Dan,
My intent in giving you ample room to offer your thoughts on the questions I've asked you was intended. and still is, as an opportunity for you to offer your unrestricted and unfettered views on a few topics. I wanted to give you some questions to guide you to be able to give some broad general responses to some sort of specific subjects. The reason I wanted to engage in this fashion was to avoid having disagreements or random discussions to divert from your having as much space as you wanted to answer what you chose to. I was hoping that by keeping my views of of things for this "fact finding" part of what I hoped would be an ongoing discussion. I would have liked to take your responses and have a conversation based on specific items rather than to tackle such a large potentially sprawling conversation all at once. For some reason, you appear to be suspicious and unwilling to let things develop in more manageable pieces. This has resulted in your deciding not to respond to any of my clarifiyng questions until you get some sort of quid pro quo.
What I've done is to collect all of your questions here, as a show of good faith I will answer some of them now. I am hopeful that you will perhaps better understand what I'm trying to do and go along with the original premise. If you choose otherwise, I will go ahead and answer the rest.
Well, no one knows the answer to that one, not exactly, not specifically... right?
How did we get here?
Do you have some facts on the matter, or just (like me) your opinions?
I would ask you, what things do you think you "know" as "objective
facts..."?
Do you think you "know" that there is a God and this is an
objective fact, just one you can't prove?
Or do you think you can prove
it objectively?
Do you think you "know" that God created the world in six literal days
about 6,000 years ago, or do you think it's not a knowable matter?
Do
you think that scientists who estimate the universe to be billions of
years old do not know it objectively?
I'm pretty confident that it's impossible to have an "estimate" that is objectively true. What I do know is that the very fact that the best that can be done is to estimate, doesn't help your cause. Personally, I've always been comfortable with a wide variety of possibilities regarding the age of the earth.
With what?
With humanity, with the world, with whatever you choose to make your answer about. I intentionally left the question broad to allow you as much leeway as possible.
With humanity?
If that's how you want to answer the question, that's fine. It's all up you what you think.
How do you explain it?
Do you have some other explanation?
Yes.
Do you disagree?
Possibly, to some degree.
I think perhaps what you're asking is will there ever be a PERFECT,
complete and everlasting setting things to right, is that correct?
Yes, I'm asking; "If things were created good, and now are not good, will they ever get put back to that original state?". Does that help?
But does that happen when we die?
Does that happen immediately when we die?
One day, after our death in the future??
Do you know the answer to it?
Here on earth?
Do you have other opinions?
Yes
Will you be answering my questions to you, as well?
As you can see, as well as from past experience, yes.
I've intentionally not answered some of the questions that might provoke disagreement at this point in the conversation. As i said, if you'd be so kind as to just go along with what I'm trying to do and be patient until you're done and I can break things down into specific limited pieces. If you can't or are still suspicious then I'll answer the rest.
Fair Enough?
9 comments:
Dan,
This is a limited time offer. But, if you either choose not to take advantage of your opportunity or decline the offer, that’s your choice.
Craig, I've decided that the more answers I provide for you all, the more you read my opinions, the more you misunderstand and misrepresent them. I just am seeing a diminishing value in engaging in too much response with you all. For one thing, Marshall, at the very least, seems to not understand the difference between fact and opinion, perhaps you and Bubba as well.
That's a profoundly difficult hurdle to overcome.
As to you doing the "kindness" of "offering" me a place to offer my opinions, I'll remind you that I already have a blog where I do that. I'm not sure what's to be gained by offering it here, more. Especially when you're not answering the pertinent questions asked of you.
I wish you gentlemen well, I do. You are not blocked at my page, although, if I do ask important questions, I may request that you answer before proceeding with other comments. And I will block anything that I view as an attack on others. Especially, of a more perverse nature, as some have done. In my estimation, at least.
What's to be gained, Dan, is to allow Craig to have questions answered without YOUR fascistic rules of engagement preventing any real understanding taking place.
Craig, I stick my neck out to assume, is far more willing to actually prove accusations he makes, such as if he agreed with the notion that I don't see the difference between fact and opinion. He wouldn't just accuse me simply because what I put forth exposed the weakness of his preferred beliefs.
I wondered what excuse you’d finally come up with to exit this conversation, now I know.
It’s interesting that the excuse for not engaging with me, to try to help me understand things, is that you have a problem with Art.
Once again, blame someone else.
Funny.
I repeat:
I've decided that the more answers I provide
for you all,
the more
you
read my opinions,
the more
you
misunderstand and misrepresent them.
I just am seeing a diminishing value in engaging in too much response with
you all.
But thanks for the object lesson.
"For one thing, Marshall, at the very least, seems to not understand the difference between fact and opinion,..."
I guess when you selectively quote things you can "prove" whatever you want.
Fortunately, you continue to come up with excuses to avoid things you don;t want to do, and to blame others.
One would think that Dan, knowing well the difference between fact and opinion, could explain in great detail why what I put forth are one or the other. Instead, he simply defines the words "fact" and "opinion" without explaining how either describes or doesn't describe what I put forth. Therein lies the real problem. He satisfies himself with simply asserting that I've put forth opinion and expects everyone else to be satisfied with his assertion alone, despite nothing to back up the assertion.
Sadly, he paints everyone who opposes his positions with much the same brush...or at least the same shade of paint.
One would think a lot of things about Dan, but clearly they’d be wrong. His silence on the fact that his idol (Hillary) is so intertwined with some pretty nasty folks doesn’t even warrant a mention.
Post a Comment