Atheists Respond: Tell me the Internal Logical Inconsistencies in My Doctrine
Offline Hi again,
I haven’t posted here in many months but have still been following most of the threads - trying to understand more of the ideas floating around. In my previous thread >> http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/27471 (from a LONG time ago). I think we came to somewhat of an agreement that in the case of my particular theistic belief (which I would roughly describe as Fundamental Reformed Calvinist Evangelical Christianity)
1) That my belief in my God could not be dis-proven
2) That my belief in my God could not be Proven
The main reason given by people for this conclusion was the fact that some aspects of my God claim are simply un-testable by science and will always remain un-testable. It is the same reason the invisible pink unicorn can never be disproven. And, even if a seemingly infinitely powerful being did appear before us claiming to be my God, and was able to demonstrate seemingly impossible ‘miracles’, this would still not PROVE that my God exists –Because it still could be any number of possible alternative explanations – such as it being an advanced alien, with superior technology that is able to do things that we think are impossible based on our current (limited) understanding of physics.
That being said, My belief in God is fundamentally based on 2 initial premises/axioms:
1) The unified Trinitarian God of the bible exists
2) This God has revealed himself truthfully in the Bible (within the context of history and the context of the various authors)
Everything else surrounding my theistic belief, about God, life now, and life after death are all inferences based on these 2 initial premises being true.
As I have already said, based on previous discussions there is little point proceeding further discussing the truthfulness of Premise 1 - as the existence of my God cannot be absolutely proven or disproven using science. Therefore these 2 initial premises will remain as naked assertions.
So, I do not intend to try and prove either of these 2 initial premises – The burden of proof continues to rest on me.
Instead I simply intend to present a clear correct general understanding of the Bible says – all of which come as inferences from Premise 2 being true. After I outline what I believe I hope that you will be able to tear apart the logical inconsistencies you find in my doctrine and provide good criticism. I am still confident that my beliefs (assuming my initial premises are true) are internally logically consistent and also reflect accurately on what we see in the world that we live in. If you feel all I am doing in this thread is preaching and bible bashing - then feel free to go on to the next thread – I do not intend to come across like this - I am only presenting this information about what I believe so that we can have something to talk about – as you do not currently know what I believe yet. A lot of what I say may well be common knowledge to you, but I say it anyway only to clearly distinguish what I believe, from the many other false sects of Christianity. I look forwards to hearing and discussing your critical and sceptical analysis of my doctrine.
Now I could give you Bible references to support my correct understanding of the Bible. But I am not going to bother (unless it is specifically requested), primarily because from my experience, you guys couldn’t care less about the Bible, and will just tell me where to shove it. Regardless I am the Theist, and by definition you are NOT-Theist – therefore you don’t really care where my claims come from – your position is simply to dismiss any theist position. So without further delay - My inferences that flow from Premise 2:
> God has not revealed himself to us completely. He has only revealed what we NEED to know, NOT everything we would like to know. We cannot understand everything about God - as we are not God. There will always remain many unanswered questions about God – I won’t be able to answer all your questions. I am only able to answer questions regarding my god insomuch as God has revealed himself to me. Beyond this is mere speculation.
> Not all professing Christians are Christians – There are many false Christian teachings / cults /sects around the world (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics etc… to name a few as broad generalisation). We will only know if anyone was/is a true Christian when we are judged. We do not know what people think inside like God does. The existence of these distorted ‘religions’ makes no impact on the validity of true Christianity. The bible supports the existence of such cults and says this is to be expected.
> All Non-Christians are Atheists (whether they recognise it or not) All other ‘gods’ are fake. People worship all other kinds of created things (Allah, Ra, Spaghetti Monsters, Science, Reason, Logic … etc) rather than the only real True God. Therefore they reject a belief in the only God.
> All Atheists/Non-Christians Hate God – whether they think he exists or not. Non-Christians are unable to do anything else but Hate God, they cannot freely choose to do good things (God defines what Good is not us) – No-one has ‘free will’ (Ability to choose between right and wrong) – we can only choose wrong- only do evil things all the time. People are inherently evil from conception and are born with a selfish nature which is against God. This does not remove our personal responsibility for the evil actions they carry out as they do what they want to do – which is evil. Every adult, child, baby and foetus rightly deserves God’s continual rejection as judgement for our continual rejection of Him by living in opposition to Him. God remains fair and merciful in his judgement – Judging people based on what they DO with what they are able to KNOW.
> Being a ‘good’ person will get you a first class ticket to Hell. Nobody is good everyone is evil so deceiving ourselves into thinking we do good when we actually do evil is a gross evil. No-one deserves to go to heaven nor can they earn their way there by earning brownie points for God. The only way is to trust God will continue to keep his promise to save those who trust him. I’m sure this line has been done to death - Enough said.
> God does NOT reveal himself clearly - So that people will NOT be able to understand Him. God has intentionally made the message of the Bible in such a way so that it will sound completely ridiculous, absurd and foolish to some people – Specifically so that these people will NOT be able to understand Him. Why does God do this? For the same reason Jesus spoke in parables - Primarily because God has a “No Arrogant Jerks in Heaven” Policy (His house – His Rules). God is a jealous God, and hates people who think they know better than him when clearly they don’t (nor can they). So he makes his message seem foolish to these people so that in their pride and great ‘knowledge’ they will fail to understand Him and be further hardened against God – and later they will be rightly judged for that - and their ‘knowledge’ will result in EPIC fail – All of this will bring great glory to God. So the main reason why I am not trying to logically prove to you why my God exists is because the bible is clear that this would be a complete waste of time – God purposefully goes against Occam's razor.
> All Atheists/Non-Christians CANNOT understand the Bible or God. They are completely unable to see the Bible as anything other than foolishness, because God allows their minds to stay hardened against Him. They are unable to choose to believe in God or think anything. Only God can allow us to understand him.
> God is Supremely Powerful - He has, and always will be, far more powerful than the entire universe, although he is not infinitely powerful in the sense that there are things he cannot do. He cannot deny his own unchanging character which is just, merciful, loving, faithful, creative, relational, ordered, truthful etc... He cannot lie; he cannot fail at fulfilling his promises, etc….
> God is everywhere at once - both inside and outside of space/time
> God created and is in control of everything that exists. All the laws of physics, the movement of every electron and atom, every breath we take, every earthquake, every time the earth spins, every transfer of energy only occurs because God allows it to occur. The only reason we are able to develop scientific laws is because God is a God of order and has decided to keep the laws of physics realitivly consistent (Although this doesn’t and hasn’t prevented him from being able to suspend these laws in order to achieve his purposes).
> God didn’t need to create the Universe – He did it for his own Glory. God wasn’t lonely and needing some toys to play with in his sandbox – He was in a perfectly content and satisfying Trinitarian relationship with himself. He created the universe because it is in his nature to create. He created the universe knowing and planning that Adam and Eve would sin and that ultimately this would bring Epic Glory to God the Son (Jesus) and in turn to God the Father – The universe is merely the result of a grand divine gift/birthday present to himself. God created the universe for Himself so he isn’t our personal genie wanting to grant us all our wishes – God does whatever he wants to do – whatever is for his own benifit.
> The world is Screwed up because we all Hate God – We the human race has united in opposition to God and God has and continues to fairly judge us for this, in several ways.
- He allows us to live in rebellion to him and in effect screw up our own lives and the lives of those around us throughout selfishness.
- He has cursed all of the once perfect creation to decay, be hostile and cause destruction. All natural disasters, death, and violence is a result of God’s punishment, while we still remain responsible for it.
- He allows his judgement to be carried out by many different created entities which all remain under his control and who’s judgement He is ultimately responsible for. God permits Satan to have a small degree of supernatural powers to cause destruction on the world, God uses the laws of physics to cause bushfires, earthquakes and floods. God uses world leaders and powers (both good and bad) to administer His justice.
> Its not God’s Plan to save everyone – God decides to allow some to be fairly Judged for their sin so that the grandness of his mercy would be more clearly displayed and he would be Glorified even more.
__________________
That will do for now… I may add in more points at another time if this thread takes off.
I’m sure if you have read this far most of you probably think my God is a Tyrannical, Masochistic, Nazi, Evil Dictator (or something to that effect). The Bible says I am to expect this if you are not a Christian, but our personal feeling and opinions have no impact on the validity of a theory (Just because I don’t like gravity cos it stops me flying – don’t make it not exist) – so I would like to hear what you have to say regarding the internal logical inconsistencies of my God, or the inconsistencies you find between my theory and what we see in reality.
Sorry for the EPIC post - just though i'd put everything down in one place
Also if you think I am a Poe or something else you are greatly mistaken - these are my genuine beliefs.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Q1: Why is Reason/logic is the best proof for something being true? Q2:Why is what we experience the best proof for something being true? LOOP to Q1 Rationalism and Empiricism are also self-affirming circular arguments – but this is acceptable otherwise we would never be able to ‘know’ anything. We have to have some point of reference by which we perceive the world. This point of reference by its definition must be self affirming (circular). If you don’t agree explain to me why reason/logic is the best proof for something being true? WITHOUT using reason/logic OR Explain to me why Experience (Evidence) is the best proof for something being true? WITHOUT using Experience (Evidence)
A1: It can be verified/backed up by evidence – what we experience (Appeal to Experience)
A2: Because we live in a physical world. Theories that don’t explain what we experience are of no use to us. This is reasonable and logical (Appeal to Reason/Logic)
Tell me, could you have written that post without reason? No, you could not have. You cannot use a faculty to deny the validity of that faculty. You are stating, "No statements, including this one, are true."
I don't think you understood a word I said, and would advise you to reread my statement. I understand you're replying to so many people, hence you're skimming through responses, but that ends up each consecutive post from us being, “You ignored what I said,” or something much more rude. Neither of your two answers are answers I've given, and are part of the straw man argument that Christian philosophers put up to describe the positions of post-Kantian thinkers. You degrade empiricism and rationalism to the same level of reading the Bible, when reading the Bible depends on the former two to an excess, but nothing objectively depends on reading the Bible.
A1: A priori, how could you prove that two straight lines, as Kant asks, “[...]can neither contain any space nor, consequently, form a figure.”
Q1: By the very definition of the straight lines (an entity of linear progression), we could prove that they will neither contain space nor form a figure; we do not need to any information a posteori.
Here, using your logic, you would complain that I'm using the definition of line to answer this, but that is the whole point of a priori. I hearken this to,
A1: A priori, how could you prove that reason is the best basis of proof?
Q1: By the very definition of reason (“The intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition [rationalism], or by means of a process of inference [empiricism]” ), the fact that no thinking or discourse is possible without the use of reason, the fact that reason cannot be substituted with something else, proves that reason is not the best basis of proof, but in fact the only basis of proof. We do not need to any information a posteori.
Proof of anything, including your own proof for Christianity, is impossible without reason. Rationalism and empiricism are the two modes of reason, like I described. Just like asking how long something was before the Big Bang (which marks the point of the creation of time) doesn't make sense, asking what justifies rationalism and empiricism makes no sense, because they are the very medium for that question and its possible answer, and are the definition of intelligent consciousness. If you did not have a brain capable of rational and empirical thought, how would you even affirm or confirm anything? How would you ask questions and give answers if you could not rationally understand a sentence of words which you empirically learned? If you take these two out of the equation nothing is left to even debate.
Simply put, as I stated before, you make rationalism and empiricism self-affirming, when instead they are self-confirming. Please, reread my post.
Rationalism and empiricism is “the best proof for something being true” because it is the only mode of thinking and discourse. There is no Thinking 2.0 ®. If your brain did not have rational and empirical faculties, you would not be reading the Bible, using a computer, or debating atheists.
The only difference arises is that your Christian philosophers stop short of using rationalism and empiricism when it comes to their predetermined notions of truth. There is where philosophical difference leaves and intellectual dishonesty enters.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:There is no god to "frustrate" my intelligence. There are only humans who frustrate me by making absurd claims. Just like it would rightfully frustrate you if someone went around claiming the earth to be flat.
Brian, you win the Internet. When can you come and collect your prize?
That's not possible, I've already bought the Internet back in 1996, it came on an AOL disk. I've made copies of it for all the people that came into the computer store I had worked at, asking to buy the Internet. I have it in the basement somewhere.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline Proof of anything, including your own proof for Christianity, is impossible without reason. Rationalism and empiricism are the two modes of reason, like I described. Just like asking how long something was before the Big Bang (which marks the point of the creation of time) doesn't make sense, asking what justifies rationalism and empiricism makes no sense, because they are the very medium for that question and its possible answer, and are the definition of intelligent consciousness. If you did not have a brain capable of rational and empirical thought, how would you even affirm or confirm anything? How would you ask questions and give answers if you could not rationally understand a sentence of words which you empirically learned? If you take these two out of the equation nothing is left to even debate.
Epistemology shemepistemology, you say reason did it! I say god did it! CHECK MATE ATHEIST!
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline You mean besides being a fundamentalist reformer and an evangelical Calvinist?
- Login to post comments
Offline I think we can all agree at this point that we've all made our arguments with Fry, he's either poorly responded to them or ignored their points downright, and we'd prefer to exchange awesome YouTube videos instead of repeating what we just said, or explaining the fact that what he just said shouldn't ever be said by anything, yo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPOX6R7RvBM
I mean, I know we're just going to respond to the next nonsensical thing he says, but meh.
If there was a god, I posit it would be Joan. Can we debate that instead?
- Login to post comments
Offline You mean besides being a fundamentalist reformer and an evangelical Calvinist?
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Well you know "evangelical Calvinist" may be an oxymoron. A Calvinisit believes god has already chosen who is saved and who will go to hell before he even created the earth. No reason to evangelize. It is already built in by god.You mean besides being a fundamentalist reformer and an evangelical Calvinist?
Phil's looking for logical inconsistencies, yes?
those are huge.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline I think we can all agree at this point that we've all made our arguments with Fry, he's either poorly responded to them or ignored their points downright, and we'd prefer to exchange awesome YouTube videos instead of repeating what we just said, or explaining the fact that what he just said shouldn't ever be said by anything, yo.
You'll find you'll be doing that a great deal over the months at RRS, as driveby theists unload weak arsenal after arsenal of philosophical arguments that supposedly refute atheistic claims of glaring inconsistencies within the bible, Christianity, faith, etc. Bobspence's signature holds especially true in this regard.
They eventually tire of such discussions after their rubbish philosophy is beaten until it gibs into goo, then retreat back into obscurity. In short, it'll be a cold day in hell before theists try to refute antitheism with something other than philosophy.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Fry, you claimed in an earlier post that the god you claim cannot lie. You without realizing it negated the word "all" in "all powerful". You just set a limit on an all powerful god which IS a contradiction.
AND we keep trying to drill it into theists head, not just you, that we cannot hate something that does not exist, anymore than you can hate Mickey Mouse. But you would hate it if someone went around claiming Mickey Mouse was our president. I do not hate Micky Mouse, Allah, Thor, Yahweh or the God of Jesus.
AND, you keep saying god is merciful. That does not square with torture. Hitler tortured Jews, at least when they died, he couldn't torture them forever. If we were to go buy your model, torture wont stop at our death but will go beyond our death and continue forever, which makes your God even more of a monster than Hitler.
You also keep saying that we deserve it because we are not simply "trusting god".
Who is to blame for the script written. I didn't write the script(if we are going with your god theory) If god is all powerful then he did NOT have to set up the script this way. Don't blame me for something I did not start. Blame your dictator boss.
And without realizing it, or deliberately ignoring it all you are advocating is "might makes right".
Why would I want to worship someone who's tactic isn't explanation or reason, but force and bribery?
Kim Jong Ill will leave you alone to as long as you do what he says, he might even pat you on the head if you do what he says. Question him or try to leave him and he will hunt you down and murder you.
YOU worship a mythological fictional being, what's worse is that you cannot see that the motif of this character does not reflect democracy but one of a dictator.
WE DO NOT HATE FICTIONAL BEINGS, NOT YOURS, NOT ANY. I do not hate Thor but I would hate it if someone was teaching a science class and explaining lightening with Thor as the cause, and not positive and negatively charged particles in the atmosphere.
We do hate the fact that you have allowed your own brain to suffer from your self inflicted delusion and you go around trying to sell it to others.
There is nothing moral about absolute authority. We don't in western society value dictators, so if you say your god has the final say and I cant do anything about it THAT makes him a dictator.
Your god AS A CLAIM is unchangeable, cannot be voted out of office and won't step down if enough people ask. He wont let you leave him and on top of that will torture you forever for the mere crime of thinking for yourself which he did not have to give you the power to do if he didn't want you to.
You worship a dictator.
We cannot stop you from making such claims, but you are out of your mind if you think we respond to threats or bribes.
Would you buy a car from a salesman who said, "I'll give you two choices. You can buy the car and I will let you live. Or, you don't have to buy the car and I will blow your head off". THAT IS NOT A CHOICE, NOR IS IT MERCIFUL, NOR IS IT MORAL.
You advocate "might makes right"
That isn't even love. My x left me, and because I loved her I let her go. I could not follow her and try to bribe her into staying or threaten her into staying. She had her own brain and as such she had every right to do what she wanted.
YOU are with your self inflicted delusion, devaluing your own dignity. You are giving up your right to think for yourself. You are treating yourself as property, an object, a lab rat. I think you are worth more than simply being a toy for the whims of a dictator whose only explanation to you is "I can do what I want, I don't have to explain myself to you".
If you want to subject yourself to such mind slavery, we cant stop you. But do not expect us to buy it, especially when you have absolutely no evidence for such a being.
I don't worship real dictators and I wont worship fictional ones either.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline You guys are both Jewish and Greek in your thinking - Therefore i preach to you a message you wont naturally accept and consider foolish. This is to demonstrate Gods power because you will ONLY be able to understand and accept christianity if you are one of the Elect - because God helps you understand. I am not God, and i dont know if you are elect or not - I hope you are, and not one who is perishing. Thus i speak the true gosple to all.
I am so glad I will not wind up in some imaginary heaven with people like you.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline Phillip J. Fry wrote:And you're a supersttitious typically arrogant Christian that does not have the faintist idea of agape and are blinded by an illegitimate faith that threatens the world with its sick morality asnd ignorance. Oh and you're a fucking boob.TGBarker wrote:I had 4 years of Greek and looked at the New Testament in its original language with special regard to its cultural environment. There is nothing significantly valid in Christianity over other religions.
You are a perfect example of what this passage is saying – Great Knowledge – Little Wisdom.
Hmm... Bad day? Hope all is going well.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline TGBaker wrote:Phillip J. Fry wrote:And you're a supersttitious typically arrogant Christian that does not have the faintist idea of agape and are blinded by an illegitimate faith that threatens the world with its sick morality asnd ignorance. Oh and you're a fucking boob.TGBarker wrote:I had 4 years of Greek and looked at the New Testament in its original language with special regard to its cultural environment. There is nothing significantly valid in Christianity over other religions.
You are a perfect example of what this passage is saying – Great Knowledge – Little Wisdom.
Hmm... Bad day? Hope all is going well.
But he's still an insulting fucking Christian prick. I love how theists use scriptural quotes to insult people. I usually don't flare up it's either the chemo or I've been hanging round redneF to olong.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline
butterbattle wrote:That is inconsistent. One cannot hate an entity that they don't believe exists.
Assuming Premise 1 (That my God exists) Then anyone who denies that my God exists, when he does in fact exist, is hating him by ignoring his existence.
butterbattle addressed this, but I didn't see a response from you on it (maybe it's in here but I just jumped in after a 2/3 year or so hiatus (which will probably be short lived again anyway but I digress) and I used firefox's find feature on the whole sentence so if you did respond sorry I didn't see it).
I'll address it again:
My hatred of something external to me rests on my having some experience with it. If I am not convinced it exists, especially in light of having never experienced anything regarding it in any recognizable way to me, how can I possibly hate something even if it does exist?
- Login to post comments
Offline cj wrote:Bone marrow biopsyTGBaker wrote:Phillip J. Fry wrote:And you're a supersttitious typically arrogant Christian that does not have the faintist idea of agape and are blinded by an illegitimate faith that threatens the world with its sick morality asnd ignorance. Oh and you're a fucking boob.TGBarker wrote:I had 4 years of Greek and looked at the New Testament in its original language with special regard to its cultural environment. There is nothing significantly valid in Christianity over other religions.
You are a perfect example of what this passage is saying – Great Knowledge – Little Wisdom.
Hmm... Bad day? Hope all is going well.
Not that I disagree with you - I emphatically concur. It just isn't your usual style. Hang in there.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline TGBaker wrote:cj wrote:Bone marrow biopsyTGBaker wrote:Phillip J. Fry wrote:And you're a supersttitious typically arrogant Christian that does not have the faintist idea of agape and are blinded by an illegitimate faith that threatens the world with its sick morality asnd ignorance. Oh and you're a fucking boob.TGBarker wrote:I had 4 years of Greek and looked at the New Testament in its original language with special regard to its cultural environment. There is nothing significantly valid in Christianity over other religions.
You are a perfect example of what this passage is saying – Great Knowledge – Little Wisdom.
Hmm... Bad day? Hope all is going well.
Not that I disagree with you - I emphatically concur. It just isn't your usual style. Hang in there.
You can gaze out the window get mad and get madder,
throw your hands in the air, say "What does it matter?"
but it don't do no good to get angry,
so help me I know
For a heart stained in anger grows weak and grows bitter.
You become your own prisoner as you watch yourself sit there
wrapped up in a trap of your very own
chain of sorrow.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline Fry,
If you need it explained to you how many inconsistencies the Bible has with established scientific knowledge, starting with pretty much every aspect of the Genesis creation stories, then, coupled with your general arrogant attitude, it would seem futile to go into detail. BTW, do you accept the Garden of Eden story or The Flood as literal?
Treating as a moral evil mere disobedience and refusal to accept or worship God, where no actual harm to another party is involved, has nothing to do with real morality, but rather with the perverted version of 'morality','might makes right', that is what your 'morality' is based on. It is the 'morality' of Hitler and Pol Pot.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Fry, If you need it explained to you how many inconsistencies the Bible has with established scientific knowledge, starting with pretty much every aspect of the Genesis creation stories, then, coupled with your general arrogant attitude, it would seem futile to go into detail. BTW, do you accept the Garden of Eden story or The Flood as literal?
Treating as a moral evil mere disobedience and refusal to accept or worship God, where no actual harm to another party is involved, has nothing to do with real morality, but rather with the perverted version of 'morality','might makes right', that is what your 'morality' is based on. It is the 'morality' of Hitler and Pol Pot.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks. It really isn't style. I think that in many cases a case could be made that particularily complex forms of belief are delusions that are pathological. I can't stand arrogance, and injustice oh and boiled okra but nothing else in life gets to me like these types of Christians.
Boiled okra is delicious. I don't know how other cuisines use it, but in my father's Paki-Indian stuff, it works out pretty well.
- Login to post comments
Offline TGBaker wrote:Thanks. It really isn't style. I think that in many cases a case could be made that particularily complex forms of belief are delusions that are pathological. I can't stand arrogance, and injustice oh and boiled okra but nothing else in life gets to me like these types of Christians.
Boiled okra is delicious. I don't know how other cuisines use it, but in my father's Paki-Indian stuff, it works out pretty well.
Can you get a written recipe? I love Paki-Indian food. PM it if you can.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline I know nobody cares, but just for the sake of clarifying, I did forget one mode of knowledge outside of rationalism and empiricism. Idealism (presupposed ideas like time and space, time especially which doesn't exist in an absolute sense, but without which thinking is impossible).
- Login to post comments
Offline luca wrote:i don't even understand why you are arguing with us, being that we "cannot grasp" your religion...This is why:
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing...
Phillip to go fuck himself first but if he persists with the thinly veiled threats it's probably going to be me.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline ...if he persists with the thinly veiled threats it's probably going to be me.
S'ok.
Hell is probably waaaaaaay underrated...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
- Login to post comments
Offline Phillip J. Fry wrote:You guys are both Jewish and Greek in your thinking - Therefore i preach to you a message you wont naturally accept and consider foolish. This is to demonstrate Gods power because you will ONLY be able to understand and accept christianity if you are one of the Elect - because God helps you understand. I am not God, and i dont know if you are elect or not - I hope you are, and not one who is perishing. Thus i speak the true gosple to all.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline duplicate
- Login to post comments
Offline TGBaker wrote:Thanks. It really isn't style. I think that in many cases a case could be made that particularily complex forms of belief are delusions that are pathological. I can't stand arrogance, and injustice oh and boiled okra but nothing else in life gets to me like these types of Christians.
Boiled okra is delicious. I don't know how other cuisines use it, but in my father's Paki-Indian stuff, it works out pretty well.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline cj wrote:I spent four years at a bible college with people like him ...me thinketh too much religion driveth a man mad.Phillip J. Fry wrote:You guys are both Jewish and Greek in your thinking - Therefore i preach to you a message you wont naturally accept and consider foolish. This is to demonstrate Gods power because you will ONLY be able to understand and accept christianity if you are one of the Elect - because God helps you understand. I am not God, and i dont know if you are elect or not - I hope you are, and not one who is perishing. Thus i speak the true gosple to all.
Hope you are doing ok. Is this business of the elect that Phil is mentioning related to the whole calvinistic routine? You know - predestination and all that?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline I know nobody cares, but just for the sake of clarifying, I did forget one mode of knowledge outside of rationalism and empiricism. Idealism (presupposed ideas like time and space, time especially which doesn't exist in an absolute sense, but without which thinking is impossible).
Bit of a quibble here - intuition is not a source of knowledge, only of ideas which may suggest something worth investigating empirically. Or else it encodes the results of earlier reasoning and/or experience, or genetically encoded reactions from evolutionary history, providing a short-cut to enable quick reaction when it is more important to respond quickly than with carefully checked precision.
Rationalism, by itself, cannot generate knowledge. That can only come from empirical investigation and checking.
We need both empiricsm AND logic/reasoning in concert.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline TGBaker wrote:cj wrote:I spent four years at a bible college with people like him ...me thinketh too much religion driveth a man mad.Phillip J. Fry wrote:You guys are both Jewish and Greek in your thinking - Therefore i preach to you a message you wont naturally accept and consider foolish. This is to demonstrate Gods power because you will ONLY be able to understand and accept christianity if you are one of the Elect - because God helps you understand. I am not God, and i dont know if you are elect or not - I hope you are, and not one who is perishing. Thus i speak the true gosple to all.
Hope you are doing ok. Is this business of the elect that Phil is mentioning related to the whole calvinistic routine? You know - predestination and all that?
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline wingless_sephiroth wrote:I know nobody cares, but just for the sake of clarifying, I did forget one mode of knowledge outside of rationalism and empiricism. Idealism (presupposed ideas like time and space, time especially which doesn't exist in an absolute sense, but without which thinking is impossible).
Bit of a quibble here - intuition is not a source of knowledge, only of ideas which may suggest something worth investigating empirically. Or else it encodes the results of earlier reasoning and/or experience, or genetically encoded reactions from evolutionary history, providing a short-cut to enable quick reaction when it is more important to respond quickly than with carefully checked precision.
Rationalism, by itself, cannot generate knowledge. That can only come from empirical investigation and checking.
We need both empiricsm AND logic/reasoning in concert.
Yeah, I agree we need both. Like I told Fry, when he is reading the Bible, he is rationally interpreting words he has empirically learned, therefore cannot attack either mode of reason. But still, I am inclined to thinking the the way our mind has formed due to the evolution of our brain, ie, to understand concepts of space and time cannot be considered empirical, because we cannot even imagine a world without either of those two. They are a priori, while all empirical knowledge is a posteori wouldn't you say?
So for me, that's how the deck unfolds. Knowledge is made up of the three modes of knowing; rationalism, empiricism, and idealism. Christian philosophers who try to refute basing knowledge on any of these three grab the carpet from underneath their own feet.
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:wingless_sephiroth wrote:I know nobody cares, but just for the sake of clarifying, I did forget one mode of knowledge outside of rationalism and empiricism. Idealism (presupposed ideas like time and space, time especially which doesn't exist in an absolute sense, but without which thinking is impossible).
Bit of a quibble here - intuition is not a source of knowledge, only of ideas which may suggest something worth investigating empirically. Or else it encodes the results of earlier reasoning and/or experience, or genetically encoded reactions from evolutionary history, providing a short-cut to enable quick reaction when it is more important to respond quickly than with carefully checked precision.
Rationalism, by itself, cannot generate knowledge. That can only come from empirical investigation and checking.
We need both empiricsm AND logic/reasoning in concert.
Yeah, I agree we need both. Like I told Fry, when he is reading the Bible, he is rationally interpreting words he has empirically learned, therefore cannot attack either mode of reason. But still, I am inclined to thinking the the way our mind has formed due to the evolution of our brain, ie, to understand concepts of space and time cannot be considered empirical, because we cannot even imagine a world without either of those two. They are a priori, while all empirical knowledge is a posteori wouldn't you say?
So for me, that's how the deck unfolds. Knowledge is made up of the three modes of knowing; rationalism, empiricism, and idealism. Christian philosophers who try to refute basing knowledge on any of these three grab the carpet from underneath their own feet.
I think our concepts of space and time are empirical in the sense of being formed from our experience. They are so basic to ordinary perceptions that they have indeed become intuitions, but they are not necessarily accurate representations of the physical universe, since Einstein. But they are practical, which I equate to empirical. I don't see them so much as facts about reality, or even knowledge, just particular perspectives on the ultimate space-time 'matrix', which work for us.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline wingless_sephiroth wrote:BobSpence1 wrote:wingless_sephiroth wrote:I know nobody cares, but just for the sake of clarifying, I did forget one mode of knowledge outside of rationalism and empiricism. Idealism (presupposed ideas like time and space, time especially which doesn't exist in an absolute sense, but without which thinking is impossible).
Bit of a quibble here - intuition is not a source of knowledge, only of ideas which may suggest something worth investigating empirically. Or else it encodes the results of earlier reasoning and/or experience, or genetically encoded reactions from evolutionary history, providing a short-cut to enable quick reaction when it is more important to respond quickly than with carefully checked precision.
Rationalism, by itself, cannot generate knowledge. That can only come from empirical investigation and checking.
We need both empiricsm AND logic/reasoning in concert.
Yeah, I agree we need both. Like I told Fry, when he is reading the Bible, he is rationally interpreting words he has empirically learned, therefore cannot attack either mode of reason. But still, I am inclined to thinking the the way our mind has formed due to the evolution of our brain, ie, to understand concepts of space and time cannot be considered empirical, because we cannot even imagine a world without either of those two. They are a priori, while all empirical knowledge is a posteori wouldn't you say?
So for me, that's how the deck unfolds. Knowledge is made up of the three modes of knowing; rationalism, empiricism, and idealism. Christian philosophers who try to refute basing knowledge on any of these three grab the carpet from underneath their own feet.
I think our concepts of space and time are empirical in the sense of being formed from our experience. They are so basic to ordinary perceptions that they have indeed become intuitions, but they are not necessarily accurate representations of the physical universe, since Einstein. But they are practical, which I equate to empirical. I don't see them so much as facts about reality, or even knowledge, just particular perspectives on the ultimate space-time 'matrix', which work for us.
Oh, interesting perspective. I'm still debating how to categorize it all myself.
- Login to post comments
This is why:
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified - a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1 Corintians 1:18-25)
You guys are both Jewish and Greek in your thinking - Therefore i preach to you a message you wont naturally accept and consider foolish. This is to demonstrate Gods power because you will ONLY be able to understand and accept christianity if you are one of the Elect - because God helps you understand. I am not God, and i dont know if you are elect or not - I hope you are, and not one who is perishing. Thus i speak the true gosple to all.
Copyist error is really the last refuge of the scoundrel. It's what you say when you have nothing other than an assumption that it was right at some point. Whenever people point out errors in the bible apologists have elaborate answers but none of those can be used to explain counting errors. That's why I know that everything apologists say are just excuses and the bible is riddled with errors. So even if your god existed I for one wouldn't trust my immortal soul to something that fails at the most simple mathematical operation that exists.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
If the only 'person' being 'sinned against' is God, then no one is actually being harmed - surely God cannot be injured in any way by our actions, therefore there is no moral wrong being committed, therefore nothing to repent from.
This is very different from the situation of the aborigines - there are identifiable persons being harmed, unlike in the Babylonian case.
Christian 'morality' is a perversion of natural, real morality.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Quoting from the Bible to justify your biblical claims, especially quoting the bits where the Bible makes claims that those who deny it are foolish, and so on, is the ultimate in logical fallacy.
Claiming that we are not going to be able to see the wisdom of your position because of our denial, or because we are not of the elect, or whatever, is also folly of the highest order. How can you prove such a thing? It is like a child responding with things like "And so are you! Nyah, Nyah!"
How does your human fallible mind 'know' that it has judges the 'truth' of the Bible correctly? The deluded will never know they are deluded, certainly not by reading the words which are the source of their delusion.
All you have are ancient words, written by fallible human beings, who knew far less than we do about the nature of reality. To claim these as truth is totally baseless.
Without cross-reference to as many sources of information as we can get, there is no way any even partial confidence in any position can be established. You only have one, so you have no base for claiming any knowledge whatever.
Your position may indeed be in some sense internally consistent, if you accept your own twisted understanding of words like 'mercy' and 'justice', and are prepared to simply ignore the low-level but blatant inconsistencies between the two stories in Genesis, the different accounts of the numbers of various kinds on the Ark, the two versions of the genealogy of Jesus, who wasn't even supposed to have a mortal father, etc, etc.
It is consistently inconsistent.
The science-based knowledge I accept is what allows you to communicate with us via your computer and the internet - the reality of our discussion is a standing refutation of your position, which has to deny science to claim truth.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
To me, the OP reads analogous to this.
"I claim that 2+2=5
Therefore 1+4=2+2.
If you assume that my assertion is true, is my conclusion true? Am I being Logically Consistent?"
Of course you are, if you define your terms as you want them, you will get the conclusions that you want... what is it that you are proving here? Yes it is all (well most of it anyways, superficially) consistent, but 2+2=4 not 5. So guess what, my conclusion is complete nonsense.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
So the bible shows this god as no better than the human beings he is lord over. That sure sounds like a book written by primitive human being and not some all knowing, all seeing, all loving god. Heaven must be full of all this "not condoning" evil. Not sure why anyone would want to go there.
To make it fit with modern morality you have to use the the slimy logic of a huckster.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
You're stating that you've chosen Christianity for a completely subjective reason, however, that subjective reason has been given holiness because your faith says that God has blinded those outside of you and your fellowship from also grasping the faith. The circular logic here, like you yourself stated, is undeniable.
But what actually interests me is, when you began searching for the truth, you wanted something that explained the 'why' of reality. Now, never mind the Bible contradicts the scientific 'how' of what happened (I would label this a contradiction in your world view, except I'm sure you have some guidelines as to when science is right and as to when the Bible trumps it), but you insist you were looking for the 'why'. The fact that there needs to be a 'why', an imbued value to something that necessarily does not have any value, is where it seems to me your question was phrased wrong. It seems you didn't even want to consider things do not have an objective meaning at all, which is intellectually dishonest. At least, in the permanent confusion God has thrown my mind into as a member of the non-Elect.
Right here, I think is the crux of your argument. And here you invent what is somewhat of a fantastical hierarchy stating that all things need to affirm something higher, or be self-affirming. That ends up putting us all into a circular argument, you say. This seems to be a modified Kalam argument, but instead of explaining existence, it attempts to explain that everyone is involved in a circular argument, that way Christians can use it and not feel the intellectual drought that comes along with it.
However, unlike Christianity, atheism is not a circular argument; reason is not an authority that we can or cannot affirm to base our worldview off of. For something to even be considered a circular argument, one must be able to accept or reject it. But reasoning is an inseparable facet of the human mind, from the simpler of our cousins the chimpanzees to the modern human being. Rationalism and empiricism is, simply put, an extension of what you do when you decide to breathe, when you look at something and understand, when you read Biblical words and imbue them with meaning. Reasoning is a material and biological process that irrefutably exists, and does not need a higher authority to affirm it. There is no hierarchy when it comes to a fundamental human process, and I'm not sure what Christian philosopher thought it would be cute to make that up. Actually, I do know which one, as do you, since I'm guessing from the way you phrased your first post, you read a work by or inspired him since your last tangle with the atheists on this forum and decided to give it another shot using his circular worldviews.
You state that you do use reason, but that the Bible is a higher authority than this, and that God perhaps only made reason as a way of understanding His Will. And that is where the difference is coloured. Reasoning confirms itself, because it is the very basis of reality; human beings and our biological reasoning are inseparable. Reasoning is a confirmation, not an affirmation. Rationalism and empiricism are confirmed, never affirmed.
The Bible, however, is something that must be affirmed to be part of the Elect, even if one was always meant to affirm it. You use this term yourself, after all, and you state this is your higher authority. The irrefutable reason the atheist world view is highly more probable than yours is that the atheism uses the inarguable biological confirmation of reasoning, while you go a step further and use reasoning to affirm a literary product for subjective reasons of personal satisfaction (that you've admitted to), a book that cannot even be understood outside of the confirmed use of reason.
Why all the drama? If God is all powerful, wouldn't it be more simple to cut to the chase WITHOUT a convoluted manual no one can agree on? Why go out of your way, if you want fan members, to treat them like lab rats and watch them eat each other fighting over you like two toothless redneck girls fighting over a fat bald guy on the Jerry Springer show?
Funny how the international world can understand H20 as a molecule formula without assigning it to myth. No one has to fight over how to interpret that.
Every believer of every religion who says "I speak the true gospel to all" thinks they got it right. Funny how none of you who claim this can have your claims tested in a lab and independently verified outside your own club.
7 billion people and most of them believe in one god or another and all I see is a bunch of people still thinking the earth is flat and that the moon is made of cheese.
There is no god to "frustrate" my intelligence. There are only humans who frustrate me by making absurd claims. Just like it would rightfully frustrate you if someone went around claiming the earth to be flat.
You buy into a book written in an unscientific age by over 40 authors and over 1.000 year period with books left out. These writters had NO clue what DNA or rigor mortis was and they had NO CLUE of how to measure reality without superstition. They simply wrote something down because they were a victim of their own ignorance and the social climate of the time.
The bible is not a microscope or telescope nor does it reflect any scientific reality. It is a poorly written peice of myth, like all holy books are. It is merely Harry Potter and Peter Pan and Star Wars people falsely believe to be fact.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Brian, you win the Internet. When can you come and collect your prize?
people here anticipated me, but anyway it's not like these arguments are new, are they?
i am asking if you may motivate with your thought and with verses from the bible the following points:
-the 13 points you made in your first post (13: eeeviiillll...)
-why the various ethnic groups should be treated equally
-what different treatment deserve men and women
-do you believe in existance of other deities? (for example the other gods mentioned in the bible)
-how slavery, rape and murder (and genocide) are not condoned (and if there are consequences) in the bible
-to be rejected (eternally) from god
-what it's like to be an elected (from god) and a not elected
i'm sorry i'm so pedantic, but this will prevent future pains.
do you sustain also that science was born thanks to christians?
i approve
in what way this affermation is not a tautology of "if you belong to my group it's good, if not then you definitely _____ (will not understand or what)" (note the 'elect' way out)
yes, but it's still too much philosophical. i like to think with my own head. also, kamikaze come from there. (but in it i like that with knowledge and insight you could be better than gods!)
about the betterment theme: took view of what has been said, are humans of today in any way improved compared to one or two (or four or six...) thousand of years?
a human that has never been selfish? at this moment i can't think of anyone, but like everybody here knows proving a negative is pretty difficultous (also we should analyse where this selfishness resides and if it has any benefit from the evolutionary view -- my answer in all this then is: it depends). instead, if there's a moral conquist that has been attained is that if an individual makes a mistake, he can understand what has gone wrong and eventually he could repair it too (he could even transmit this knowledge to his descendants). what's more, another prejudice that man is trying to free himself from is punishment: punishment that is self-aiming serves nothing, and maybe even the whole concept of punishment is useless -- what is needed is precisly to understand where one is going wrong (even with the help of third party) and then admit it.
bible as a source of authority: what version, settanta? i don't believe so, true? but the bible you choose to follow is the result of tradition and experience, and you choose to follow it with the use of your reason (and maybe a strong emotional or 'supernatural' event (i'm serious)).
|
|
|
\/
to follow christianity or to follow reason would be a circular argument? is reason was faulty then 1+1 would not be 2, we
could not really obtain any conclusion, any induction. *logic demonstrates what is true*. how could exists something greater than reason? please, answer as deeply as you can.
on the intrinsic corruption of man: what is the process by a person refutes to follow the good/correct/true way? (i mean, when this person is at the crossroad, when he must choose, what happens? he is being influenced? would not the just way know to him?)
---
one last thought, please reflect on this: when you say that we hate god and we say "no we're not" is a bit like when we ask why don't you judge your god and you say "foolishness!". and by this i mean that what people with a world-view like yours do mostrly is preaching but from their point of view it's not because they think it's true. i do not find it neutral.
I think you have misunderstood what Christians mean when they use the word ‘Sin’. Sin is not necessarily causing harm (physical, emotional etc… ) to other people (although it often expresses itself in this way). Primarily ‘Sin’ is a rejection of God as the ruler of the universe – deciding instead to live our own way – deciding to live how we want – doing what WE decide is best – not what GOD decides as best. This attitude can be done actively/consciously (Knowing we are going against God wants) or through self-denying ignorance (Telling ourselves God doesn’t exist or doesn’t care how we live). Both forms are equally offensive to God. The expression of this attitude may come in many different forms – But it is an attitude that starts from the mind and then will express itself in how we behave – what we do and what we think.
You are right to say God cannot be injured by any of our actions because He is God – however when we reject him it still rightly pisses him off – because he is a Just God and a Jealous God. Whether or not a moral wrong is committed when someone sins depends on how you define morality. If it is defined how God defines it (same as Sin) then Yes, if it is defined as how the world defines it (Wrongfully hurting others) then No. It all depends on your definition. I expect you use the second definition.
I can’t prove it. I never said I Could. As I said before – I don’t know if you are elect or not – I can’t read your mind. However what I do know is based on what you are telling me (I am taking you at your word) – you currently reject God – which means according to the bible you are still biased against God and remain unable to understand His word. This is not to say you are not elect – there is the possibility that in the future you will have Gods spirit and be able to understand His word – I don’t know.
I only have confidence in what I say because the Bible says I can have confidence in this. It says if I Trust in Jesus, God gives me his Spirit to help me discern the truth of His word. Having Gods Spirit helping me understand the bible is why I have confidence. However this does not mean as soon as I become a Christian I am the leading scholar of the bible and know everything there is to know – it is continual learning process. It is quite possible (In fact highly likely – as I am still sinful) that I have misunderstood or are ignorant to parts of the bible. Therefore I am always open to rebuke from Gods word so I can be corrected. I only tell you what I know to be true currently.
What makes you think the Bible is against science? The Bible fully supports science, it does not deny it. According to the bible the reason we have science is because God is a God of order and created the world with primarily consistent attributes, and also gave us brains to understand the world he created. It is only through this consistant behaviour of matter and energy that we can develop repeatable experiments, explain the mechanics of how this work and then predict future events etc... Science and Christianity are very much compatible
You are a perfect example of what this passage is saying – Great Knowledge – Little Wisdom.
Good to know. We are making some progress. That was all I was asking – Is what I say consistent? You say Yes – If the terms are defined according to the bible. As I have said before I was never attempting to prove my initial 2 premises.
You are correct that 2+2 does not equal 5. However this says nothing in regard to whether or not my God exists.
So if you agree my claim is internally consistent as I have defined it - I guess we come back to my original premises > That God exists and has revealed himself truthfully in the bible. As I said before you can’t absolutely prove I am wrong and I can’t absolutely prove I am right. So what shall we do?
But what actually interests me is, when you began searching for the truth, you wanted something that explained the 'why' of reality. Now, never mind the Bible contradicts the scientific 'how' of what happened (I would label this a contradiction in your world view, except I'm sure you have some guidelines as to when science is right and as to when the Bible trumps it), but you insist you were looking for the 'why'. The fact that there needs to be a 'why', an imbued value to something that necessarily does not have any value, is where it seems to me your question was phrased wrong. It seems you didn't even want to consider things do not have an objective meaning at all, which is intellectually dishonest. At least, in the permanent confusion God has thrown my mind into as a member of the non-Elect.
Rationalism (Knowledge Comes from Reason/Logic) and Empiricism (Knowledge comes from Experience) are both built into us as you say – they are natural to us and confirmed by how we think and perceive the world. This does not mean it is not a circular argument to have them as the authority of what is True – even if it is inseperable from our biology.
Q1: Why is Reason/logic is the best proof for something being true?
A1: It can be verified/backed up by evidence – what we experience (Appeal to Experience)
Q2:Why is what we experience the best proof for something being true?
A2: Because we live in a physical world. Theories that don’t explain what we experience are of no use to us. This is reasonable and logical (Appeal to Reason/Logic)
LOOP to Q1
Rationalism and Empiricism are also self-affirming circular arguments – but this is acceptable otherwise we would never be able to ‘know’ anything. We have to have some point of reference by which we perceive the world. This point of reference by its definition must be self affirming (circular).
If you don’t agree explain to me why reason/logic is the best proof for something being true? WITHOUT using reason/logic
OR
Explain to me why Experience (Evidence) is the best proof for something being true? WITHOUT using Experience (Evidence)
Luca: i will get to answering your post - it will just take a bit of time to type up - you have asked many questions - im a bit busy atm but will try to get back to it in a few hours
You are a perfect example of what this passage is saying – Great Knowledge – Little Wisdom.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism