Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 577 (560088)
05-13-2010 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2010 4:16 AM


Re: Eusebius
Dr Adequate writes:
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.
And for the nth time, it is irrelevant what Plato intended. It is Eusebius I am talking about, and what Eusebius intended with the quote.
His meaning in quoting Plato was to highlight the advantages of deception, unintentional or otherwise. Eusebius believed, as you claimed yourself, that the anthropomorphism of God in the Bible was not literally true and yet advocated its presentation as such. The critical distinction is that while Plato thought he was telling the truth, Eusebius did not.
Dr Adequate writes:
As I said, I didn't mean it as a strict matter of logical inference, but rather as a heuristic.
Then I believe I have adequately proved your heuristic to suck.
Dr Adequate writes:
But all metaphors are presented as being true, that's what makes them metaphors and not similes.
Again, not true. Metaphors are presented as being metaphors; this is why if the metaphor is not known to both parties as such, misunderstandings will occur.
For instance, someone who didn't know of the "busting my balls" metaphor might be rather horrified and offer to rush you to a hospital. Such misunderstandings are common for people new to a language.
In this same sense you cannot come up with your own original metaphor and expect to be understood without first explaining the metaphor to your target audience. Deliberately presenting a metaphor to an unknowing audience with the intention of it being interpreted as literally true is deception.
Dr Adequate writes:
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.
Those people singing the song presumably know it is a metaphor. Telling a child who doesn't know it is a metaphor that God holds the world in his hands, expecting the child to literally believe it, is a lie. That is what Eusebius was advocating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 4:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 5:40 AM Phage0070 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 257 of 577 (560089)
05-13-2010 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Phage0070
05-13-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Eusebius
And for the nth time, it is irrelevant what Plato intended. It is Eusebius I am talking about, and what Eusebius intended with the quote.
His meaning in quoting Plato was to highlight the advantages of deception, unintentional or otherwise.
No. What he was trying to show in the P.E. was that ideas claimed by the pagan philosophers were prefigured in the Bible and that the Jews got there first.
I would agree with anyone who said that this example was particularly unconvincing, but that is what he was trying to do.
Eusebius believed, as you claimed yourself, that the anthropomorphism of God in the Bible was not literally true and yet advocated its presentation as such.
No --- he thought that he and all his orthodox chums should go around loudly denouncing the Anthropomorphites as being wrong in thinking it to be literally true.
Then I believe I have adequately proved your heuristic to suck.
And yet it seems to work just fine in the field in which I thought it sensible to apply it, and what more can one ask of a heuristic?
Again, not true. Metaphors are presented as being metaphors ...
Well, no they're not. Very rarely does someone precede a metaphor by pointing out that it's a metaphor.
On the other hand, Eusebius did say that (what he took to be) metaphors in the Bible were metaphors, and so he was not dishonest on that account. It would have been dishonest, by your lights, if he'd believed them to be metaphors but preached Anthropomorphism.
In this same sense you cannot come up with your own original metaphor and expect to be understood without first explaining the metaphor to your target audience.
I can and I have; and I can also understand other people's metaphors without necessarily having them explained to me first.
Those people singing the song presumably know it is a metaphor. Telling a child who doesn't know it is a metaphor that God holds the world in his hands, expecting the child to literally believe it, is a lie. That is what Eusebius was advocating.
But Eusebius and his pals would in fact have been mortified if passages such as he was referring to had turned anyone into an Anthropomorphite.
Whichever way you slice it, Eusebius was not advocating plain old lying as any reasonable person would understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 4:56 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 11:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 577 (560108)
05-13-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by sac51495
05-12-2010 11:00 PM


Unsubstantiated
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".
You want me to list all the innumerable things that I think are real? That would take forever, which makes it impractical.
So it is self-evident that all things which are real are indeed reality.
Wow, did you piece that together yourself or did you employ a team of the world's greatest philosophers?
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".
You want to start naming off objects that are real? Well, being that the objects in front of me are tangible, they are therefore made of matter. Matter is an objective reality.
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?
How should we live our lives based on reality? What does that even mean? You're going to have to expound. You're talking apples and oranges right now.
quote:
All you said was "God is real."
False. I said "God is real, and all that God has created is real".
Oh, golly gosh, my bad. What's the difference? The point is that you saying that God is real doesn't make it so. You stated it as if you had something profound to say. All you've done is made an unsupported assertion
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.
Are you serious right now? This is your argument in defense of the existence of God? You aren't qualifying anything, you're just saying it.
1. No evidence that God exists.
2. No evidence that God created anything.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by sac51495, posted 05-12-2010 11:00 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by sac51495, posted 05-30-2010 12:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 577 (560109)
05-13-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by sac51495
05-12-2010 10:40 PM


Re: I
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.
Okay, you've asked the question, it's been answered. Now it is your turn. Are trees real? Provide reasons why the tree is or isn't real.
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.
Yes, everything could be an illusion. This could all be the Matrix or some demonic deception, and teapots could be orbiting the furthest star right now. The problem is there is no known verifiable way to corroborate that. All possibilities are therefore possible, even if highly improbable or implausible.
I hardly see how that then supports the notion that there is any good reason to suppose the existence of God, whatever that is.
You can rely on a nihilistic or solipsist philosophy, ascribing oneself to a nonsensical epistemology, but you will not advance your own theories by doing so. This is because the table can be turned right back around on you, which it now has.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by sac51495, posted 05-12-2010 10:40 PM sac51495 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 577 (560116)
05-13-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2010 5:40 AM


Re: Eusebius
Dr Adequate writes:
I would agree with anyone who said that this example was particularly unconvincing,
I am indeed particularly unconvinced that was his intention with that passage.
Dr Adequate writes:
And yet it seems to work just fine in the field in which I thought it sensible to apply it, and what more can one ask of a heuristic?
That it actually work in any field whatsoever? I have already already shown quotes from people who contradicted your conclusion. The heuristic boils down to a hasty generalization of *everyone*.
Dr Adequate writes:
Well, no they're not. Very rarely does someone precede a metaphor by pointing out that it's a metaphor.
Only because their audience already knows it is a metaphor. If they didn't then not prefacing it with an explanation is dishonesty.
Dr Adequate writes:
It would have been dishonest, by your lights, if he'd believed them to be metaphors but preached Anthropomorphism.
And similarly dishonest to support preaching Anthropomorphism "as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment."
Dr Adequate writes:
I can and I have; and I can also understand other people's metaphors without necessarily having them explained to me first.
Those metaphors were likely presented such that the intention was already made clear, and that literal interpretation would have been nonsensical. The focus is on the intent actually getting through to the target, not to the particular words used. A metaphor becomes a lie when the speaker intends the target to believe it as literally true.
If I say "this cake is delicious, you should try it" and instead mean it as a metaphor for "the cake is poisoned, it will kill you", then I am responsible for using it in situations where would be interpreted literally. Likewise if anyone uses a metaphor with the expectation of it being misinterpreted they are lying, and Eusebius's support of that is advocation of lying.
Dr Adequate writes:
But Eusebius and his pals would in fact have been mortified if passages such as he was referring to had turned anyone into an Anthropomorphite.
Thats not the point! Eusebius being against anthropomorphism is irrelevant; his support of something he believed to be false as instruction for those who needed it is my point.
Dr Adequate writes:
Whichever way you slice it, Eusebius was not advocating plain old lying as any reasonable person would understand it.
He was advocating other people telling falsehoods. How else would a reasonable person understand it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 5:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 2:28 PM Phage0070 has replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 261 of 577 (560118)
05-13-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by dwise1
05-11-2010 8:38 PM


Re: I
dwise1,
I'll respond to the rest of your message later, but for now, I had to respond to this part.
True story: a world-famous atheist visited a school in Sweden which has a state religion. He asked the schoolchildren what the purpose of life was: "To go to Heaven." When will that happen? "When we die." He didn't have the heart to ask the next question, which would be why they are still here. Wouldn't they all want to kill themselves immediately in order to go to Heaven? What are they waiting for?
Sounds like a great argument, that is until you realize the execrableness of the children's theology. They gave utterly wrong and non-biblical answers to both questions.
With regards to the first question, the purpose of life is not to go to heaven. The purpose of life is to give glory to God in all that we say and do ("Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." I Cor. 10:31). This theme is very recurrent throughout the Bible.
Their answer to the second question is bad too. This is because they do not say how we get to heaven. We do not get to heaven by dying. The only way to get to heaven is through Jesus Christ (I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6) Not everyone goes to Heaven. Only those who have been born again through Jesus Christ can reach the Father. And in this hope (that they will one day see the Father), they can then glory. Heaven is not reached via death. We will die physically before we go to Heaven, but this certainly doesn't mean that that is how we go to Heaven. To kill oneself would be an abomination to God. Thus, we do not see death as our way of getting to Heaven, because indeed, not all people that die go to Heaven.
True story? Maybe so. But the beliefs - however execrable they may be - of one "Christian" do not define the beliefs of all other Christians. If you want to know what I believe, ask me. Don't quote even the greatest Christian leader's in history, and then use their beliefs as a label for what I believe (this of course does not include Jesus, or any Scripture inspired by God).
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by dwise1, posted 05-11-2010 8:38 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by dwise1, posted 05-13-2010 12:09 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 263 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-13-2010 12:20 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 2:52 PM sac51495 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 262 of 577 (560121)
05-13-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by sac51495
05-13-2010 11:47 AM


Re: I
Now let's put that back into context, shall we?
sac writes:
What is bad for the species? In natural selection, death is sometimes a good thing, because it destroys the inferior species. Wouldn't it be awful if nothing died, because then the earth would overpopulated, and all of the inferior species would never die out. Natural selection makes death out to be a natural occurrence that can have good consequences.
True story: a world-famous atheist visited a school in Sweden which has a state religion. He asked the schoolchildren what the purpose of life was: "To go to Heaven." When will that happen? "When we die." He didn't have the heart to ask the next question, which would be why they are still here. Wouldn't they all want to kill themselves immediately in order to go to Heaven? What are they waiting for?
Please learn something about evolution so that you could at least say something intelligent about it.
All I was doing was the exact same thing you had done. Of course there are problems with that true story. Just as there are serious problems with what you had written.
Your problems stem mainly (I would hope) from your ignorance of evolution and how it works. Which is why I ended with Please learn something about evolution so that you could at least say something intelligent about it."
BTW, that story is true; I did not make up a single bit of it. And it does illustrate the odd things that children are taught without considering the consequences. Such as teaching them that they can do anything they want without guilt if they don't believe in God. I have already shared the testimony of one such child.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by sac51495, posted 05-13-2010 11:47 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by sac51495, posted 05-30-2010 1:00 PM dwise1 has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 577 (560123)
05-13-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by sac51495
05-13-2010 11:47 AM


Re: I
With regards to the first question, the purpose of life is not to go to heaven. The purpose of life is to give glory to God in all that we say and do
So God created us with the expressed purpose of having us dote on him all day long? Do perfect beings regularly need to create other beings to satisfy their ego?
And what about the other millions of species of animals on the planet? What is their purpose in life?
Their answer to the second question is bad too. This is because they do not say how we get to heaven. We do not get to heaven by dying. The only way to get to heaven is through Jesus Christ
It was a summary, as in, a brief description.
To kill oneself would be an abomination to God.
How would you know that is the reality of the situation?
Note: I'm not talking about you regurgitating scripture. I'm asking how you would know that what scripture says is accurate.
Don't quote even the greatest Christian leader's in history, and then use their beliefs as a label for what I believe (this of course does not include Jesus, or any Scripture inspired by God).
Of course not, that would just make way too much sense.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by sac51495, posted 05-13-2010 11:47 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by sac51495, posted 05-30-2010 1:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 264 of 577 (560148)
05-13-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Phage0070
05-13-2010 11:25 AM


Re: Eusebius
If you want to talk smack about Eusebius, I believe that there is already another thread where we were discussing it.
Since the OP has come back on topic, I suggest that you meet me on that thread.
But I have little patience with you. Our presuppositionalist apologist sac51495 is being more reasonable than you are. Still, if you want to talk gibberish, I could always do with a good laugh.
Otherwise, c'mon, you were wrong. You read a few quotes out of context, and you were supplied with a false and deceptive context that made you think that Eusebius was advocating lying. You were wrong.
I will laugh at you further on this point, but not on this thread.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 11:25 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 4:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 265 of 577 (560152)
05-13-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by sac51495
05-13-2010 11:47 AM


LET ME ASK THIS ONE QUESTION AGAIN
If you want to know what I believe, ask me. Don't quote even the greatest Christian leader's in history
Well, let me ask this question one more time.
What makes you think that you are the one-in-a-million theist who has got it right?
You Christians all disagree completely with one another, such that you beg us not to look at the opinions of "the greatest Christian leaders in history". Apparently they are nothing compared to you.
But why should I believe that they are nothing compared to you? Why should you believe that they are nothing compared to you?
It seems that you just want us to take you as our own personal guru in the same way that you take yourself as your own personal guru. But you have given no reason why we or you should.
Or to put it another way, you have appointed yourself the voice of God. But without giving us any reason why we should believe that you are the voice of God. Without giving yourself any reason why you should believe that you are the voice of God.
Well, I guess that's the beauty of presuppositionalism.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by sac51495, posted 05-13-2010 11:47 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by sac51495, posted 06-04-2010 10:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 577 (560177)
05-13-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2010 2:28 PM


Re: Eusebius
Dr Adequate writes:
Our presuppositionalist apologist sac51495 is being more reasonable than you are.
These are strong words for someone supporting hasty generalization as a valid "heuristic". Or for someone who won't admit that metaphors require mutual understanding.
Dr Adequate writes:
Still, if you want to talk gibberish, I could always do with a good laugh. ... I will laugh at you further on this point, but not on this thread.
Or for someone who uses the fallacy of "Appeal to Ridicule" while simultaneously fleeing to some unknown thread.
It appears that you have run out of reasonable debate material and are reduced to mudslinging, so I am going to call it here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 2:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 6:29 PM Phage0070 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 267 of 577 (560195)
05-13-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Phage0070
05-13-2010 4:58 PM


Re: Eusebius
These are strong words for someone supporting hasty generalization as a valid "heuristic". Or for someone who won't admit that metaphors require mutual understanding.
If you have a point, this would be a great time to make it.
Or for someone who uses the fallacy of "Appeal to Ridicule" while simultaneously fleeing to some unknown thread.
Perhaps you are ashamed to debate, or perhaps you are too inept with the forum software to discover this thread, in which we discuss the integrity or otherwise of Eusebius.
Either way, I shall be happy to debate that topic with you on that thread. But I don't see why we should derail this one further, especially since the topic of this thread interests me whereas you are boring me.
It appears that you have run out of reasonable debate material and are reduced to mudslinging, so I am going to call it here.
Is "call it here" American English for "tacitly admit defeat"?
Sure, you can do that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 4:58 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 8:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 577 (560228)
05-13-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2010 6:29 PM


Re: Eusebius
Dr Adequate writes:
Is "call it here" American English for "tacitly admit defeat"?
This seems right in line with your stance on metaphoric interpretation. I'll assume you meant it as an unspecified metaphor for "I have nothing useful to add to the conversation."
You also appear to have stopped replying to those debating you in that other thread, and you haven't opened up any new avenues of conversation other than "neener neener" so I see little point in resurrecting that thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 6:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2010 12:34 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 269 of 577 (560265)
05-14-2010 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Phage0070
05-13-2010 8:55 PM


Re: Eusebius
This seems right in line with your stance on metaphoric interpretation. I'll assume you meant it as an unspecified metaphor for "I have nothing useful to add to the conversation."
You also appear to have stopped replying to those debating you in that other thread, and you haven't opened up any new avenues of conversation other than "neener neener" so I see little point in resurrecting that thread.
If you really don't want to debate my position, then this is a fact that you could communicate best through silence.
If you do want to argue with me, then I have directed you to a thread where this subject is on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 8:55 PM Phage0070 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 270 of 577 (561378)
05-20-2010 7:26 AM


.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024