That was Billions of years ago with a B not thousands and here we go with the time frame again it dont add up sorry.

That's a completely different discussion. Yes, billions of years according to what you believe. Based on what I believe, (brace yourself) the earth is only about 6000 years old. Seeing this discussion is going nowhere, I choose to remove myself from this discussion.

Wow really only 6000 years old that explains the time gap. Come on dude if that was the case erosion would be rampent and there would not be anywere not wet to live come on really. What is the world made of silly putty and blue cheese I guess and there are fairys and unicorns too if you know were to look.

Spidergoat
Suppose we were talking about Albert Einstein or president Obama. How would you propose that one investigate their personal likes and dislikes?
Kind of like searching for the president by searching your local vicinity. Eventually, as you scoured the earth's surface, you would come to the state of washington. Provided you had good information about the role of who and what the president is, you could meet with success.
The standard manner - application of theory.
Through scripture (at least scripture that credits the word of god)

By distinguishing between what is intrinsic and what is instrumental.

For instance experts in the field of eating chocolate cakes agree that having a cake his intrinsic to the practice while having a knife is merely instrumental to the act of serving it. (so having a knife is not essential to the act of eating cake in all times, places and circumstances).

Blind faith is one extreme and blind doubt is the other. IOW when the opportunity to apply oneself comes and one insists on procrastinating, they miss the opportunity.

IOW there are very good reasons why application, which is built on theory, comes before a valid conclusion.

Feel free to indicate how the vedas support your conclusion

(In fact religion doesn't even show up this thread)

Do some reading I am sure even you will be able to pick out why I stated what I did.

Fine

Tell which part of the vedas you are talking about and I can start there.

Well I am not talkinf about Hindu religion I have never studied it but I am sure it has it bad spots too every religion does one way or the other it has bad spots.

Ok

Its just that you don't know what the bad spots are yet, eh?

As I said it has them every cult has to scare the shit outta people to join or offer them some huge payoff in the end. You see the either prey on the greed of a person or the simple mindedness of a person. Which by any standard is not loving nor just. Oh and did I say cult I meant religion.

Your radical comment is unsubstantiated and a rehearsal conveniently ignoring the fossil record.

Its not so much your conclusion that I have a problem with but the premises you use to support it.



(IOW its a radical comment and a convenient rehearsal)

And what premise do you see me useing to support my conclusions.

If I am prepared to argue like you do, there isn't any.

eg

As I said it has them. Every atheistic doctrine has to scare the shit outta people to join or offer them some huge dividend in the form an egotistical crutch. You see they either prey on the pride of a person or their simple mindedness . Which by any standard is not loving nor just.

Such is the beauty of a tentative argument.

This is where I can relate to the atheists very well.

They seem to be coming from the position of

"I can know whether something is from God or about God only if I have full knowledge of God which I have acquired previously and independently from all theistic teachings and practices.

Without such previously and independently acquired knowledge, I am in no position to assess whether something is from God or about God, or not.

Knowledge about God that is acquired through theistic practices is necessarily biased and invalid."

This is related to the more or less implicit requirement for omniscience.



There could be several assumptions that underlie such a position, among them:

"God and/or theists cannot be trusted. If we are to know any truth about God, we have to find it ourselves, independently from all theistic practices."

I think it is this assumption that needs to be unpacked, and a new, positive, hopeful attitude toward theism found, before we can move on.

It is the dominant theists who make that notion popular, and they make it so, with violence if needs be.


Sure, this is all fine in theory.
But see my post above.


Moreover, at what point does one know that one has "proper knowledge"?
One cannot know that in advance!

I cannot say "I am now on the right path to the right goal" - whether either of them is right is something I can at best find out only after I have completed the path, but no sooner.

In the case of theistic knowledge, this could mean decades and decades of study and practice with no conclusions!



What could one do instead, but which would still yield positive results?

What is the necessary attitude for someone aspiring to (a particular) theism?


From what I have been able to understand so far, it should actually be something like this:

I am willing to risk eternal damnation, my bodily health, the relationships I have with friends and relatives, my job, my reputation, my sanity, my house, rejection by fellow congregationalists, and thousands of kalpas of mistakes in order to learn the truth about God.

I vow to be swayed neither by the scorn and violence of people, nor by poverty, nor by any bodily and mental ills, nor by any of the hardships that a living being can be subjected to in this Universe, but that instead I will keep firmly to the course of this theistic practice that I have chosen, even while I was in a state of durress and thus cannot claim perfection of choice.

I am devoted to this particular theistic practice because I believe that knowing the truth about God is more important than any other concerns or fears that I may have.


This is what it takes, doesn't it?

Dude I can see it is pointless to talk to someone with the brain activity of your own. Which appears to be somewhere just above slime mold and just below an infant. I will depart from the discussion with that.

heh

a fitting exit.

Part of that unpacking would involve looking at an example of knowledge that is understood in full that one acquires previously and independently from the context it appears in.

Personally I don't think its possible to provide such an example .. at least for any sort of knowledge that is credited as advanced or sublime.