Intelligence and Religiosity

[Carrikature]

I also previously gave him the example of dialetheism, which is a counterintuitive notion that humans made up. Similarly so for various philosophical claims, such as those made by ancient Greeks like Zeno.

All of which are irrelevant. Nothing about an idea being 'unnatural' or 'counterintuitive' puts it beyond the realm of human ingenuity, but Kbertsche has made it clear he wasn't trying to claim it did.

[shunyadragon]

All of which are irrelevant. Nothing about an idea being 'unnatural' or 'counterintuitive' puts it beyond the realm of human ingenuity, but Kbertsche has made it clear he wasn't trying to claim it did.

I disagree that would be part of Kbersche's argument. He has disagreed with me strongly when I proposed that these or this Christian concept(s) could possibly be natural and intuitive. There is also his claim that the concept of the Trinity is unique, despite the similarity with the concepts in other religions. This claim would translate to the argument that the concept was of a non-human origin. Which would it be than; Alien or God?

If it could be either, what is the point of the argument?

[Carrikature]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;266026]I disagree that would be part of Kbersche's argument. He has disagreed with me strongly when I proposed that these or this Christian concept(s) could possibly be natural and intuitive. There is also his claim that the concept of the Trinity is unique, despite the similarity with the concepts in other religions. This claim would translate to the argument that the concept was of a non-human origin. Which would it be than; Alien or God?

There's a big difference between thinking it's possible for a certain thing to happen and thinking that it actually did happen that way. One can affirm the former without needing to affirm the latter.

Similarity does not negate uniqueness. "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine."

If it could be either, what is the point of the argument?

To counter Jichard's nonsense claim that science is speshul.

[shunyadragon]

I disagree that would be part of Kbersche's argument. He has disagreed with me strongly when I proposed that these or this Christian concept(s) could possibly be natural and intuitive. There is also his claim that the concept of the Trinity is unique, despite the similarity with the concepts in other religions. This claim would translate to the argument that the concept was of a non-human origin. Which would it be than; Alien or God?

There's a big difference between thinking it's possible for a certain thing to happen and thinking that it actually did happen that way. One can affirm the former without needing to affirm the latter.

Similarity does not negate uniqueness. "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine."




To counter Jichard's nonsense claim that science is speshul.

I do not believe the above addresses my questions. Yes, Jichard takes the extreme position, not because science is speshul (I also believe science, sound logic, philosophy, theology, and historical assessment of the scripture, is special in this case), but because he is an atheist (Philosophical Naturalist). A bad argument for the uniqueness of the Trinity does not counter Jichard's argument.

If you read Kbertsche's posts he does strongly argue that the uniqueness of the Trinity belief is unique and cannot be explained by natural and intuitive explanations.

If all this is amounts to is a 'my rifle versus your rifle,' you have confirmed the meaningless of the argument.

In reality both arguments are flawed asserting two extremes based on 'What I believe,' without considering the middle logical position.

[shunyadragon]

I thought I would add an interesting side note on what my 'belief' is concerning the issue of whether the Trinity is 'intuitive and natural (likely of human origin) or 'counterintuitive or unnatural (not likely of human origin).' I believe that the Trinity was based on human reasoning of what was believed was true based on the scripture they had. I do not believe the Trinity is a true description of the nature and relationship of Christ to God, and what is described as the Holy Spirit. I base a great deal of my argument on Old Testament writings, Historical evidence of the origins and nature of NT text, the evolution of Christian belief and doctrines, and my 'belief' in the Baha'i Faith. I believe in a strict Monotheism of an apophatic God. I believe it is the result of Greek and Roman influence when Christianity became Roman. This is a 'belief' and I would not present this 'belief' in terms of an argument, either or, as Kbersche and Jichard do.

I most definitely would not compare my argument and logic methods in a theistic argument with the methods and logic of science.

[Carrikature]

I do not believe the above addresses my questions.

I don't find much that tells me you even understood what I said. And a good indicator of that is this comment:

If all this is amounts to is a 'my rifle versus your rifle,' you have confirmed the meaningless of the argument.

I've learned over the years that it's practically guaranteed that any idiom or metaphor I use will be parroted back in a way that makes it clear you don't actually know what they mean. I'm chalking this up as more of the same.


There are a lot of tropes that show up time and again in human stories. It's tempting to write off all appearances of a given trope as being identical, but doing so only exposes ignorance. The devil is in the details, as they say, and in the case of mythologies that is truer than ever. Coming back from the dead isn't a unique concept, but Osiris, Baldur and Jesus all go about it in significantly different ways. Lumping them together is only possible if you ignore all the specifics that make the story what it is. The same is no less true for the concept of the trinity.

[shunyadragon]

I don't find much that tells me you even understood what I said. And a good indicator of that is this comment:[

Than please reread again and respond intelligently.

I've learned over the years that it's practically guaranteed that any idiom or metaphor I use will be parroted back in a way that makes it clear you don't actually know what they mean. I'm chalking this up as more of the same.

A useless analogy needs to be parroted back. Waiting for a coherent response.

There are a lot of tropes that show up time and again in human stories. It's tempting to write off all appearances of a given trope as being identical, but doing so only exposes ignorance.

I never even came close to calling them identical. A classic misrepresentation of my post. Please read again and respond intelligently.

The devil is in the details, as they say, and in the case of mythologies that is truer than ever. Coming back from the dead isn't a unique concept, but Osiris, Baldur and Jesus all go about it in significantly different ways. Lumping them together is only possible if you ignore all the specifics that make the story what it is. The same is no less true for the concept of the trinity.

Again, misrepresentation of my post. I never lumped them all together. A classic misrepresentation of my post. Please read again and respond intelligently.

[shunyadragon]

Kbertsche is a scientist. What are you JerkTard (beyond professional troll)?

Again . . .

what kind of scientist is Kbersche that would give him special qualification for being an authority and ex-spurt in this thread!?!?!?!?!?

[Carrikature]

Than please reread again and respond intelligently.

SO predictable.

You got nothing, Shuny. See ya in another thread.

[shunyadragon]

SO predictable.

You got nothing, Shuny. See ya in another thread.

Not likely . . .

[37818]

Again . . .

what kind of scientist is Kbersche that would give him special qualification for being an authority and ex-spurt in this thread!?!?!?!?!?

My understanding is he is a physicist.

[shunyadragon]

My understanding is he is a physicist.

I need more specifics as to the claim that he is a scientist.

[seer]

I need more specifics as to the claim that he is a scientist.

You mean as opposed to a faux scientist like you Shuny? How come you never present your qualifications?

[rogue06]

I need more specifics as to the claim that he is a scientist.

He is a physicist.

[shunyadragon]

You mean as opposed to a faux scientist like you Shuny? How come you never present your qualifications?

I have presented my qualification previously, no problem. Glen Morton knows me personally as a Geologist and scientist.