Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
146 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (4 members, 142 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,688 Year: 1,436/23,288 Month: 1,436/1,851 Week: 76/484 Day: 76/93 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4236 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 76 of 297 (416892)
08-18-2007 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by mark24
08-18-2007 5:33 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mark24:
Empirical evidence is the only way to get closer to reality

Rob:

Can you prove that emperically, or is it a philosophical assumption?

mark24:

If you have two equally valid (or invalid) contradictory propositions, how else will you tell between them?

Who said anything about equal? Both are philosophical assumptions based upon the validity of logic.

The one with the most philosophical coherence must be assumed to reflect reality (at least more so than it's competitor).

And again I share an excerpt from an article by Susan Kruglinski, Discover Magazine editor:

WHY ID IS NOT SCIENCE
Definition of science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;..

...Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. In deliberately omitting theological or "ultimate" explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."

You talk about a logical nightmare... there's your nightmare mark24!

But it fits right in with the 17th century philosophers like David Hume just as it says:

"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
(David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding)

How do we make a meaningful statement that is metapghysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless?

It's not scientific.

And it also fits with the intentional and self limiting motives of other more honest thinkers. The main point of their's and yours is that logic and words are really not valid. But they and you use words and logic to tell us that.

Can you explain?

"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar."
(Friedrich Nietzsche)

"To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing [...] [However] by refusing to assign a 'secret,' an ultimate meaning, to the text (and the world as text), liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fix meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases--reason, science, law."
(1967 Roland Barthes / 'The Death of Author', 147)"

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever."
(1937 Aldous Huxley / 'Ends and Means')

C.S. Lewis understood. In His book 'Miracles' Chapter 3, 'The Cardianl Difficulty of Naturalism' he marvelously captures this problem. One cannot give a quote and do justice a whole chapter of thought, but here is one way he concludes the point 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."

What I really want to know, is how you guys think that we evolved in a universe with no other guidance than the existing laws of physics, but yet somehow, we manage to think in a way that is not legitimately reflective of the very laws that created our thoughts?

How can our thougths not reflect the laws that governed their creation, unless we intentionally refuse or deny that they do?

And that denial and refusal (that self imposed limitation and convention) to disobey the very logic we use and deny it's power, would actually be the only thing not reflective of reality?

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by mark24, posted 08-18-2007 5:33 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by mark24, posted 08-19-2007 5:17 AM Rob has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4236 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 77 of 297 (416902)
08-18-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by bluegenes
08-18-2007 5:54 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
bluegenes:
So we're not part of reality, then, in your system. Or, at least, I'm not. Unreal, man, as the hippies would say.

I wouldn't say unreal (in the total sense). Rather, I would say 'illogical'.

After all, you know logic, you're trying to use it to 'show' that your position is reasonable, and mine is lacking.

And though you know logic (reality /God), you niether respect or glorify him. Therefore you may be hip, but you're not being real.

C'mon man, be real says the Lord.

Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by bluegenes, posted 08-18-2007 5:54 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by bluegenes, posted 08-18-2007 12:48 PM Rob has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 864 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 78 of 297 (416907)
08-18-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rob
08-18-2007 12:09 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:

I wouldn't say unreal (in the total sense). Rather, I would say 'illogical'.

Ah, so now we're real. I'm pleased about that, because I was beginning to feel a bit ethereal.

So if we are real, we can be part of the undesigned reality of your system.

Basic Tenets of the Rob Theology:

(a) God is not Himself created or designed.

(b) God is Reality.

(c) Life is real, therefore part of an undesigned reality.

Have I got it right?

I can now assume that you have rejected the Behe type of I.D. as it is obviously incompatible with your line of thinking.

Perhaps you have joined the camp of the more sophisticated Christians (like John Polkinghorne whom I believe you quoted recently on another thread) who support the theory of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 12:09 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 2:45 PM bluegenes has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4236 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 79 of 297 (416921)
08-18-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by bluegenes
08-18-2007 12:48 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
bluegenes:
(c) Life is real, therefore part of an undesigned reality.

This is the clincher isn't it?

Is fiction real? It is written in hardback. People buy it.

Life is real yes, but in the temporal sense. It is relative... But what is it relative to?

The real thing!

The closer we are to the real thing, the more real we become. Dr. Zacharius put it this way, 'The more logical a man is, the closer he moves to the pronouncements of God, and sustains what God has already said. The more illogical a man is, the farther he moves away from God.'

Reality is logical. Our modifications of it are not and lead to chaos. The only real and useful purpose for the tool of empericism, is that it shows us that the physical world is, in fact, orderly, logical, and governed by law.

When you see illogical things happening in the world, it can ultimately be traced to an illogical human being. Be it the destruction of the environment, rape, murder, runaway drug use, greddy corporations, power hungry dictators, etc... it is sin that is our downfall, not the logic that tries to reason us out of it and save us from ourselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by bluegenes, posted 08-18-2007 12:48 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by bluegenes, posted 08-18-2007 3:50 PM Rob has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 864 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 80 of 297 (416927)
08-18-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rob
08-18-2007 2:45 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:

Is fiction real? It is written in hardback. People buy it.

The hardback book is real, the people who buy it are real, and the story in the book is real once told. It's a real, untrue story.

Life is real yes, but in the temporal sense. It is relative... But what is it relative to?

The real thing!

You're being a bit cryptic here, I think. You mean it's relative to Coca Cola, or something?

The closer we are to the real thing, the more real we become. Dr. Zacharius put it this way, 'The more logical a man is, the closer he moves to the pronouncements of God, and sustains what God has already said. The more illogical a man is, the farther he moves away from God.'

Ah, I see. A God is the real thing. I thought your God was reality. Well, we certainly know that our species has a characteristic of inventing Gods, because there are so many different ones from so many different cultures. So, logically, the chances are that whichever God you are referring to is a human invention, and therefore only real in a similar way to the real but untrue fiction story mentioned above.

I disagree with Dr. Zacharius (or even Dr. Zacharias) whoever he is.

Dr. bluegenes puts it this way:

quote:
The more logical a man is, the further he moves from the pronouncements of any Gods invented by his fellow men. The more illogical a man is, the closer he is likely to move towards a God or Gods invented by his fellow men.

Reality is logical.

For you, reality is God and is logical.

I have to laugh at the idea of the Abrahamic God being logical.:)

If there's a real God of some kind, he might be logical, but it's unlikely that we'd understand the logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 2:45 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 6:17 PM bluegenes has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4236 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 81 of 297 (416939)
08-18-2007 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by bluegenes
08-18-2007 3:50 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
BG:
The hardback book is real, the people who buy it are real, and the story in the book is real once told. It's a real, untrue story.

Exactly! But notice that it is real only relative to reality. It really is false...

Truth confirms it's own truthfulness, and reveals untruth for what it is..

So truth is King of kings and Lord of lords.

If truth could speak... it would say, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No-one comes to reality but by me'. And wouldn't you know it... that is exactly what Jesus said.

BG:

You're being a bit cryptic here, I think. You mean it's relative to Coca Cola, or something?

:laugh:

I like your sense of humor...

I was referring to the absolute.

Things that are relatively real, are relative to the absolutely real.

Is anything absolutely real? We cannot say no, because then that would be the absolute.

It's a self evident reality that something is absolutely real. And that is what God is.

BG:

Ah, I see. A God is the real thing. I thought your God was reality.

Exactly!

BG:

Well, we certainly know that our species has a characteristic of inventing Gods

Hard not to when we are created in God's image and are therfore hard-wired for logical thinking (though we are adept at avoiding it, and denying it's relevance).

BG:

So, logically, the chances are that whichever God you are referring to is a human invention, and therefore only real in a similar way to the real but untrue fiction story mentioned above.

We do try to invent all kinds of God's... but when we work out the theology (or theory) which is necessarily assumed to be logical, we run into either external or internal contradictions.

The one that has neither is the actual reality. And that is what makes the words of Christ so powerful. It is the fact that He never once contradicted himself the way mere human philosophers do...

BG:

I have to laugh at the idea of the Abrahamic God being logical.

Laugh all you want. It's easy to laugh. And it's also easy to find a contradiction. It does no good to say it is not logical. You must sustain the argument with 'evidence' of how and why it is not logical. It doesn't have to be emperical. It only needs to be coherent.

I invite you to put the God of the bible on trial and find a contradiction...

As Jesus said, 'a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand'. Just try and knock Him over, and He'll knock you over in the process.

You can doubt all you want, but that proves nothing...

BG:

If there's a real God of some kind, he might be logical, but it's unlikely that we'd understand the logic.

Logic is logic... it's the law of non-contradiction. You either understand it or you don't.

Find a contradiction in the words of Christ... That is your assignment.

And since the four gospels which supposedly document His words are simply written by men (which is your claim by implication), then it should not be difficult to find the usual sophistry that is so easy to find in your typical historical figure and philosopher.

There is one (of many) who undertook this enterprise to discredit the claims of Christ. His name is Lee Strobel. He worked for the Chicago Tribune as a Law editor of some kind. You might pick up his book 'The Case For Christ' and orient yourself with the usual suspects. You'll save yourself alot of time...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by bluegenes, posted 08-18-2007 3:50 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by iceage, posted 08-18-2007 8:33 PM Rob has responded
 Message 84 by bluegenes, posted 08-18-2007 9:20 PM Rob has responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4302 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 82 of 297 (416958)
08-18-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rob
08-18-2007 6:17 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Bluegenes writes:

Well, we certainly know that our species has a characteristic of inventing Gods

Rob writes:

Hard not to when we are created in God's image and are therfore hard-wired for logical thinking

Inventing Gods is logical thinking? OK....

Rob writes:

Laugh all you want. It's easy to laugh. And it's also easy to find a contradiction. It does no good to say it is not logical. You must sustain the argument with 'evidence' of how and why it is not logical. It doesn't have to be emperical. It only needs to be coherent.

I invite you to put the God of the bible on trial and find a contradiction...

Surely you must be joking thinking that the Bible is consistent. One doesn't need empirical evidence just the source itself, it is internally contradicting.



Show how commandments to

  • Love your Neighbor and your enemies

    Is consistent or coherent with Godly commands such as:

  • "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor."

    And the dozens of other genocidal commandments through out the OT.


    Or how are these statements consistent

  • "For God is not the author of confusion"

    and

  • "let us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech" or "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise" or "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"


    Or is God merciful to all?

  • "The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works"

    and

  • "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them"

    The only way these statement and philosophies (and many more) could possibly be consistent is if you are under some strong delusion :) Which now that I think about it may explain a few things.

    Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 6:17 PM Rob has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 83 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 9:17 PM iceage has not yet responded

    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4236 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 83 of 297 (416966)
    08-18-2007 9:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 82 by iceage
    08-18-2007 8:33 PM


    Re: Alright let's look at this...
    Funny that you present these paradoxes as contradictions.

    I'll tell you what Ice... You start a great debate thread between you and I about these appearent contradictions you gave, and I will answer them in much detail.

    And I'll be honest, I don't want to. It will be very time consuming for me. But for you... anything!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 82 by iceage, posted 08-18-2007 8:33 PM iceage has not yet responded

    bluegenes
    Member (Idle past 864 days)
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007


    Message 84 of 297 (416968)
    08-18-2007 9:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 81 by Rob
    08-18-2007 6:17 PM


    Re: Alright let's look at this...
    Rob writes:

    blugenes writes:

    Well, we certainly know that our species has a characteristic of inventing Gods

    Hard not to when we are created in God's image and are therfore hard-wired for logical thinking (though we are adept at avoiding it, and denying it's relevance).

    Actually, we seem to create Gods in our own image, rather than the other way around. As I said, there are many different Gods from many different cultures, and they all seem to have human aspects. As they can't all have created us, it's perfectly reasonable and logical to come to the conclusion that we invented them.

    They also show the relationship to the cultures in which they are invented. For example, the Norse Gods hang around in Scandinavia, follow the vikings on their travels, and generally favour them over others. The Hindu Gods hang around on the sub-continent. The Greek Gods hang around Greece, and occupy themselves with the affairs of the Greeks and their neighbours, and the Hebrew God hangs around in the middle-east and occupies himself with the affairs of the Jews and their neighbours, heavily favouring the Jews.

    As you can see, all of the above have the characteristics of human invented gods, invented in specific cultures.

    It certainly isn't logical for modern people to believe in such entities, but many still do. There's a Zeus revival going on in Greece at the moment, for example, and many people in your own country seem to have a literal belief in the Jewish tribal God, strangely enough, even though they're not Jewish, and aren't particularly favoured by this God.

    We do try to invent all kinds of God's... but when we work out the theology (or theory) which is necessarily assumed to be logical, we run into either external or internal contradictions.

    I get the impression from this and other comments in your post that you think that having or not having contradictions has something to do with whether or not a particular God is true.

    There's no reason why this should be the case. I can easily invent Deities that have no contradictions, and religions that cannot in any way be proven false, but that doesn't make them true.

    The Prophet Bluegenes says:

    quote:
    The universe was created billions of years ago by seven curious Goddesses who wanted to find out what would happen in black holes.

    No contradictions there, some scientific accuracy that's lacking in ancient religions, and you can't prove my Goddesses to be false.

    The one that has neither is the actual reality. And that is what makes the words of Christ so powerful. It is the fact that He never once contradicted himself the way mere human philosophers do...

    If a guy came up to you and told you that he was his own father, you'd probably consider him to be a walking contradiction and stark raving mad. You're special pleading for the historical Christ. You have to assume him to be God in order to prove him to be God.

    I invite you to put the God of the bible on trial and find a contradiction...

    You've presumably read the Bible, and you're a believer, so you're not going to agree with anything that I might see as a contradiction in your God. You won't see any inconsistency in an entity who tells one of his prophets to stone someone to death after having given him the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", and then, in another incarnation, tells his followers to love their neighbours and their enemies. Presumably because you don't want to.

    Find a contradiction in the words of Christ... That is your assignment.

    It is? I'm in Sunday school?:)

    And since the four gospels which supposedly document His words are simply written by men (which is your claim by implication), then it should not be difficult to find the usual sophistry that is so easy to find in your typical historical figure and philosopher.

    Weren't the Gospels written by men who, like you, wanted to believe that Jesus was God? They're going to show him in a very good light, aren't they? Get Muslims on the subject of Mohammed, and you'll be told what a noble and wonderful character he was.

    Religious people on the subject of their prophets and living Gods are anything but objective historians.

    Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 6:17 PM Rob has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 85 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 10:10 PM bluegenes has responded

    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4236 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 85 of 297 (416976)
    08-18-2007 10:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by bluegenes
    08-18-2007 9:20 PM


    Re: Alright let's look at this...
    Look BG, your main premise is that I am going to believe anyway what I already believe. Most of your post was reiterating that point. Pure skepticism through and through. Fair enough... And it is appearent that you are going not going to believe in the God of the Bibble no matter what I say. Where's the discussion in that?

    Does the Bible reflect reality. Reality being uncaused by logical necessity...

    Like you said, we invent God's in our image. That is exactly what the Bible says. Is it wrong to do so? Appearently...

    So let's look at your other main premise...

    BG:

    Actually, we seem to create Gods in our own image, rather than the other way around. As I said, there are many different Gods from many different cultures, and they all seem to have human aspects. As they can't all have created us, it's perfectly reasonable and logical to come to the conclusion that we invented them.

    So these presumably logical philosophical constructs we invent... they are our gods, I agree. And I agree they cannot all be true.

    But did you invent the one I quoted just now, or is does it reflect reality?

    It reflects reality... And that is one reason I believe the Bible.

    You know... mark24 seemed to have a difficult time seeing the relevance of the term 'God' having a definition in the dictionary of, 'the ultimate and supreme reality'. But it is very significant.

    You see, The Hebrew word for reality is 'Emet' and it means truth (as 'in total'). It contains the first, middle, and ending letters of the Hebrew alphabet, signifying 'all that is'.

    Arachnophilia would be helpful in this department.

    So when you think of reality and are reading the Bible, you can use the concept of reality (in modern Western terms, and in all of it's dimensions) to equate with the words truth, God, light, Word, and Christ. They are synonymous...

    When you realize that this is not an abstaction being referred to when the Bible talks about 'God'; Then, even though you may not agree with or like it, you will at least see the logic it is conveying in the proper context. Otherwise it is shear nonsense.

    You must intepret the text within the context it was written in.

    The concept of God in Biblical terms, is the same concept as reality in ours.

    And this is true whether you are reading Isaiah or John. For instance, consider John's words and keep in mind what I just told you:

    John:1 In the beginning was the Word(logos/logic which is only one dimension of reality/God), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

    5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    So within God / reality, there are distinctions. As a whole, God is God, and each of His qualities are also God and inseperable from Him.

    I like to illustrate it this way...

    Now, If there is a God (and most believe so), He would be the truth. Or, the truth would be of God; that is, begotten by God; part of God; a dimension of God. The truth would be God. It is very much just the way addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are a dimension of mathematics; and in fact they are math. They are not the totality of math, but they will lead us to the higher mathematics faithfully.

    Continuing along this line, the truth in math (the logic of it) is the same in the lower mathematics, as it is in the higher. There is simply more or less information when comparing the two. They have a different function. Trying to put a value on either is really a rather individual and subjective project that requires a lack of the very essence of logic that opens into objectivity. For objectivity is itself the nature of logic. Logic has an objective. In that sense the lower math is just as pure and wonderful as the higher. I make note of this for obvious reasons; the Son is just as beautiful as the Father.

    Together they are God, and as individuals they are God. There is no better than, but only love for each other and their mutual function and purpose. In this way, their Spirit is the very essence of logic and is also God. Jesus spoke of the abundant life; it is eternal and is therefore absolute. It is unlike our life that is a bound and limited life; limited by food, water, air, and death (entropy). Jesus spoke about having food that we new nothing about, living water, the clouds of heaven, and eternal life (the absence of death).

    This whole manner of illustrating God by use of mathematic symbolism may provide a look into another mystery. In Mathew, chapter 12; 31, Jesus says that all blasphemy and sin will be forgiven except blasphemy of the spirit. I can’t help but think of the Spirit in the confines of our mathematical example as the essence of God. In our mathematics, the logic itself is to be revered and embraced.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by bluegenes, posted 08-18-2007 9:20 PM bluegenes has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2007 5:44 AM Rob has responded

    sidelined
    Member (Idle past 4295 days)
    Posts: 3435
    From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
    Joined: 08-30-2003


    Message 86 of 297 (416979)
    08-18-2007 10:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 71 by Rob
    08-18-2007 3:07 AM


    Re: Alright let's look at this...
    Rob

    So the universe is not actully logical? We invented logic to describe it?

    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.

    You mean the 'Stong Nuclear Force', and the weak Nuclear Force' etc...? In other words, the laws of physics that we invented?

    The laws of physics are the human invention we use to explain what we observe and what we deduce from investigation of the natural phenomena that we encounter. The Strong nuclear force is the name given to the the binding energy of the nucleus of atoms. The Weak force is the one that describes the process of radioactivity of atoms.

    Ya boob, these are not "philoawfulgul constructs" they are the result of careful investigation of observable phenomena and are the result of rigorous logic and counterintuitive notions that do not adhere to the prejudices of common sense. They need not adhere to our notions of what is correct but only be consistent with what we observe.

    You know, there's a lot of boys out there that actually believed that it was real concrete stuff... but hank you Sidelined.

    A retort that reflects the authors inability to constructively counter an argument is a desperate act don't you think?


    "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 71 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 3:07 AM Rob has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 87 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 11:08 PM sidelined has responded

    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4236 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 87 of 297 (416989)
    08-18-2007 11:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 86 by sidelined
    08-18-2007 10:18 PM


    Re: Alright let's look at this...
    However, the logical patterns that they follow are not based on what humans like or dislike, they are what they are.

    That's the way He is... 'I am that I am.

    Thanks again...


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by sidelined, posted 08-18-2007 10:18 PM sidelined has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by sidelined, posted 08-19-2007 9:18 AM Rob has responded

    mark24
    Member (Idle past 3582 days)
    Posts: 3857
    From: UK
    Joined: 12-01-2001


    Message 88 of 297 (417050)
    08-19-2007 5:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 76 by Rob
    08-18-2007 11:31 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).

    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.

    For example:

    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.

    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.

    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 76 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 11:31 AM Rob has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 91 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 9:19 AM mark24 has responded

    bluegenes
    Member (Idle past 864 days)
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007


    Message 89 of 297 (417051)
    08-19-2007 5:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 85 by Rob
    08-18-2007 10:10 PM


    Re: Alright let's look at this...
    Rob writes:

    So when you think of reality and are reading the Bible, you can use the concept of reality (in modern Western terms, and in all of it's dimensions) to equate with the words truth, God, light, Word, and Christ. They are synonymous...

    When you realize that this is not an abstaction being referred to when the Bible talks about 'God'; Then, even though you may not agree with or like it, you will at least see the logic it is conveying in the proper context. Otherwise it is shear nonsense.

    You must intepret the text within the context it was written in.

    The concept of God in Biblical terms, is the same concept as reality in ours.

    And this is true whether you are reading Isaiah or John. For instance, consider John's words and keep in mind what I just told you:

    John:1 In the beginning was the Word(logos/logic which is only one dimension of reality/God), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

    5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    So within God / reality, there are distinctions. As a whole, God is God, and each of His qualities are also God and inseperable from Him.

    So, let's substitute the synonym.

    John:1 In the beginning was reality, and the reality was with reality, and the reality was reality. 2 reality was with reality in the beginning. 3 Through reality all things were made; without reality nothing was made that has been made. 4 In reality was life, and that life was the reality of men. (So neither reality nor life were created?).

    5 The reality shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6 There came a man who was sent from reality; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that reality, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the reality; he came only as a witness to the reality. 9 The true reality that gives reality to every man was coming into the world. 10 Reality was in the world, and though the world was made through reality, the world did not recognize reality. 11 Reality came to that which was reality's own, but reality's own did not receive reality. 12 Yet to all who received reality, to those who believed in reality's name, reality gave the right to become children of Reality-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of Reality. 14 The Reality became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen reality's glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    I like the first four verses, although they're arguably pretty meaningless, in that they pretty much state the obvious. After that, it goes downhill.

    I have problems with the personification of reality. Realistically speaking, reality is not a person.

    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.

    The concept of God in Biblical terms, is the same concept as reality in ours.

    The modern concept of reality would certainly not include some people being born of it and others not!

    If you're trying to convince me that Christians are even madder than I thought they were, you're doing a good job.;)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 10:10 PM Rob has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 92 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 9:28 AM bluegenes has responded

    sidelined
    Member (Idle past 4295 days)
    Posts: 3435
    From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
    Joined: 08-30-2003


    Message 90 of 297 (417066)
    08-19-2007 9:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 87 by Rob
    08-18-2007 11:08 PM


    Re: Alright let's look at this...
    Rob

    That's the way He is... 'I am that I am.

    Like I said... Desperate . :D


    "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 87 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 11:08 PM Rob has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 93 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 9:45 AM sidelined has responded

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020