0
   

A proof of God's self-evidence

 
 
OntheWindowStand
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:39 am
@Protoman2050,
good post so far
Protoman2050
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:41 am
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
good post so far


What are you referring to?
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:34 am
@Protoman2050,
Quote:
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-?--.


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.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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?


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?

Quote:
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


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.

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


How?
OntheWindowStand
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 02:39 pm
@Protoman2050,
Protoman2050 wrote:
What are you referring to?


I was just tALKing in gerneral that its a good discussion
0 Replies
 
Protoman2050
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 03:48 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
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.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 04:13 pm
@Protoman2050,
Quote:
Just call me old-fashioned then. I'd love to read the books you have suggested. And, what do you mean "idolatrous"?


Actually, I'm saying you're not old-fashioned - the fundamentalism you advocate is relatively modern. It's far from traditional.

I'm not saying you are an idolater - sorry if it sounded that way. I'm saying that fundamentalism is dangerous because it is easy to promote idolatry and intolerance with literal interpretations of scripture.

I'd suggest first Karen Armstrong's "A History of God". Just recently finished the book and it's wonderful. That's probably your best bet.

Quote:
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 you are free to do as you please. You can prove or disprove Tacitus and Josephus - they were historians. And Josephus has been almost unanimously rejected by secular historians (ie, people not blatantly trying to historically prop up their religious views).

Sure the Bible is authentic - how could it not be? It contains great spiritual material. As for supernatural preservation - this theory defies every bit of history about the book. It's a human document - like all documents.

Though I do agree that the book points the way to salvation.

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


Again, this is an extra-scriptural theory used to justify a belief that is not found in scripture either. Such a theory attempts to force a belief or system of beliefs not found in scripture into the scripture.

Quote:
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.


Even if we accept your theory, this does not explain away contradictions found in single books - for example, the Genesis contradictions.

Quote:
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.


Actually, yeah it does. Science progresses and refutes older models. Instead of 'bad air', the newer text says 'pathogenic microorganisms' which are not limited to airborne pathogens.

Religion is different - this is why I keep arguing against the merger of science and religion - they need to be separate fields if we want to preserve both of the studies.
Protoman2050
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 05:28 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
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?
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:01 pm
@Protoman2050,
Quote:
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.
Protoman2050
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:31 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
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?
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 12:02 am
@Protoman2050,
Quote:
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.
Protoman2050
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 12:16 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
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?
midas77
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 03:16 am
@Protoman2050,
Protoman2050 wrote:
His Theory of the Forms...how do their specifications instantiate the actual object?


The actual object in plato is instantiated by its imperfect material from which the actual object is made. Your use of specification in this statement is somewhat confusing in so far that in plato, the specification is the Form. It is a bit different from the way we use specification in common usage as specification as somewhat what differentiates. In Plato, as well as Aristotle, Form accounts for the similarity of objects as means of species. Form is instantiated in Matter (the substance or material from which things are made. Once the Form is "captured" in its material it is instantiated into that particular actual object.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/04/2023 at 06:05:41