Pages:
Author

Topic: Religious beliefs on bitcoin - page 12. (Read 22437 times)

newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 03, 2013, 12:47:29 PM
You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.
The difference in the two types of knowledge is that one type is true and the other type is false.

wut
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 03, 2013, 02:59:44 PM
You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.  Again, sorry for analogies,...

You should be, since love and thirst are as explainable and testable as 2+2=4. Or a set of chemical equations, anyway.

If you feel that love could be explained, to your satisfaction, as a set of chemical formulas, i'm afraid i have no better analogies.  You'll have to settle for dry arguments to internal consistency.  Of course, by expressing love in a set of formulas, you've made it as elevated & sublime as as the crap you took today, and just as laudable.  You keep eking out our sympathy for some trolled loli who goes on to an hero herself, and now i learn that her suffering is no more noteworthy than what the kid in my avatar is doing.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're sincere, i don't envy you.  Just to make it absolutely clear:  When you talk about your love for that boy, that's the kind of love it was?  Listen, listen, drop a few tabs of X and have a fuckload moar love!
 
You don't discard Newtonian physics & Euclidian geometry just because they're shown to fail in extreme cases, you go on using them -- only an idiot would use quantum mechanics to design a hammer.  Knowing that as you get closer to the speed of light or subatomic size, Newtonian physics fail is pretty handy, though.

It's not false if it's based on an approximation. We don't say that the circumference of a circle = Diameter * 3.14 is wrong, we just say it's close enough, since using all the digits of Pi would be impossible, since they go on for infinity. But using 3.14 doesn't make Pi any less illogical than using Newtonian physics when a close macro approximation is easier than a quantum one.

No, it's not like that.  I assumed you understood the difference between Newtonian physics & quantum mechanics.  It's not a question of approximation & rounding off decimal points, it's  an entirely different paradigm with radically different results.  After you do something basic like convert mass into energy with Newtonian physics, get back to me.  In the meantime: Learn to physics.

Quote
All of these are logically "intrinsically-consistent." Something like a god, however, isn't even an approximation. It's just a whole other thing entirely, that has no measurable effect on the "intrinsically consistent" world at all. I could just as easily propose that we use Norse or Greek mythology as "other type of logic" truths, since they have the same exact requirement of "truth" as the present idea of god.

No, no.  Never mind.
full member
Activity: 220
Merit: 100
Getting too old for all this.
June 03, 2013, 02:54:59 PM
You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.  Again, sorry for analogies,...

You should be, since love and thirst are as explainable and testable as 2+2=4. Or a set of chemical equations, anyway.

You don't discard Newtonian physics & Euclidian geometry just because they're shown to fail in extreme cases, you go on using them -- only an idiot would use quantum mechanics to design a hammer.  Knowing that as you get closer to the speed of light or subatomic size, Newtonian physics fail is pretty handy, though.

It's not false if it's based on an approximation. We don't say that the circumference of a circle = Diameter * 3.14 is wrong, we just say it's close enough, since using all the digits of Pi would be impossible, since they go on for infinity. But using 3.14 doesn't make Pi any less illogical than using Newtonian physics when a close macro approximation is easier than a quantum one. All of these are logically "intrinsically-consistent." Something like a god, however, isn't even an approximation. It's just a whole other thing entirely, that has no measurable effect on the "intrinsically consistent" world at all. I could just as easily propose that we use Norse or Greek mythology as "other type of logic" truths, since they have the same exact requirement of "truth" as the present idea of god.

Classic god-of-the-gaps argument. For me, the very existence of the book of Isaiah, for instance, results in a number of serious gaps, which IMHO demonstrate the equation to be more like 2+2x=4y. When God is not making a point, all things work to the tune of 'x=2y-1', everything works predictably. Why would you pay any attention to 'y'? It's when it doesn't add up that you start to question, am I missing something? Is there a more intricate equation? Unfortunately you're also past that, to shrugging your shoulders. Also a terrible analogy.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
June 03, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.  Again, sorry for analogies,...

You should be, since love and thirst are as explainable and testable as 2+2=4. Or a set of chemical equations, anyway.

You don't discard Newtonian physics & Euclidian geometry just because they're shown to fail in extreme cases, you go on using them -- only an idiot would use quantum mechanics to design a hammer.  Knowing that as you get closer to the speed of light or subatomic size, Newtonian physics fail is pretty handy, though.

It's not false if it's based on an approximation. We don't say that the circumference of a circle = Diameter * 3.14 is wrong, we just say it's close enough, since using all the digits of Pi would be impossible, since they go on for infinity. But using 3.14 doesn't make Pi any less illogical than using Newtonian physics when a close macro approximation is easier than a quantum one. All of these are logically "intrinsically-consistent." Something like a god, however, isn't even an approximation. It's just a whole other thing entirely, that has no measurable effect on the "intrinsically consistent" world at all. I could just as easily propose that we use Norse or Greek mythology as "other type of logic" truths, since they have the same exact requirement of "truth" as the present idea of god.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 03, 2013, 12:46:51 PM
...
The issue I have with this idea is, let's say someone broke into your house, and stole one of your most cherished possessions. Or worse, killed one of your loved family members. This criminal is the one who did the act, who must now seek your forgiveness. What would you say if I said that I forgive him on your behalf? What about god forgiving him on your behalf?

Seamless segue to cripto:
 "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" -- this is Ripple IOUs!  The dirty deal:  You promise to forgive so you yourself will be forgiven. Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
June 03, 2013, 12:43:02 PM
You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.
The difference in the two types of knowledge is that one type is true and the other type is false.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 03, 2013, 12:40:06 PM
Just to make sure we're on the same page:  You can conceive, just as a hypothetical, that certain knowledge is inaccessible to logical analysis?  

I can conceive that stories or fantasies can be inaccessible to logical analysis, but not knowledge. Mainly because knowledge is something based in a concrete world, which happens to follow a set of strict logical rules, and to violate those rules would mean throwing everything else out of the window. Like, if things don't have to follow logic, why should 2 + 2 = 4 or the speed of light be a constant?

There's a real answer, which is long, boring & counterintuitive (so i guess a lousy answer), and a less correct, but more palatable one.  Here's the latter:
You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.  Again, sorry for analogies, but it would be pretty ridiculous if, after saying that this knowledge is inaccessible to logic, i proceeded to logically define it.  
A point that differentiates this knowledge from what's commonly called "batshit craziness" is intrinsic consistency. "Intrinsic consistency" is jargon, so i'll explain what it means so we're talking about the same thing:  Intrinsic consistency is a necessary quality of any formal system.  If a logical system can generate a well-formed formula which leads to a contradiction (if the result is A & !A), the system's junk.  Garbage.  The knowledge i'm talking passes at least this test.  Doesn't make it true.  What makes me cringe about this explanation is that intrinsic consistency is a test of *logical systems* -- things which are outside of logic, like God (or metalogic, if a term like that is somehow useful), *don't need to be intrinsically consistent*.  But this is getting loooong.

You don't have to toss anything out of the window just because there are systems which do not obey the rules of logic**.  You don't discard Newtonian physics & Euclidian geometry just because they're shown to fail in extreme cases, you go on using them -- only an idiot would use quantum mechanics to design a hammer.  Knowing that as you get closer to the speed of light or subatomic size, Newtonian physics fail is pretty handy, though.  You gain, not lose.  Sorry for the TL.

**People use the word "logic" as if there was only one.  The word's almost meaningless to a logician, if you say "logic," he'll say "which one?"
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
June 03, 2013, 12:28:51 PM
Also in 1 Peter 18-19 it says "Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God.

The issue I have with this idea is, let's say someone broke into your house, and stole one of your most cherished possessions. Or worse, killed one of your loved family members. This criminal is the one who did the act, who must now seek your forgiveness. What would you say if I said that I forgive him on your behalf? What about god forgiving him on your behalf? That's what Jesus did when he "died for our sins." So why were the people who lived during Jesus's time accepting that "everything is cool now" because someone else forgave those who wronged them personally? I guess some would say that such act requires forgiveness from both, god, and the person who was wronged, but then the fact that god may have forgiven someone who didn't do anything against him personally (except maybe break a few laws) is little solace.

I guess you are questioning why it is OK for God to forgive those who have sinned against us?  The Bible is pretty clear that if someone does sin against us they are supposed to come and ask for forgiveness and try to make the wrongs right. but this is not always possible. Perhaps the person who did the wrong does not know where the person is now?  Or perhaps the person is dead that he/she hurt?  That is why the person should tell God in a humble way what he did and ask God to forgive him for his wrongs.  But yes, you are right in that the person should apologize to the person he hurt not just to God.  That takes humility. Most people do not do this and I really think it is an area that the "church" in general should encourage more.  Instead of people going around hurting each other then going to God for forgiveness.  I wonder if the person really is repentant then?  Will God accept their repentance as genuine?  It is not up to me to decide but I do think that they are missing an important step in the process.  That still does not negate the fact that God is the one that can forgive us of our sins against Him.


I suppose the reason I still feel compelled to share with others is that life without Jesus is not easy.  It can be a lonely dark place.  Life with Jesus, although not easy, is filled with hope, joy and love.

I think that depends  more on how one lives their life, than whether there is Jesus in it. My life is totally devoid of Jesus, as are the lives of many others I know, and their lives are still filled with joy and love. We get that from the world around us, and our family and friends. At the same time, those people who are constantly afraid of hell and sin if they don't follow strict dogma, are likely miserable, despite having lives filled with Jesus.

I guess the question is where does the good things in your life truly come from?  I believe that every good and perfect gift comes from God.  All the sin, hate, pain, sorrow, etc.. does not come from God but from the evil one.  Who is the one we should be against then?  Who is the one we should be angry with because he allows innocent children to suffer from abuse?  Who is the one that distorts the truth in all areas? 

I do agree that there are many Christians that put themselves in "chains" again by living in constant fear of God striking them at any time for their sins, but when we are really free there is "no condemnation for those who are in Christ." 
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
June 03, 2013, 11:58:44 AM
This is where I differ from most Christians.  I struggled with the whole idea of how a loving God could send people to hell who like the girl were suffering from such horrid things they took their own life.  Or what about the people who never got a chance to even hear about Jesus and make that choice?  Talk about unfair?  Just because you are born into a family that is not Christian, and you never have the chance to even accept Jesus you go to hell?  That is unfair too.  Hence why I did some soul searching on this.

This train of thought is what destroys the Christian organized religion, and leads to a more personal, spiritual understanding of religion. And I'm all for it. For some people, like me, an extra step of just dropping the spiritual side was needed, for others they're perfectly content holding on to whatever part of Christianity they are willing to leave themselves with. As long as people realize that their ethics come from themselves, and not from a dogmatic book or some set of man-made laws, which claim to be inerrant, I'm ok with it.


Also in 1 Peter 18-19 it says "Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God.

The issue I have with this idea is, let's say someone broke into your house, and stole one of your most cherished possessions. Or worse, killed one of your loved family members. This criminal is the one who did the act, who must now seek your forgiveness. What would you say if I said that I forgive him on your behalf? What about god forgiving him on your behalf? That's what Jesus did when he "died for our sins." So why were the people who lived during Jesus's time accepting that "everything is cool now" because someone else forgave those who wronged them personally? I guess some would say that such act requires forgiveness from both, god, and the person who was wronged, but then the fact that god may have forgiven someone who didn't do anything against him personally (except maybe break a few laws) is little solace.


I suppose the reason I still feel compelled to share with others is that life without Jesus is not easy.  It can be a lonely dark place.  Life with Jesus, although not easy, is filled with hope, joy and love.

I think that depends  more on how one lives their life, than whether there is Jesus in it. My life is totally devoid of Jesus, as are the lives of many others I know, and our lives are still filled with joy and love. We get that from the world around us, and our family and friends. At the same time, those people who are constantly afraid of hell and sin if they don't follow strict dogma, are likely miserable, despite having lives filled with Jesus. I guess you would say that we live lives as Jesus intended, while others don't, and thus we still get joy out of it. *shrug*
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
June 03, 2013, 11:44:07 AM
Just to make sure we're on the same page:  You can conceive, just as a hypothetical, that certain knowledge is inaccessible to logical analysis?  

I can conceive that stories or fantasies can be inaccessible to logical analysis, but not knowledge. Mainly because knowledge is something based in a concrete world, which happens to follow a set of strict logical rules, and to violate those rules would mean throwing everything else out of the window. Like, if things don't have to follow logic, why should 2 + 2 = 4 or the speed of light be a constant?
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 03, 2013, 11:27:08 AM
Why Americans have to draw lines when it comes to belief is beyond me.....
Same here. Guess freedom of speech and will encourages discussions and conflicts between those who think different. It isn't something that anyone can change or easily influence.

It's interesting when they adopt a certain belief they tend to accept the whole 'package', a complete system of world view and way of living, while in East Asia we casually hop from one to another from time to time, and mixing things up a bit, and can hardly feel anything unusual.

Yeah, we had that in US too, we called it New Age Cheesy  Crystalz and dreamcatchers & Tarot & scented candles. 

New Age is fine, but still, it's the 'coming' of something.. Wink

The way it played out in the states was a nauseating goulash of pop interpretations of pop interpretations of "i'm Running Earth Wiccan vulva goddess and this is mystical shit."  Almost made fire & brimstone seem attractive. Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2013, 11:08:49 AM
Why Americans have to draw lines when it comes to belief is beyond me.....
Same here. Guess freedom of speech and will encourages discussions and conflicts between those who think different. It isn't something that anyone can change or easily influence.

It's interesting when they adopt a certain belief they tend to accept the whole 'package', a complete system of world view and way of living, while in East Asia we casually hop from one to another from time to time, and mixing things up a bit, and can hardly feel anything unusual.

Yeah, we had that in US too, we called it New Age Cheesy  Crystalz and dreamcatchers & Tarot & scented candles. 

New Age is fine, but still, it's the 'coming' of something.. Wink
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 03, 2013, 10:56:02 AM
Why Americans have to draw lines when it comes to belief is beyond me.....
Same here. Guess freedom of speech and will encourages discussions and conflicts between those who think different. It isn't something that anyone can change or easily influence.

It's interesting when they adopt a certain belief they tend to accept the whole 'package', a complete system of world view and way of living, while in East Asia we casually hop from one to another from time to time, and mixing things up a bit, and can hardly feel anything unusual.

Yeah, we had that in US too, we called it New Age Cheesy  Crystalz and dreamcatchers & Tarot & scented candles. 
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 03, 2013, 10:24:22 AM
Why Americans have to draw lines when it comes to belief is beyond me.....
That's 'coz we Americans are so darn complex Wink
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2013, 10:50:37 AM
Why Americans have to draw lines when it comes to belief is beyond me.....
Same here. Guess freedom of speech and will encourages discussions and conflicts between those who think different. It isn't something that anyone can change or easily influence.

It's interesting when they adopt a certain belief they tend to accept the whole 'package', a complete system of world view and way of living, while in East Asia we casually hop from one to another from time to time, and mixing things up a bit, and can hardly feel anything unusual. Maybe we are just quite a bit more superstitious and want blessings from any deity we come upon.

Otoh, whether there is a place for a creator in the Universe is an interesting question on its own, if you can throw away some of the premiums that came with the 'package'.
global moderator
Activity: 3794
Merit: 2612
In a world of peaches, don't ask for apple sauce
June 03, 2013, 10:24:57 AM
Why Americans have to draw lines when it comes to belief is beyond me.....
Same here. Guess freedom of speech and will encourages discussions and conflicts between those who think different. It isn't something that anyone can change or easily influence.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2013, 10:12:29 AM
Why Americans have to draw lines when it comes to belief is beyond me.....
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
June 03, 2013, 09:47:12 AM
I never blamed god for the things that happened. I blamed him for sitting idly by and letting them happen, despite being supposedly omnipotent, just, and loving. There was nothing just or loving about letting what was happening to continue to happen.

I can understand that.  I felt like that with the guy that abused me.  Why would God just allow it to happen and not intervene at the time?  You will probably disagree with my reasoning, but I do think it comes down to the whole "free will" debate.  We are allowed to hurt each other.  We are allowed to make our own choices.  God does choose to intervene at times.  He did for me, but it took much longer than I wanted for sure.

Ok, but let's examine what happens when he doesn't intervene:
The claim is that god is omnipotent - he can see everything, do anything, and know everything that has happened or will ever happen.
The claim is that suicide is a cardinal sin - it goes directly against "Thou shalt not kill," results in a murder before one can ask forgiveness, and throws the gift of life right back into god's face.

So, god creates a girl, who is born into an abusive family. She is generally a nice and caring girl, polite and friendly to everyone. But as she grows up,  the abuse continues. Good sees it, but does nothing. The abuse slowly increases to where the young girl can't handle it any more, all while god still does nothing. At this point god knows exactly what will happen if he doesn't intervene, yet he still just sits and watches. And, as expected, the girl (I think she was 12 or 14 at the time?) takes her own life, just as god knew she would, and ends up going straight to hell. So, in short, god created an innocent girl, for the sole purpose of putting her through eternity of living and post-living hell. And he does this over and over again with hundreds, maybe thousands of kids over centuries - creating innocent life for the sole purpose of sending them to hell before they are even old enough to make rational decisions about life.

Why?

Ask your god that, and let me know if he gives you an answer.

I think you are right.  There is a sense of fairness in each of us and when something does not seem "fair" we can't help but question. Because I believe God is just and fair, then something does not work with the entire "Suicide is a cardinal sin" idea.  And I agree that if God was not fair, then why should we serve him?

So, it might surprise you,  but I don't believe that suicide is a cardinal sin.

This is where I differ from most Christians.  I struggled with the whole idea of how a loving God could send people to hell who like the girl were suffering from such horrid things they took their own life.  Or what about the people who never got a chance to even hear about Jesus and make that choice?  Talk about unfair?  Just because you are born into a family that is not Christian, and you never have the chance to even accept Jesus you go to hell?  That is unfair too.  Hence why I did some soul searching on this.

Christians get so dogmatic in the simplistic interpretation of hell and it leads to all kinds of problems.  I had a professor in college that mentioned that the English bible has taken places in the afterlife such as "Sheol and Hades" and simplified the places with "hell" instead.  The problem with this is "hell" has become what we all think of eternal flames and eternal punishment.  Once you are there, you have no chance but to suffer there forever.

In Catholicism purgatory is believed to be a temporary place the dead go to.  The word "purgatory" is not mentioned in scripture though.  However, Sheol and Hades are mentioned.  I think that perhaps there is some hidden truth in the idea of purgatory however. Although the idea of praying for people in Sheol or Hades or paying for indulgences I don't agree with.  But it is something that I think the Protestant churches have ignored.

Basically I believe that when Jesus was in the grave for the 3 days before he rose again he was speaking to the "dead" in a timeless place.  I believe that all people who never had a chance to accept him, or who had a horrible life like that girl, will get a chance there.  Just like here, people will have the chance to accept or reject him though.  Perhaps Jesus is even more merciful to those knowing what they had to endure?  I would say knowing Jesus like I do, that he would certainly reach out with love and compassion and comfort those who had to suffer so much!  It says that Jesus holds the keys to death and the grave in Revelation; "I am the living one. I died, but look--I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave."   Also in 1 Peter 18-19 it says "Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit. 19 So he went and preached to the spirits in prison"—   I believe that means he spoke to spirits that never got the chance to accept him, for all of time.

In discussing this with other Christians many argue with me.  They have been taught that everything is so "black and white" and it is really hard for them to see beyond that.  Also, there is the concern that in accepting that there is a way for people to accept Jesus after death we may not be as "evangelical".  There is often a desperation among Christians thinking that if they don't force others to believe like they do they will instantly go to hell after death.  I guess I have become more "relaxed" than I used to be in that.  However,  that said, I do have a greater trust that God is fair.  I suppose the reason I still feel compelled to share with others is that life without Jesus is not easy.  It can be a lonely dark place.  Life with Jesus, although not easy, is filled with hope, joy and love.  I am thankful that I can believe and trust in a God that is truly good, loving and kind.  
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 03, 2013, 09:41:39 AM
I know what could account for all some of this inconsistency and contradiction. God's absence.
If you see religion as a idea of humanity then it all seems very clear. 

newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 03, 2013, 09:38:53 AM
@Rassah:
After reading your story, the knee-jerk response is to turn to Christian apologetics -- to reconcile the Bible with what seems rational, logical, and, most of all, fair.  I see it's happening already, though that's a bit weepy & silly.  Sillier still is this entire discussion, which makes faith -- irrational by definition -- defend itself on rationality's playground.  That simply can't be done.*  All formal systems** have grammar, axiom sets, and rules of derivation, which are assumed (presupposed) to be true for that particular system.  That doesn't imply that they hold for other formal systems, and well-formed & provably valid statements of one system may be nothing more than gibberish in another.

So, the irony of your claim is that the morality that we are taught through the bible does not conform logically to the same morality from the bible, nor the morality we come by on our own. Basically, here, this makes sense, even though it doesn't make sense, and there is no sense to it, but don't worry about it. So if it doesn't make sense, and we shouldn't worry about it, then what are we supposed to learn or use from it?

The Bible doesn't teach morality.  Morals, ethics, all of that stuff's purely secular constructs.  You can be as moral (whatever the society's definition of that happens to be at the moment) as you choose to be -- that's society's measure of your worth.  If the society happens to be a Christendom, being a Christian is a part of being "moral."  You can also be a Christian & absolutely blow it when it comes to mores & social norms -- depends on society.  You might be fed to the lions for lulz.

EDIT flash flash flash:
Forgot the important part:  What are we supposed to learn from it.
The tl;dr is "Love & have no fear," but this has to be internalized all at once, because otherwise it becomes very circular:  You need to have one of the two to get the other.  Sort of like defining x in terms of y, and defining y in terms of x. This sort of anti-intellectual learning is not unique to Christianity, or even to religion/mysticism.  Sure, there are Buddhists who ask you to quiet your mind & dispel mundane logic with koans & stuff.  If that's not your thing, think of gaming, riding a bike or surfing:  You can explain the basics, but to actually do those things reasonably well you *must not think* or your reactions will be too slow.  That's an analogy, and as all analogies, it's neither perfect nor convincing if picked apart, so simply a pointer to a pointer.

Quote
Regarding Bitcoin, if a one-world government controlled currency is a prerequisite for the end-times in Revelations, then something like Bitcoin, a distributed and impossible to control currency, becoming a mainstream just may make the end-times a literal impossibility. I think Bitcoin may actually kill any possibility of Jesus's second coming, unless Jesus simply ignores a few glaring aspects of the prophesy when he arrives.

Just to make sure we're on the same page:  You can conceive, just as a hypothetical, that certain knowledge is inaccessible to logical analysis?  
Pages:
Jump to: