refuted centuries ago.

So is that a yes or a no to my question? 😉

Originally posted by FMF
Your certainty is the only thing your use of the word "universal" has to do with. It has absolutely on other connotation and adds no information other than it indicates your attitude towards the personal opinion you are expressing.

Actually it does and I have explained to you before that I said it as a distinction from relative truth.