Satan and the Work Denying

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33 here:

...satan does his work to deny the work of God.
...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 40:

The appeal to tradition (and also contempory scholarship) shows that the claimant adequately understands her own worldview. No worldview, including your own, can be "proven."

One reason I prefer "confirm", but I s'pose I'm gettin' all semanticalistical.

You are basing your conclusions from within your own worldview, which you cannot prove. Therefore, you are employing a double standard.

I'm not so certain about that'n. I explained why I rejected tales from the Bible, thus "double standard" seems harsher'n it needs to be.

You are so certain that your methods and your requirements and your standards are the only and absolute "gold standard" that you forget that it is logically impossible to empirically prove metaphysical frameworks.

Seems a problem for those who go to claimin' (or implyin') they can. In the case of this Satan fellow, I propose the claim should not be presented as literal truth (if only in debate, and noting the original claimant may not have been doing so).

I'm challenging the claim from within the confines of the rules of this site. Thus far all I see is a lot of excuse making as to why the claim can't be supported - but of course that's only from my perspective, or as you say, worldview.

Indeed. You are assuming that your unprovable worldview is the only one that need not be proven, and in this regard you are just like the fundamentalists you so often rail against.

I disagree. I have not said my worldview is provable, I have not said that if I did propose a worldview that I shouldn't be bound to prove (or support) it, nor have I approached this OP in a fundamentalist fashion. I was given some definitions and I've explained that defining something doesn't mean that something is real. I see nothing there that indicates I'm staunchly refusing to adjust my position - if sufficient warrant is offered.

How would anyone ever know that they had arrived at the "truth" of any matter?

Fair 'nuff, while I note all we've really done so far is carry on about how unprovable the claim presented in the OP is.

You can't prove a worldview--not your own, not another's. All you can do is compare and contrast, and see if you can detect any logical incongruities from within a worldview.

And I find it quite illogical to carry on as if the claim presented in the OP is true and factual, in light of the conditions you now highlight. (that part there is for those who propose it to be true and factual)

So we see, many biblical (or theistic) claims can not be shown to be true and factual, they can not be "proven", and those who propose they are or can would be in error.

[Mithrae]

The appeal to tradition (and also contempory scholarship) shows that the claimant adequately understands her own worldview. No worldview, including your own, can be "proven."

One reason I prefer "confirm", but I s'pose I'm gettin' all semanticalistical.

When asked you defined 'confirm' in a way which I could not easily distinguish from 'prove' - to "remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact." But generally 'confirm' is considered a less absolute (or alternatively, less loaded) term than prove: Being a bright fellow, your posts reflect this. 'Semanticalistical' seems to reinforce a common rhetorical theme in your posts.

Once again (to avoid further confusion), this is not a statement of falsehood in what you've said nor a statement regarding violation of forum rules. It is an opinion regarding methodology, in this specific case the rhetorical influences through which we regard discussion of ideas.

I'm challenging the claim from within the confines of the rules of this site. Thus far all I see is a lot of excuse making as to why the claim can't be supported - but of course that's only from my perspective, or as you say, worldview.

Indeed. You are assuming that your unprovable worldview is the only one that need not be proven, and in this regard you are just like the fundamentalists you so often rail against.

I disagree. I have not said my worldview is provable, I have not said that if I did propose a worldview that I shouldn't be bound to prove (or support) it, nor have I approached this OP in a fundamentalist fashion. I was given some definitions and I've explained that defining something doesn't mean that something is real. I see nothing there that indicates I'm staunchly refusing to adjust my position - if sufficient warrant is offered.

You have failed to show what 'sufficient warrant' is.
If we assume that this Mithrae fellow had access to online dictionaries and enough familiarity with English to suppose that he might have some vague idea of meanings for 'natural' and 'actual,' 'confirm' and 'factual,' there'd be folk out there who might suggest that he was perhaps asking for the challenger's specific intent with regards to his comments and questions.

Now admittedly the challenger did define confirm - as partially quoted above - but he did not show how this definition could be related to anything real. It would be appreciated if he would do so.

[kayky]

Forgive me for getting back on topic...regardless of traditional views, I can only consider "satan" as a metaphor, not an actual being. The "accuser" resides within each of us, berating us, telling us that we are somehow not quite right, not what we were meant to be.

Evil is not the opposite of good. It is the absence (or denial) of good, just as darkness is the absence of light. "Satan," of course, is the ultimate liar. When we catch on to the charade, we realize we are exactly what we are supposed to be.

The more we come to know our true nature, the more we realize that evil cannot exist as an entity just as darkness cannot exist as an entity. Goodness swallows evil, just as light swallows darkness. God (however God is imagined) then becomes the resolution of all opposites, all dualities.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 42:

When asked you defined 'confirm' in a way which I could not easily distinguish from 'prove' - to "remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact." But generally 'confirm' is considered a less absolute (or alternatively, less loaded) term than prove: Being a bright fellow, your posts reflect this. 'Semanticalistical' seems to reinforce a common rhetorical theme in your posts.

I'll accept the charge, while contending that I don't use "rhetoric" in some nefarious fashion - not that that's what you mean here.

Once again (to avoid further confusion), this is not a statement of falsehood in what you've said nor a statement regarding violation of forum rules. It is an opinion regarding methodology, in this specific case the rhetorical influences through which we regard discussion of ideas.

You cleared that up awhile back, but I 'preciate your ensuring I understood your point.

You have failed to show what 'sufficient warrant' is.

I rely on the observer's discernment here.

If we assume that this Mithrae fellow had access to online dictionaries and enough familiarity with English to suppose that he might have some vague idea of meanings for 'natural' and 'actual,' 'confirm' and 'factual,' there'd be folk out there who might suggest that he was perhaps asking for the challenger's specific intent with regards to his comments and questions.

And the challenger might ask this Mithrae fellow for which specific comments and questions does he request the challenger to present his intentions.

In what way might a challenger's intentions support or rebut the claim presented in the OP?

Now admittedly the challenger did define confirm - as partially quoted above - but he did not show how this definition could be related to anything real. It would be appreciated if he would do so.

I rely on the observer's discernment as to what constitutes "confirm".

[Black Rose]

[Replying to post 1 by JoeyKnothead]

Of course Satan wants to deny the work of god. God is evil. He demands worship, orders genocide, sends people to eternal torture, makes them deny their own human nature, hates people for their sexuality even though they were made that way, kills innocent people and all sorts of other crimes. By going against god, Satan is doing humanity a favor!