kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

I believe Kurt, and correct me if I'm wrong, that when you write posts like this you think you're being intellectually humble. I think they require far more certainty and self-assurance than you give them credit for though and just cloak themselves as humility (this is not intended to be demeaning or condescending, simply to convey that I think there are assumptions smuggled in which aren't recognized).

If another person says God spoke to them, what basis do you have to reject that? You can only speak to your own experience, right? So why sit here and argue repeatedly on a forum that my personal experience should be rejected because you don't share it or understand it? If God exists in those ways posited how can you impose your rationalist understanding upon Him and dictate how He functions? How do you arrive at the conclusion that you understand enough of the remainder of the universe to confidently state those things couldn't happen, or that the universe is absurd (mentioned several times)? Those things all require certainty to state, not ignorance.

Not to dump on you but there's an inconsistency here that's prevalent and doesn't reconcile.

---

As for this part -

Part of me very much agrees with this criticism. When I write something like that I end up rereading and editing a fair deal because I am trying to strike a balance between be firm in my positions without sounding like an arrogant jerk. Sometimes I reread my posts and think I go too far with how I state my positions.

As for the start of the second paragraph, I think you've misread my position. Your personal experience is your own. By all means, value you it, call it knowledge, believe that you spoke to God. I'm telling you why I am skeptical of it. There is zero difference in your skepticism that Hindus are speaking to Vishnu and my skepticism that you are speaking to your God. I'm telling you why I don't think its convincing. You can discard my skepticism or you can use it to question whether you spoke to God or not. My certainty here is in the fact that I'm certain that I'm skeptical. I'm not trying to tell you what to do.

As for the certainty in which I "impose your rationalist understanding upon Him and dictate how He functions"? I am quite literally doing the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of. I am suggesting we should not impose any of our understandings on such a being, if It exists.

How do I "confidently state those things couldn't happen"? Again, I am literally taking the opposite position.

If God is as complex and infinite as you suggest Him to be, don't you think we should be careful with "God MUST be. . . . . " statements? I feel like you might agree with me.

All that said, I will say that I do catch myself stating some things in an overly-certain way. By all means, call me out on those things.

---

Eh, yes and no. Excluding experience is imposing your own views on things and it's simply unavoidable. Your only response can ever be, 'I don't know.' It can't be that something is unknowable (which is to have it both ways). After all, that precludes that the unknowable could now or ever be knowable, or that it could make itself known outside of simple discovery by means you haven't experienced or aren't aware of. In short, the existence of the unknowable does not mean it can't make itself known or wouldn't choose to. Complexity is not a synonym for impossibility.

There's a gulf between me and the Hindu and you and me. I don't reject demons or spirits as influencing and interacting with reality, thus experiencing Vishnu isn't unattainable. I don't believe Vishnu is the one true God though. But again you must reject all spiritual things as knowable which is beyond skepticism. Skepticism requires more than ignorance - you must rely on yourself: your reason, experience, and perception, otherwise you have no basis for skepticism.

The opposite of our claims isn't ignorance but certainty of our claims being untrue. That's what's hidden in your response that you wrestle through.

you are making a completely different argument. You were trying to argue that language or music pre-existed, they didn't they were created by men.

Now saying that logicl must exist for there to be language is no different than saying a universe must exist for there to be language, or causality must exist ect.

These are not proofs for god in any rational way I can imagine.

Aggrad08 said:

---

you are making a completely different argument. You were trying to argue that language or music pre-existed, they didn't they were created by men.

Now saying that logicl must exist for there to be language is no different than saying a universe must exist for there to be language, or causality must exist ect.

These are not proofs for god in any rational way I can imagine.

---

The musical scales were there before mankind figured a way to shape sounds.
The laws of logic were there before man "invented" logic, rhetoric, and grammar.
Numbers existed before mankind began to count things.

yea you don't understand musical scales....

Aggrad08 said:

---

yea you don't understand musical scales....

---

They have a framework, no?

only a contrived one, not a fundamental one

You assert that the things you believe to be true are true but you fail at offering any convincing arguments that those things are true. Assertions, in of themselves, aren't arguments.

Scales, for instance, are absolutely inventions of mankind. Different cultures around the world use different scales rather than independently coming up with the same ones that allegedly preexist. And the idea that there is a limited number of notes is kind of nonsense. You might be able to argue that the human ear is only capable of distinguishing a limited number of sounds but that doesn't mean that other inbetween notes can't exist. If someone could tell the difference between a note at 440 Hz and one at 440.000000000001 Hz then wouldn't that be two different notes? And you could stretch that out to infinity if wanted.

Aggrad08 said:

---

only a contrived one, not a fundamental one

---

Well even frequencies that we can't hear with the human ear exist in a framework that can be measured.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

only a contrived one, not a fundamental one

---

Well even frequencies that we can't hear with the human ear exist in a framework that can be measured.

---

There is a continuous envelope of frequencies that people (generally it varies with age and health) can hear at sufficient volume. It's not distinct notes. Where you pick notes is contrived as well as what frequency spacing, and what name each frequency gets and on and on.

Rocag said:

---

You assert that the things you believe to be true are true but you fail at offering any convincing arguments that those things are true. Assertions, in of themselves, aren't arguments.

Scales, for instance, are absolutely inventions of mankind. Different cultures around the world use different scales rather than independently coming up with the same ones that allegedly preexist. And the idea that there is a limited number of notes is kind of nonsense. You might be able to argue that the human ear is only capable of distinguishing a limited number of sounds but that doesn't mean that other inbetween notes can't exist. If someone could tell the difference between a note at 440 Hz and one at 440.000000000001 Hz then wouldn't that be two different notes? And you could stretch that out to infinity if wanted.

---

All we can do is measure it and make it work.

You can do the same with numbers, even go to infinity.

The fact of the matter is that the transcendental truth and beauty of the existence of God cannot be revealed through science but through the revelation that God guarantees and grants us.

Disclaiming the existence of God using the science tool kit is incomplete. The preexisting laws of logic and such cannot be explained by science either. So it's impossible to know anything without God.
That doesn't mean that you or anyone can't reason. That is called common grace.

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

only a contrived one, not a fundamental one

---

Well even frequencies that we can't hear with the human ear exist in a framework that can be measured.

---

There is a continuous envelope of frequencies that people (generally it varies with age and health) can hear at sufficient volume. It's not distinct notes. Where you pick notes is contrived as well as what frequency spacing, and what name each frequency gets and on and on.

---

Back to what I mean. I'm discussing frequencies that we can actually hear. This doesn't discount the music framework argument.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

I think people who are humble and ignorant ask questions and listen rather than dictate to others or post things like, 'I hope you become an atheist.'

---

I'll respond to the rest of your post, but, out of curiosity . . . what is objectionable about 'I hope you loose your faith in your religion and become an atheist' that doesn't equally apply to 'I hope you find God and become a Christian'?

I actually don't care if he becomes an atheist or not - I posted what I did to make a specific point. . . . and I'm just glad that someone bit.

---

It undermines your argument that you're just a humble guy admitting your ignorance. The only context in which those are equivalent is if what he believes is untrue - because then who cares either way (in which case you prejudice your knowledge and experience over his). If it is true it's a benevolent, kind act even if you don't like it and it's a jerk move to wish ill on him

---

First - being humble and ignorant does not disqualify someone from believing something to be true or that some change is in someone else's best interest.

Now, I'm not actually hoping for him to lose his faith and become an atheist. Certainly not actively, I made the comment to make a point.

We each have our own world views. And to each of us, these world views help us make sense of the world around us, they inform our beliefs and actions, they bring us comfort, they help us live.

According to you, my hoping for him to abandon faith and become an atheist is "a jerk move" and I am "wish[ing] ill on hiim". Those are your words. But, when a Christian says they hope I find God, this is at worst "who cares" and at best a benevolent and kind act. Do you not see the double standard here?

For me to find God and become Christian would require a massive upheaval of who I am. It may very end my marriage and mean my kids would grow up in a broken home. It would change how I interact with my family, my friends. It would mean abandoning a worldview which I find comfort in. Its not a small thing. All of this is NOT why I haven't accepted Christianity. But, these are very much part of the consequences you are wishing for when you wish for me to find Christianity.

I am very much aware that no one actively wishes these hardships on me or my family when they pray for me to find God. Yet, it is, as you have demonstrated, very much assumed to be the motivation when I hope for someone to lose their faith. And I think that is bull***** I'm not certain its bull***** Thats just my opinion.

1 Corinthians 7:14 (ESV)

14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. "

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

only a contrived one, not a fundamental one

---

Well even frequencies that we can't hear with the human ear exist in a framework that can be measured.

---

There is a continuous envelope of frequencies that people (generally it varies with age and health) can hear at sufficient volume. It's not distinct notes. Where you pick notes is contrived as well as what frequency spacing, and what name each frequency gets and on and on.

---

Back to what I mean. I'm discussing frequencies that we can actually hear. This doesn't discount the music framework argument.

---

You aren't understanding. We don't have only specific notes we can hear, or specific frequencies we can hear, there is a continuous range. Breaking it into notes is arbitrary-making the music framework argument totally bunk.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

1 Corinthians 7:14 (ESV)

14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. "

---

I very much see your praying for me to find God as an act of kindness. I think you are sincere in meaning well for me.

If I were to hope for you to abandon religion and God because I sincerely believed it would be the best thing for you, would you also see it as something kind? Or would you think it sinister?

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

only a contrived one, not a fundamental one

---

Well even frequencies that we can't hear with the human ear exist in a framework that can be measured.

---

There is a continuous envelope of frequencies that people (generally it varies with age and health) can hear at sufficient volume. It's not distinct notes. Where you pick notes is contrived as well as what frequency spacing, and what name each frequency gets and on and on.

---

Back to what I mean. I'm discussing frequencies that we can actually hear. This doesn't discount the music framework argument.

---

You aren't understanding. We don't have only specific notes we can hear, or specific frequencies we can hear, there is a continuous range. Breaking it into notes is arbitrary.

---

Then you don't understand music…you can sing a song flat or pitchy and not follow the design of a song.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

1 Corinthians 7:14 (ESV)

14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. "

---

I very much see your praying for me to find God as an act of kindness. I think you are sincere in meaning well for me.

If I were to hope for you to abandon religion and God because I sincerely believed it would be the best thing for you, would you also see it as something kind? Or would you think it sinister?

---

I would just state that, in my understanding of your ultimate worldview, that the universe doesn't care either way.

It's you who doesn't understand. That design is arbitrary. Flat or sharp are based on a preferred frequency for that note by the song designer, not something fundamental to the universe. You fundamentally don't understand that the notes themselves are contrived.

Also the very fact that you can hear a note being off as sharp or flat demonstrates that you don't only hear notes at certain frequencies. You can hear (to a certain precision) frequencies in between those notes and understand they are "off" of the design of the song.

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's you who doesn't understand. That design is arbitrary. Flat or sharp are based on a preferred frequency for that note by the song designer, not something fundamental to the universe. You fundamentally don't understand that the notes themselves are contrived.

Also the very fact that you can hear a note being off as sharp or flat demonstrates that you don't only hear notes at certain frequencies. You can hear (to a certain precision) frequencies in between those notes and understand they are "off" of the design of the song.

---

For it to be beautiful, the song must be in a certain key and match the other harmonies…albeit accompanied by other instruments or other vocals.
I fail to understand how you don't acknowledge that these notes (no matter how they are bent) are ordered by God.

There's a song higher than we can all sing that is sung in the heavenlies over these things…

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's you who doesn't understand. That design is arbitrary. Flat or sharp are based on a preferred frequency for that note by the song designer, not something fundamental to the universe. You fundamentally don't understand that the notes themselves are contrived.

Also the very fact that you can hear a note being off as sharp or flat demonstrates that you don't only hear notes at certain frequencies. You can hear (to a certain precision) frequencies in between those notes and understand they are "off" of the design of the song.

---

For it to be beautiful, the song must be in a certain key and match the other harmonies…albeit accompanied by other instruments or other vocals.
I fail to understand how you don't acknowledge that these notes (no matter how they are bent) are ordered by God.

There's also a song higher than we can all sing that is played in the heavenlies over these things…

---

Because they are subjective. Different cultures have used different notes. It's no more objective than different foods and combining to make a taste that's 'good'. Good tasking food has evolutionary roots sure, but also cultural and individually subjective ones as well.

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's you who doesn't understand. That design is arbitrary. Flat or sharp are based on a preferred frequency for that note by the song designer, not something fundamental to the universe. You fundamentally don't understand that the notes themselves are contrived.

Also the very fact that you can hear a note being off as sharp or flat demonstrates that you don't only hear notes at certain frequencies. You can hear (to a certain precision) frequencies in between those notes and understand they are "off" of the design of the song.

---

For it to be beautiful, the song must be in a certain key and match the other harmonies…albeit accompanied by other instruments or other vocals.
I fail to understand how you don't acknowledge that these notes (no matter how they are bent) are ordered by God.

There's also a song higher than we can all sing that is played in the heavenlies over these things…

---

Because they are subjective. Different cultures have used different notes. It's no more objective than different foods and combining to make a taste that's 'good'. Good tasking food has evolutionary roots sure, but also cultural and individually subjective ones as well.

---

But they all work because of the designer's framework.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

1 Corinthians 7:14 (ESV)

14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. "

---

I very much see your praying for me to find God as an act of kindness. I think you are sincere in meaning well for me.

If I were to hope for you to abandon religion and God because I sincerely believed it would be the best thing for you, would you also see it as something kind? Or would you think it sinister?

---

I would just state that, in my understanding of your ultimate worldview, that the universe doesn't care either way.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

1 Corinthians 7:14 (ESV)

14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. "

---

I very much see your praying for me to find God as an act of kindness. I think you are sincere in meaning well for me.

If I were to hope for you to abandon religion and God because I sincerely believed it would be the best thing for you, would you also see it as something kind? Or would you think it sinister?

---

I would just state that, in my understanding of your ultimate worldview, that the universe doesn't care either way.

---

---

"Stuff happens" as Forest Gump said, right?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's you who doesn't understand. That design is arbitrary. Flat or sharp are based on a preferred frequency for that note by the song designer, not something fundamental to the universe. You fundamentally don't understand that the notes themselves are contrived.

Also the very fact that you can hear a note being off as sharp or flat demonstrates that you don't only hear notes at certain frequencies. You can hear (to a certain precision) frequencies in between those notes and understand they are "off" of the design of the song.

---

For it to be beautiful, the song must be in a certain key and match the other harmonies…albeit accompanied by other instruments or other vocals.
I fail to understand how you don't acknowledge that these notes (no matter how they are bent) are ordered by God.

There's also a song higher than we can all sing that is played in the heavenlies over these things…

---

Because they are subjective. Different cultures have used different notes. It's no more objective than different foods and combining to make a taste that's 'good'. Good tasking food has evolutionary roots sure, but also cultural and individually subjective ones as well.

---

But they all work because of the designer's framework.

---

. And dinner works because of the chefs recipe. It's still subjective

You are spiderman, dodging questions in that gif.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

You are spiderman, dodging questions in that gif.

---

I laughed.

It wouldn't bother me if you wanted me to become an atheist or asked me to become one. I wouldn't even mind having a beer with you over dinner. Just the way you are is fine.
I know that salvation is of the Lord and by grace is anyone saved. You're still breathing; so there is still hope.

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's you who doesn't understand. That design is arbitrary. Flat or sharp are based on a preferred frequency for that note by the song designer, not something fundamental to the universe. You fundamentally don't understand that the notes themselves are contrived.

Also the very fact that you can hear a note being off as sharp or flat demonstrates that you don't only hear notes at certain frequencies. You can hear (to a certain precision) frequencies in between those notes and understand they are "off" of the design of the song.

---

For it to be beautiful, the song must be in a certain key and match the other harmonies…albeit accompanied by other instruments or other vocals.
I fail to understand how you don't acknowledge that these notes (no matter how they are bent) are ordered by God.

There's also a song higher than we can all sing that is played in the heavenlies over these things…

---

Because they are subjective. Different cultures have used different notes. It's no more objective than different foods and combining to make a taste that's 'good'. Good tasking food has evolutionary roots sure, but also cultural and individually subjective ones as well.

---

But they all work because of the designer's framework.

---

. And dinner works because of the chefs recipe. It's still subjective

---

Nah. Apples and oranges…

Christians or theists have no monopoly on logic. Logic isn't evidence of god. If you are simply acknowledging your point fails and you have no argument besides "atheists aren't allowed to use logic without god" I'd say we are done here.

And beauty is absolutely subjective. It's a prime example of something subjective

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's you who doesn't understand. That design is arbitrary. Flat or sharp are based on a preferred frequency for that note by the song designer, not something fundamental to the universe. You fundamentally don't understand that the notes themselves are contrived.

Also the very fact that you can hear a note being off as sharp or flat demonstrates that you don't only hear notes at certain frequencies. You can hear (to a certain precision) frequencies in between those notes and understand they are "off" of the design of the song.

---

For it to be beautiful, the song must be in a certain key and match the other harmonies…albeit accompanied by other instruments or other vocals.
I fail to understand how you don't acknowledge that these notes (no matter how they are bent) are ordered by God.

There's also a song higher than we can all sing that is played in the heavenlies over these things…

---

Because they are subjective. Different cultures have used different notes. It's no more objective than different foods and combining to make a taste that's 'good'. Good tasking food has evolutionary roots sure, but also cultural and individually subjective ones as well.

---

But they all work because of the designer's framework.

---

. And dinner works because of the chefs recipe. It's still subjective

---

Nah. Apples and oranges…

---

Apples and oranges…music is in another dimension.

Demonstrate this rationally. You keep editing your post but it seems you are trying to argue in various ways that beauty is objective. This just isn't so. It's the perfect example of subjective

Aggrad08 said:

---

Demonstrate this rationally. You keep editing your post but it seems you are trying to argue in various ways that beauty is objective. This just isn't so. It's the perfect example of subjective

---

There is a subjective element to beauty, in my opinion. But most of that can be cured by developing a new sense of taste.

If we were farmers in east Texas during the depression, then eating squirrels would be tasty.

If we were in a Nazi concentration camp, then eating mice may be tasty.

It's about what one is exposed to and in that sense only is it
Subjective…

In no way shape or form is it objective. Provide the objective measurement of beauty the same way we measure mass or voltage.

Aggrad08 said:

---

In no way shape or form is it objective. Provide the objective measurement of beauty the same way we measure mass or voltage.

---

You can't compare apples and oranges. Music is on a different level than voltage. It's an universal language.

You are claiming it's on the same level by calling it objective. To be objective and universal it must be of a kind with voltage or mass ect.

There is this noumena or spirit about music.

Edit: about music