[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for involving me in your sidebar discussion on life and beginnings thereof!

Seems to me that Hank Kerchief is advocating the worldview that time, space and life are merely attributes. Or to put it another way, that such things are not objectively real, merely relative measurements and therefore beginnings are irrelevant.

He summed up his epistemology at 1207 by saying this:

I’ll explain only that nothing that cannot be derived from reasoning about that which we are conscious of can be knowledge, and that all knowledge is about that of which we are conscious. Anything else that makes a claim to knowledge is superstition.

In this worldview, the observer determines his own reality (that of which he is conscious.) Conversely, if something exists of which he is not conscious, it is not part of reality (to him.)

By extension, the limits of his awareness are the boundaries of his world. Testimony of knowledge outside those boundaries is superstition to him; the observer is his own 'god.'

Therefore, if the observer reasons that space, time and life are merely attributes, i.e. not objectively real, then any claims of knowledge concerning their realness including their beginnings are superstition (to him.)

The "we" in the above excerpt is a misrepresentation I seek to expose. That Hank Kerchief's reality can be described by him in that manner in no way speaks for me. I do not live in his world.

And as evidence, I aver that I have knowledge from God Himself and further that His knowledge is absolute and I am not, therefore there exists much knowledge which will always be beyond my grasp. Observers who do not have that awareness (do not have 'ears to hear') - or have chosen to ignore Him - cannot speak for me.

[Hank Kerchief]

“Seems to me that Hank Kerchief is advocating the worldview that time, space and life are merely attributes. Or to put it another way, that such things are not objectively real, merely relative measurements and therefore beginnings are irrelevant.”

No, my view is that all of reality exists independently of anyone’s awareness or knowledge of it, and that it’s nature is independent of anyone’s belief about. You again have completely mischaracterized both my views and what I said. It is very near slander, which I don’t think you intended, however.

So everything else you said is about a view I do not hold.

I’m not sure if this absurdity is because of a reading comprehension problem or lack of normal discernment.

All I said is, that we cannot have knowledge anything we cannot be conscious of. Now if you are never conscious of something, it does not mean it does not exist, it does not mean it is not true, it only means you are not conscious of it. Now if you cannot be conscious of it in any way whatsoever, you cannot possibly know it. If you cannot see it, or a pricture of it, or no one ever describes it to you, or you never read about, or God never reveals to you, YOU CANNOT KNOW IT. You cannot know anything that does not in some way come into your conscious mind.

I even warned you to be careful when you read what I wrote. You completely misunderstood it, but you obviously have your preconceived idea about what others must believe if they don’t agree with you. You took the bait.

Love to know how you think you can know something you have never been conscious of in any way whatsoever. Here’s a test. Try to name something you’ve never been conscious of it. See, if you name, your are conscious of it. (I said “conscious of”, not perceive.)

OH, yes, it is very discourteous to talk about someone in the third person when they are part of the conversation.

Hank