A proof of God's self-evidence

good post so far

I seriously do not have enough faith to believe in a non-creationist account of how the universe came into being...I'd rather believe that a self-existent creator created the universe out of nothing then believe that a singularity somehow underwent rapid expansion --tell me, if that was true, how come we observe so much order and specified complexity around us-?--.

DT, I believe that Christianity is not just a religion and tradition, but a worldview and philosophy...if there are unresolvable contradictions in one, it must be rejected.

2 Tim 3:16 implies that Scripture is free from error and contradiction, as well as Prov 30:5-6 and 1 Cor 2:12-13.

I personally find that all of this specified discussion to be stonewalling on the part of both sides...both of us will simply find more evidence to prove our points, and the question will never be resolved. I have faith in infalliability, do you?

I believed that Adam and Eve passed down the story of Creation through their children to Moses, who wrote it down, and each time is was copied perfectly due to the Holy Spirit's preservation (Matt 5:18, NASB). This portion of the dialectic is really not helping either of us; should we drop it, and free up our minds for discussing other aspects of the philosophy of Christianity. Don't flame me for cowardice, please

although logic and ontology theories can make His existence more probable.

What are you referring to?

Your mixing up science and religion. These two areas of study have different purposes and conflating them as you do only tears down the integrity of these two worthy fields of study. If you mix science and religion, one must disappear in the process.

I'd suggest serious reflection on why you do not have enough faith.



Keyword is unresolveable. The Bible is going to have contradictions because the Bible is not one book - it's a collection of texts from different but related traditions. Imagine making a compilation of theology research from the last thousand years and putting this all into one book - the book will have contradictions, to be sure.

Contradiction does not destroy, damage, or even diminish the shine of our mutually shared religious texts. Instead, contradiction forces the practitioner to reflect and think for himself about his own spirituality instead of resigning himself to the interpretations of some man behind the pulpit trying to take your money.



These verses were not written as part of 'the Bible' - they were written in individual texts which were later compiled into a collection called the Bible.



It's not stonewalling. I'm presenting a straighforward account of Biblical scholarship. If you like, I can recommend some books.

Faith in the infallibility of what?



You can believe anything you like. My only concern is that this blind demand for literalism in the Bible is 1) contrary to the author's understanding of their texts 2) spiritually dangerous because it discourages personal spiritual reflection and meditation and encourages a dangerous, idolatrous notion of God.



How?

Just call me old-fashioned then. I'd love to read the books you have suggested. And, what do you mean "idolatrous"?

I agree with you wholeheartedly; I just perfer to take the Bible as I see it...by some of the other people's logic, you could also not prove anything Tacitus or Josephus wrote either. History does not follow the scientific method. I believe the Bible is authentic and supernaturally perserved by the Holy Spirit to point the Way of Salvation to all men on earth.

And some of the contradictions are really just one Scripture fufilling another

thus putting an end to the previous one due to new revelation from God...the Scriptures do have a chronological order, and they were written from different points of view.

Let me explain: Let's create a "Holy Canon of Medicine". In it, we have "The Book of The Medievals", which says that diseases are caused by 'bad air', as well as the later "Book of Pasteur", which says that diseases are caused by pathenogenic microorganisms. Do these contradict each other? Certainly. Does this mean that the "Holy Canon of Medicine" is somehow wrong? No.

Though I am certain that all contradictins will eventualy be resolved, I agree with everything you say. Is there anything else we can glean from this dialectic, or is it over?

I think the contradictions are resolved - I don't think they present a problem in the first place.

It's whatever, man - we can talk about anything you like.

So, what do you believe are the problems with Plato's metaphysics and epistemology?

Honestly, I've never given much thought to Platonic epistemology - the Socratic method always comes to mind. That's about it. I've read many of his dialogues, though, so if you want to jump into something, chances are I can follow. Sounds interesting to me. Either way, Plato is pretty familiar to many of the members here, so even if I can't keep up, you can bet that someone else will.

As for metaphysics - depends on the context. If you take that nonsense literally, you've gone a little far. If you read it to appreciate the brilliance of certain individuals, you're on the right track. Granted, the majority opinion is against me on this claim.

His Theory of the Forms...how do their specifications instantiate the actual object?