|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God caused or uncaused? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
bluegenes:
Thus far, I have to come to the conclusion that Rob must believe that life is not part of non-designed reality (his God), but is, in fact, a non-existent illusion, which makes me wonder why he bothers posting, or, for that matter, living. To find those who are interested in becoming real. And you've got some major confusion as to what I said, but you are funny...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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? 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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: RobAnd 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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: 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024