Originally posted by gran guerrero
View Post
But, truth is absolute.
No one here is claiming to be omniscient.
However, religious followers and leaders claim to have contact with an omniscient and omnipotent being. And, this is absolute nonsense.
Going back to your father's argument...
You pointed out some very good questions. However, look at your father's argument even closer, and maybe it's even an error of yours as well. Metaphisics deals with epistomology, ontology, and cosmology. What your father gave you was some sort of religious metaphor. When I read it I got this notion that at first he's talking about some place outside of reality, and in this alternate reality exists a wall. But then all of a sudden it gets confusing because it attempts to connect reality with this alternate reality. How did the wall all of a sudden become part of reality?
Furthermore, he references some sort of benefits and consequences of choosing this metaphorical path that leads to an unknown. Every choice leads to a consequence. So there's no disputing that. What I find issue with is "benefits." If it leads to an unknown, then he can't claim there are benefits because he doesn't know.
Or, maybe the benefit is that you don't have to deal with reality because you've put up a wall and chosen not to be a part of it? After all, he did claim it's boring.
Comment