|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4740 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Underlying Philosophy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4740 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
dwise1,
Responding to your earlier comment,
Now, sac is taking that as being axiomatic Let me give you some clarification on what I believe. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."(Romans 1:18-23). Note the part that says "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen" [emphasis added]. So no, I do not take God as being axiomatic. God was not always my starting point in thinking however. When I was a child, I believed what my parents told me, and my belief in what they told me was - much of the time - axiomatic. But my parents were placed there by God to direct me during a time in which my thinking was inadequate to to follow the verse that says "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist". Now however, I attempt to make God my starting point in all my thinking, and from this I see that if there was no god, nothing can be accounted for. What I was attempting to show you with my arguments was that if there isn't a god, nothing can be accounted for. Although different atheists may differ in their beliefs, they all have one thing in common; they do not believe in a god. I do believe in a god (Jehovah God). There is the difference between us, and this difference applies to any atheist. So, let me conclude by asking the three questions that I have asked before. What is real? How do we know what is real? How do we live based on what we know is real? These questions may seem absurd to you, but they are, in fact, very fundamental questions that you should be able to answer. They are the fundamental questions of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. So your answers to these questions will define what you believe about the three aforementioned philosophical branches. One more clarification that I need to make about these questions. I am not asking them just for the sake of asking questions and seeing what your answers will be. I think that the reason people have had trouble answering these questions (e.g., Huntard's response to the first question was "reality".) is because without a god, they can't answer the questions (or will at least have a hard time answering them). So I am asking these questions because I do not think they are possible to answer well without a god. Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4740 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Huntard,
You asked me what is real. I told you what is real, that which is real. So let's say that I ask you "is a tree real", and you reply "yes". And I then say "why is it real", and you reply, e.g., "because it is material". In this example, the standard by which you judge the actuality of the tree lies in its materiality. So, given this, I ask the question "what is real?". You now need to give an answer such as "all that is material is real", or "all is illusion", or some other such answer that would somehow enlighten me as to what you believe is real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Let me give you some clarification on what I believe. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."(Romans 1:18-23). You do not say why you believe that.
Note the part that says "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen" Oh, I did note that. I really did. It's not true, is it?
Now however, I attempt to make God my starting point in all my thinking, and from this I see that if there was no god, nothing can be accounted for. But this seems to be a non sequitur. If someone said: "I attempt to make custard my starting point in all my thinking, and from this I see that if there was no custard, nothing can be accounted for", what would you think? Just because some person tries to account for everything in terms of custard, does not mean that nothing could be accounted for except with reference to custard. It might just mean that they'd made some risible mistake. At least we know custard exists.
So I am asking these questions because I do not think they are possible to answer well without a god. Since religious people have differed wildly on these questions, it is plain that most people with a god are getting them badly wrong. What makes you think that you're one of those one-in-a-million theists who've got them right? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4740 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Hyroglyphx,
(what is real?) - It's the state of actuality. Once again, this is an inadequate answer. The word "real" is an adjective ascribed to certain things. So when I ask the question "what is real?", I am asking you to tell me to which things you ascribe the adjective "real". So, given that actuality is the same as reality, we can conclude this: reality is just the noun that includes all things to which the adjective "real" can be ascribed. So it is self-evident that all things which are real are indeed reality. So to answer the question correctly, you need to give an answer that will enlighten me as to what objects you ascribe the adjective "real", which would be the same as telling me what objects you believe are contained within "reality". And as to the 2nd question, I guess it could vary. So you just answer the question for yourself. And as to the 3rd question, you have to answer the 1st and 2nd questions correctly in order to be able to answer it. So you could re-word the third question like this: based on your answers to the 1st and 2nd questions, how should we live our lives?
All you said was "God is real." False. I said "God is real, and all that God has created is real". The reason for me saying that God is real is because He is not included in the part of the answer that says "all that God has created is real", because God did not create himself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Dr Adequate writes: Here Eusebius is quoting the pagan philosopher Plato. I am aware. The point was that Eusebius was advocating deception, not that he was the author of the quote.
Dr Adequate writes: No-one would put him near the top of the list, since some people wouldn't even put him on the list. This makes no sense; the first statement does not follow from the second. This appears to be a failure of basic reasoning.
Dr Adequate writes: He is, again, not "lying for Jesus" or recommending this practice --- he doesn't advocate falsehood in the service of apologetics. This passage does not advocate (or condemn) that, but it does advocate deception in the service of God.
Dr Adequate writes: The instances he gives of deceit in a good cause are such things as generals deceiving the enemy. Do you as a non-Christian object to such shenanigans? I object to those shenanigans in the same sense that I would object to being stabbed by a theist; while a perfectly reasonable thing for a general to do to the enemy, it is not suitable behavior in advocating religious ideals. Those examples seem to indicate that John viewed Basil as an enemy, in order to justify his actions. If enmity is required to justify one's actions toward a friend or fellow, perhaps it is time to admit those actions are not friendly or civil.
Dr Adequate writes: Or, if you agree with him that the military should exercise guile of this sort, would you say that: "Atheist doctrine states unequivocally that deception is a regular and expected matter of course"? No, I would say that deception is only regular and accepted as a matter of course when dealing with mortal enemies, or those wished extreme ill. "Atheist doctrine" is also somewhat nonsensical, but I'll accept it in the spirit of the question. Edited by Phage0070, : Elaboration
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am aware. The point was that Eusebius was advocating deception, not that he was the author of the quote. But Plato thought that he had proved something to be true.
This makes no sense; the first statement does not follow from the second. This appears to be a failure of basic reasoning. It's not strict logic, but it's still reasonable. Similarly, since not everyone would agree that Paul McCartney was a drummer, it is at least unlikely that he would make it onto anyone's list of top ten drummers, even if it is not a logical impossibility.
This passage does not advocate (or condemn) that, but it does advocate deception in the service of God. In the service of desirable outcomes. How would you feel about it?
I object to those shenanigans in the same sense that I would object to being stabbed by a theist; while a perfectly reasonable thing for a general to do to the enemy, it is not suitable behavior in advocating religious ideals. But he never said that one should use deception in advocating religious ideals.
Those examples seem to indicate that John viewed Basil as an enemy, in order to justify his actions. If enmity is required to justify one's actions toward a friend or fellow, perhaps it is time to admit those actions are not friendly or civil. Chrysostom discusses this point. I gave you a link. See his example of the doctor.
No, I would say that deception is only regular and accepted as a matter of course when dealing with mortal enemies, or those wished extreme ill. And John Chrysostom doesn't say that one should be deceptive regularly and as a matter of course, only that it is sometimes justified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Dr Adequate writes: But Plato thought that he had proved something to be true. OK, and?
Dr Adequate writes: It's not strict logic, but it's still reasonable. No, no it isn't in the slightest. Observe: The Christian god wouldn't even be included in many people's lists of existing gods, therefore nobody would put the Christian god at or near the top of existing gods. Does it make any more sense to you now?
Dr Adequate writes:
But he never said that one should use deception in advocating religious ideals.Title: "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment" Content: "Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction." Are you sure you have been reading these quotes?
Dr Adequate writes: And John Chrysostom doesn't say that one should be deceptive regularly and as a matter of course, only that it is sometimes justified. Ok, granted. I would be fine with modifying my statement to say that deception is a tool used sparingly by the Christian church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
OK, and? So Eusebius in quoting it, even approvingly, isn't approving deliberate falsehood.
No, no it isn't in the slightest. Observe: The Christian god wouldn't even be included in many people's lists of existing gods, therefore nobody would put the Christian god at or near the top of existing gods. Does it make any more sense to you now? I find that false analogies rarely clarify anything.
Are you sure you have been reading these quotes? Yes. He thought that these passages were matephorical rather than literally true, but he didn't think that the Bible was full of lies as such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You do realise that this utterly contradicts the presuppositionalist stance you have been taking up to now ? And that presuppositionalists have to believe it ? Truly the presuppositionalist worldview is incoherent and thus false. Indeed, if you really believed it then you wouldn't be bothering with the presuppositionalist arguments - you'd just be pointing out all the clear and obvious evidence that God exists. The reason why you don't do that is that you know that it ISN'T true.
quote: Yet you are using presuppositionalist arguments, based on a worldview that says that God MUST be taken as axiomatic., that there can be no evidence that establishes the existence of God. Think about it. How can you reconcile the belief that there is clear and obvious evidence that definitively establishes the existence of God with the presuppositionnalist belief that there can be no such evidence and the fact that there is no such evidence ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
sac51495 writes:
Ok. That which leaves evidence is real.
So let's say that I ask you "is a tree real", and you reply "yes". And I then say "why is it real", and you reply, e.g., "because it is material". In this example, the standard by which you judge the actuality of the tree lies in its materiality. So, given this, I ask the question "what is real?". You now need to give an answer such as "all that is material is real", or "all is illusion", or some other such answer that would somehow enlighten me as to what you believe is real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't think you've quite got the hang of presuppositionalism. Romans 1:18-23 is actually one of the founding texts of presuppositionalism. (Of course, this involves them in an intractably vicious circle, but that is apparently exactly the position that presuppositionalists aspire to be in.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think that you are the one that is mistaken. Presuppositionalism STARTS from the assumption that God must be presupposed, that evidence-based arguments cannot establish the existence of God. Yes, they also believe Romans 1:18-23 (Greg Bahnsen infamously arguing that there were no atheists based on it) but they have to pretend that it doesn't quite mean what it says (asserting that we can't see the evidence because we are "blinded by sin").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Dr Adequate writes: So Eusebius in quoting it, even approvingly, isn't approving deliberate falsehood. If you approvingly quote someone advocating deliberate falsehood, you are approving deliberate falsehood.
Dr Adequate writes: I find that false analogies rarely clarify anything. Then perhaps you could point out the difference? They are both people's opinions on beings, fictional or not. If the Christian god not being on some people's lists at all does not imply he cannot be at or near the top of other people's lists, then Eusebius not being on some people's lists of Church Fathers does not imply he cannot be at or near the top of other people's lists. This is basic logic, the analogy is directly equivalent, and you really need to understand this concept.
Dr Adequate writes: Yes. He thought that these passages were matephorical rather than literally true, but he didn't think that the Bible was full of lies as such. It is irrelevant whether he thought they were metaphors or straight lies, presenting metaphor as truth is a lie. If you present something you know is not literally true as being literally true, it is deception. You can debate the ethics on lying to put someone on the right track versus lying to lead them astray, but they are both lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What is real? Well, I can't give you a complete list; but some examples would include waffle irons and cantaloupes and alligators and income tax and ketchup and Zanzibar and firecrackers and armadillos and teacups.
How do we know what is real? Observation. Two things to be noted: (1) We couldn't possibly deduce the existence of the real things I listed from theism in general, nor from Christianity in particular. We have to observe the world in order to find this stuff out. (2) We couldn't possibly deduce the existence of God the same way we deduce the existence of the sort of things I listed. So in order to defend his existence theists have to think up some whole new way of defining and detecting "reality" which they never use for anything else.
How do we live based on what we know is real? Well, we acknowledge and take into account the existence of waffle irons and cantaloupes and alligators and income tax and ketchup and Zanzibar and firecrackers and armadillos and teacups ... and so forth. And we acknowledge the existence of God if he ever shows up and starts acting like a real thing. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you approvingly quote someone advocating deliberate falsehood, you are approving deliberate falsehood. But, for the nth time, Plato thought that what he was saying was true. Therefore, he wasn't advocating deliberate falsehood. All he was saying was that if he was inadvertently wrong, then at least the consequences of people erroneously believing him would do more social good than harm.
Then perhaps you could point out the difference? They are both people's opinions on beings, fictional or not. If the Christian god not being on some people's lists at all does not imply he cannot be at or near the top of other people's lists, then Eusebius not being on some people's lists of Church Fathers does not imply he cannot be at or near the top of other people's lists. As I said, I didn't mean it as a strict matter of logical inference, but rather as a heuristic.
It is irrelevant whether he thought they were metaphors or straight lies, presenting metaphor as truth is a lie. If you present something you know is not literally true as being literally true, it is deception. But all metaphors are presented as being true, that's what makes them metaphors and not similes. "I wash my hands of you"; "he is a greedy pig"; "I spit on Communism"; "he's a real high flier"; "she blows hot and cold"; "you're really busting my balls" ... you see how it works? And when a Christian sings "He's got the whole world in his hands", he is neither subscribing to the Anthropomorphic Heresy nor telling a deliberate lie. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024