Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 91 of 297 (417067)
08-19-2007 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by mark24
08-19-2007 5:17 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob:
The one with the most philosophical coherence must be assumed to reflect reality (at least more so than it's competitor).
mark24: Nope, logically invalid arguments can have correct conclusions, logically valid arguments can have false conclusions. You need to lose the idea that logic transcends evidence, the evidence suggests otherwise.
We already talked about internal and external consistency.
Look at what I said to mike the wiz:
Rob
And if logic is valid, then it is valid beyond even the emperical
Notice that it transcends the emperical... as opposed to being seperate or removed from it. It begins with evidence and moves forward, all the while remaining consistent with the evidence.
mark24:
1/ I have a booklet of paper on my desk that is both entirely green & entirely red at the same time. I conclude that it is yellow.
2/ I have a booklet that is entirely red on my desk, since it can only be entirely one colour at one time, it must be red.
The logically correct argument #2 is false, the logically invalid argument #1 is correct.
Since the bible contains contradictions & Watership Down contains none, the bible is false & watership Down with its talking rabbits is true. Have it your way.
A logically invalid argument is one that lacks enough logical support to be considered valid, one that is valid has the required level of logical support, but that still doesn't make it right.
The only way you can tell is with evidence.
In each case, you gave the color of the book beforehand. Were you telling the truth or lying? What you are saying is, if there was no physical book to examine, we could never know emperically.
Well, the same is true for the Bible...
If there was no physical universe, we would have to take God purely on His word. And it would be a strange book; referring to places that we could never verify, and people that could never be verified. But the physical universe does show His Word to be true, history is brought to bear, and the order in the physical world does prove (emperically) that logic is valid. And since logic agrees, the two compliment and verify each other; neither being worth a hoot without the other.
A story about pink unicorns may be internally consistent
(as you've made clear), but there is simply no historical, archealogical, or paleontological evidence to verify it.
So if the Bible was like the book of Mormon, which has no archealogical or other emperical data to corroborate it's claims of a vast South American civilization and American Indian genetic liniage with hebrews, we would do well to doubt it fervently. We cannot falsify it... but there is no external consistency.
That is simply not the case with the Bible. It is externally consistent. And it is internally consistent. it's exactly what you are looking for except for it's moral declarations which I suspect are at odds with your own philosophical assumptions of the purpose of life.
mark24:
You can quote philosophical metaphysics all day long, but the fact is that you enjoy the life you do because lots of scientists used evidence & not philosophical bullshit to improve our lives. This conclusion is so crashingly obvious that I don't even know why you're arguing the point.
I have never said that scientists have not improved our lives. But in what sense?
It's very interesting that you say 'improves our lives', because you must assume that that is good (an 'improvement'). Science (I am told) is not about meaning and purpose Mark24. You couldn't know that science ultimately improves our lives without knowing the ultimate purpose of life.
So you must invoke a hedonist philosophical view, 'that pleasure (enjoyment) or immediate freedom from suffering or stress, is what life's purpose must be assumed to be'. But that in itself is a move of desperation; since you do not know what the purpose of life is, you're going to focus on making your life as painfree and as mark24 friendly as possible.
I could just as easily say that in many areas, it turns out that scientists have hurt our lives by giving people a technique (technology) to subvert many of the immediate consequences of their actions and live for themselves (which is their assumed purpose)?
So I think I understand you...
'Science is good (an improvement) to mark24, because it frees mark24, in the short term, to do what mark24 wants to do in the short term. It doesn't bind him to commitments that he may feel tomorrow are a burden. It let's mark24 dispense with the burdens of others. And as far as mark24 is concerned, that is the purpose of life; my responsibility is my responsibility, and your responsibility is your responsibility not mine. And your purpose is just as valid as anyone elses purpose'.
It stands in stark contrast to the Gospel of Christ, which says we must carry each others burdens and give ourselves to one another.
Not help each other find a lawyer or a doctor to escape the immediate reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by mark24, posted 08-19-2007 5:17 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 08-19-2007 11:08 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 92 of 297 (417068)
08-19-2007 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by bluegenes
08-19-2007 5:44 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
BG:
Do you really believe that you are born of reality and that non-Christians are not?
If so, you've got serious problems with reality, Rob, both the word and the concept.
So, are you saying that I am not born of reality and I need to be?
BG:
The modern concept of reality would certainly not include some people being born of it and others not!
So, are you saying that I am born of reality, and don't need to be?
Which is it?
How can we see reality?
"3..."I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." 9 "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked. 10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." (John 3)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2007 5:44 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2007 10:53 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 93 of 297 (417070)
08-19-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by sidelined
08-19-2007 9:18 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
sidelined:
Like I said... Desperate
I have been making the case in many of these conversations that God is reality.
You said logic is external. That it is what is is beyond human bias. I was thanking you for agreeing with me. It's not desperate... it's a thank you.
Your own statement agreed with the Bible.
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "~I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: '~I am has sent me to you.'"
What do you want me to say, 'No, that's wrong sidelined!' ???
In your last few replies, you were attempting to disagree, but actually agreed, because you were being logical. and that is what God is.
God (reality) is logical.
If you noticed, BG is having the same problem...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by sidelined, posted 08-19-2007 9:18 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by sidelined, posted 08-19-2007 5:41 PM Rob has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 94 of 297 (417072)
08-19-2007 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Rob
08-19-2007 9:28 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:
bluegenes writes:
Do you really believe that you are born of reality and that non-Christians are not?
If so, you've got serious problems with reality, Rob, both the word and the concept.
So, are you saying that I am not born of reality and I need to be?
No. You quoted what I said.
Rob writes:
bluegenes writes:
The modern concept of reality would certainly not include some people being born of it and others not!
So, are you saying that I am born of reality, and don't need to be?
No. You quoted what I said.
Which is it?
I didn't actually express any opinion about whether or not you were born of reality in the sentences you quoted. But I did ask you if you believe that you were born of reality and that non-Christians are not. It would be interesting to have an answer, rather than questions that begin "are you saying" followed by things that I haven't said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 9:28 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 11:14 AM bluegenes has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 95 of 297 (417075)
08-19-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Rob
08-19-2007 9:19 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob,
We already talked about internal and external consistency.
So why did you say in your last post?:
The one with the most philosophical coherence must be assumed to reflect reality
In each case, you gave the color of the book beforehand.
In NO case do I give the correct colour beforehand.
What I did was to give evidentially vacuous premises & flawed inference to demonstrate that a logically valid argument can be wrong & an invalid one can be right. This scuppers the argument that "the one with the most philosophical coherence must be assumed to reflect reality".
I repeat; "Since the bible contains contradictions & Watership Down contains none, the bible is false & watership Down with its talking rabbits is true. Have it your way."
The only way we can begin to tell what is reality & what isn't is with evidence. You seem to agree:
A story about pink unicorns may be internally consistent
(as you've made clear), but there is simply no historical, archealogical, or paleontological evidence to verify it.
This contradicts your claim that something that is philosophically coherent must represent reality. The pink unicorn is internally consistent yet wecannot accept it without empirical evidence.
Are we done, then?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 9:19 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 11:45 AM mark24 has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 96 of 297 (417077)
08-19-2007 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by bluegenes
08-19-2007 10:53 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
BG:
It would be interesting to have an answer, rather than questions that begin "are you saying" followed by things that I haven't said.
I think I understand your confusion... let me clear up our misunderstanding.
BG:
But I did ask you if you believe that you were born of reality and that non-Christians are not.
Yes I do! I thought that was a given...
BG: If so, you've got serious problems with reality, Rob, both the word and the concept.
Rob: So, are you saying that I am not born of reality and I need to be?
BG: No. You quoted what I said.
Should I have misquoted what you said?
BG: The modern concept of reality would certainly not include some people being born of it and others not!
Rob: So, are you saying that I am born of (in touch with) the modern concept reality by default, and don't need to be?
Yet somehow, I am not yet born of (or in touch with) that?
BG: No. You quoted what I said.
I quoted what you said, but that's not what you said?
I did quote what you said, and that is what you said...
You can't disagree with me, when we are in agreement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2007 10:53 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2007 11:41 AM Rob has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 97 of 297 (417079)
08-19-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rob
08-19-2007 11:14 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Yes I do! I thought that was a given...
Ah, good. So to you, most people of the world are not products of reality, and therefore not real. As that includes me, then presumably you're not at this moment reading this.
So, are you saying that I am born of (in touch with) the modern concept reality by default, and don't need to be?
That's better phrased, although "suggesting" or "implying" might have been better than "saying".
Then, yes. We're all products of reality and parts of reality.
If you can show evidence that more than two thirds of the world's population, the non-Christians, are non-existent, then you will be on your way to demonstrating that your God is, in fact, reality.
It might be difficult.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 11:14 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 12:36 PM bluegenes has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 98 of 297 (417081)
08-19-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by mark24
08-19-2007 11:08 AM


For the love of reason, slow down mark...
Rob: We already talked about internal and external consistency.
mark24: So why did you say in your last post?:
'The one with the most philosophical coherence must be assumed to reflect reality'
mark24:
This contradicts your claim that something that is philosophically coherent must represent reality. The pink unicorn is internally consistent yet we cannot accept it without empirical evidence.
Are we done, then?
No... how many times must I go through this???
Emperical evidence can only verify that internal consistency is valid frrom a physical point of view. It is no proof on it's own of anything, because our observations of it are themselves philosophical constructs.
And that is what is so difficult to get through to you guys. Your so convinced that the natural world is real, that you forget that it is so, only if our thinking that is valid.
And Sidelined actually says that our thinking about it isn't real. Then he says that the 'real thing' (the actual physical universe) is real, independant of us, but not our thoughts about it. but His thoughts on the matter are only thougths if he is right!
Gee wiz...
Did you read any of the dialog betwen mike the wiz and myself?
I will rehash it for you. It can be found in it's entirety here: http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?
quote:
In his book 'Miracles', C.S. Lewis lays some important groundwork before moving on in defense of the 'miraculous'. In Chapter 3, 'The Cardianl Difficulty of Naturalism' he marvelously captures this problem. One cannot give a quote and do justice a whole chapter, but here is one of several ways he puts it on pages 21 and 22:
"...Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true.
It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained eveything else in the whole universe but which made it imposssible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory itself would have been arrived at by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed it's own credentials. It would be an argument which proved no argument was sound -a proof that there are no such thing as proofs- which is nonsense."
mike the wiz:
positivists simply don't adhere to the fact that TRUTH exists beyond the empirically tangible, and/or without it.
I know... but how do you prove that emperically? It is an act of faith (as the Davies quote below will show).
The term 'positivists' is new to me, but the point is...that their's is a philosophical position. Their philosophy is not based on any material proof (no philosophy is), but on the validity of reason and logic. It is an assumption, that a contradiction must be false.
So, as Lewis, myself, you, and many others have shown over and over again... there is ultimately nothing emperical about 'empericism' other than it's correct inference to logic (ie. philosophical coherence).
But the funny thing is... 'philosophical coherence' is not what they claim 'empericism' to be. 'It is not philosophy', they say, 'it is real and hard evidence'. And that is what a baseless assertion is (for the mark24's among us)... On what can they base that claim?
So... as Paul Daives has said,
"“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.
Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.
But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.
That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”
mike the wiz:
This is why the likes of this Hume-guy, disregard philosophy, but science only works because of the philosophies of epistemology and logic.
Exactly!
And the sad part is... Hume was a philosopher. And so modern science's claim to fame, the almighty and emperical fact that is superior and utterly removed from philsophical bias' was given birth to by a philosopher.
The physical universe is real, and so are our observations of it as long as they are both internally and externally coherent.
It is all philosophy...
So when I say that philosophical coherence must be assumed to reflect reality, I say that because if that is not so, then your belief that the universe is real is invalid.
mike the wiz and I discussed in in detail: http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?
quote:
It just hit me Mike...
I think the empericists are trying to say that the physical world proves itself to be logical. But what we are saying, is that it really only proves logic to be valid.
And if logic is valid, then it is valid beyond even the emperical, since the emperical is baseless without it (as you said). That's the only reason either side can legitimately theorize about their ultimate philosophical construct of reality.
So, the physical world shows emperically the validity of logic. We do not have a complete picture on either side, but it reveals God's (Reality's) nature.
So mike... what the apostle Paul said was true (since it cannot be otherwise):
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
If logic is valid there simply is no other conclusion, since the premise is itself 'logic'.
And unless I forget the context, that is why I told Mark24 that my claim is not a premise, but a conclusion.
Certainly he will not say that that claim is baseless, since the emperical world is my evidence of logics validity.
It's kind of what Ray Comfort tries to say... 'you cano thave a building without a builder'. The universe itself, in all of it's glory, is the evidence of God.
Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, 5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 08-19-2007 11:08 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by mark24, posted 08-19-2007 12:00 PM Rob has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 99 of 297 (417086)
08-19-2007 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Rob
08-19-2007 11:45 AM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
Rob,
Emperical evidence can only verify that internal consistency is valid frrom a physical point of view. It is no proof on it's own of anything, because our observations of it are themselves philosophical constructs.
So your observation of the bible is not evidence it exists?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 11:45 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 12:52 PM mark24 has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 100 of 297 (417093)
08-19-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by bluegenes
08-19-2007 11:41 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
BG;
Then, yes. We're all products of reality and parts of reality.
So I am in touch with reality...
BG:
If so, you've got serious problems with reality, Rob, both the word and the concept.
Am I out of line with your reality or not BG?
BG:
If you can show evidence that more than two thirds of the world's population, the non-Christians, are non-existent, then you will be on your way to demonstrating that your God is, in fact, reality.
If your're right then the atheist or non-believing (smallest of all minority) is in even worse shape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2007 11:41 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2007 1:20 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 101 of 297 (417094)
08-19-2007 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by mark24
08-19-2007 12:00 PM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
mark24:
So your observation of the bible is not evidence it exists?
I like how you shifted the terminology from philosophy to 'observations'. if your not careful, you'll become a pantheist!
My answer to your question above: Not in and of itself no.
My 'observations' (internal consistency)) + the bible = equals internal and external consistency. Empericism (external coherence)apart from philosophy (internal coherence) is invalid becaue it immediately becomes internally incoherent.
Did you read anything I gave to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by mark24, posted 08-19-2007 12:00 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by anglagard, posted 08-19-2007 1:02 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 104 by mark24, posted 08-19-2007 2:47 PM Rob has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 102 of 297 (417096)
08-19-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rob
08-19-2007 12:52 PM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
Rob writes:
My 'observations' (internal consistency)) + the bible = equals internal and external consistency.
This statement has yet to be demonstrated even remotely as fact. Too bad you are apparently unwilling to defend it except as a Great Debate topic.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 12:52 PM Rob has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 103 of 297 (417098)
08-19-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rob
08-19-2007 12:36 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
So I am in touch with reality...
I noticed that you put "in touch" in brackets after "born of" as if it means the same thing when you changed what you'd previously said in that last post, and I suspected that you'd try and pretend that "born of reality" and "in touch with reality" mean the same thing. They don't.
To what extent you're in touch with reality is another question.
Am I out of line with your reality or not BG?
Why do these phrases like "out of line" and "in touch" come into the discussion? What have they got to do with your very interesting belief that non-Christians are not born of reality? I doubt if anyone has ever made such a strange argument on these threads.
I'm sure you're a product and part of reality, and that you exist. Why should I doubt it?
If your're right then the atheist or non-believing (smallest of all minority) is in even worse shape.
You're missing the point. You're the one who's claiming that most of the world's population is not born of reality, and therefore does not exist. No atheist would ever claim such a stupid thing.
Something that is not born of reality, that is not a product of reality, is non-existent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 12:36 PM Rob has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 104 of 297 (417112)
08-19-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rob
08-19-2007 12:52 PM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
Rob,
I like how you shifted the terminology from philosophy to 'observations'.
I didn't. You said:
Emperical evidence can only verify that internal consistency is valid frrom a physical point of view. It is no proof on it's own of anything, because our observations of it are themselves philosophical constructs.
This means any alleged sensory perception is a philosophical construct & not proof of anything. I could punch you full in the face whilst fully concious & according to you you have no proof that I punched you in the face!
Give me your bank account number, I'll empty your account & you will have no proof it was me, despite the funds going from your account to mine.
My 'observations' (internal consistency)) + the bible = equals internal and external consistency.
This makes no sense, your observations aren't proof of anything regardless of whether your propositions are consistent or not. Secondly, the bible is only externally consistent with trivial history, none of it's fantastic claims are externally consistent. So all you have is internal consistency.
I may as well say, I have my observations & Watership Down, therefore I am both internally & externally consistent. It's meaningless.
Empericism (external coherence)apart from philosophy (internal coherence) is invalid becaue it immediately becomes internally incoherent.
Let's get this straight, you are seriously trying to tell me that something you can not demonstrate exists (because it is a philosophical construct)is externally coherent? How do you know without empirically derived evidence of its content? In order to know the bible exists you need to have had some sensory perception of it, in other words, you have to be an empiricist, but then it becomes internally incoherent, according to you, & therefore invalid.
You are hoisted on your own petard.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 12:52 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 5:57 PM mark24 has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 105 of 297 (417143)
08-19-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Rob
08-19-2007 9:45 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob
You said logic is external. That it is what is is beyond human bias. I was thanking you for agreeing with me. It's not desperate... it's a thank you.
I did not say logic was external. I said, and I quote,
The universe operates according to rules that we can describe and in that sense they follow a logical pattern.However, the logical patterns that they follow are not based on what humans like or dislike, they are what they are.
We are included in those patterns and they are derived from our observations and investigations. Coupled with mathematics we are able to ascertain things that are not immediately apparent to the senses themselves but ,since they follow logical process and are consistent with what we observe {not to mention the predictions we make about phenomena we have not yet attained the technology to unveil} they are in that sense considered real.
The phenomena are the doctrine since they are what we use to test our models of the world. Philosophers suppose while scientists test and that is an enormous distinction.
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "~I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: '~I am has sent me to you.'"
What do you want me to say, 'No, that's wrong sidelined!' ???
No, this verse does not even qualify as wrong. In the first sentence the speaker {god} is stating I{god} am who I{god} am. No big deal since there is no contradiction in the statement. I{sidelined} am who I{sidelined} am also.
Is this somehow profound in your mind because if it is then perhaps you can explain that?
Then the second sentence says "I am has sent me to you". In order to be logically consistent this translates to God has sent me {moses} to you.Since this verse was somehow supposed to make clear God's name which Moses wanted to utter unto the Israelites perhaps you could further explain how this phrase actually does that and at the same time logically connect how this phrase agrees with my own {or even vice versa}.
In your last few replies, you were attempting to disagree, but actually agreed, because you were being logical. and that is what God is.
God (reality) is logical.
Perhaps you can clarify just where God is logical.
Edited by sidelined, : fixed italics

"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."
Thomas Carlyle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 9:45 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 11:27 PM sidelined has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024