Originally posted by royalchickenYes, I see vicious circles on the horizon. Clever heathen😉
Yes, I know that. But surely you recognize that a faithful person does not, by the explanation you gave, count consistency of method of thought as a priority. Thus my question is simple to someone whose ovverriding test is rationality (and hence someone who cannot have total faith), but is meaningful to someone who wishes to try to admit faith and rea ...[text shortened]... ent against this attempt, so my question was really rhetorical.
~RC, blower of his own cover.
Originally posted by bbarrWell, I suppose I should explain. I guess bbarr pretty much summed it up before I even posted it. The following is an informal bit of pondering. The problem is, given a proposition with a definite, whether to decide its truth, falsity, or meaninglessness based upon reason or some other method (note that methods can be considered the same if they give the same answer in all cases. So a method is really just a function mapping the set of all propositions to which it is applicable to the set {true, false}.), of which faith could be one. So what we need is a meta-method for deciding which of the methods available to apply to each proposition.
Yes, I see vicious circles on the horizon. Clever heathen😉
Determining which method to apply to a proposition P is equivalent to checking each method and whether it is applicable to P. So determining whether a method M is applicable to P is the same as determining the truth of the proposition 'M is the proper method to apply to P'. So the meta-method is itself one of the methods (since they include all possible methods for determining truth of a proposition).
Now, there can be two kinds of meta-method. The initial problem does not state what we mean by 'a proposition is true'. It only says that a method says of a proposition whether it is true or false (or meaningless if the method does not apply). Let P, Q be propositions and let M be some method. Suppose M calls the following statements 'true':
P --> Q
P --> ~Q
P
(I say this rather than just Q ^ ~Q because I want to look at P as what M would consider and 'axiom'.) If the meta-method answers 'true' to the statement k: 'M is applicable to the above propositions', then the meta-method is a method that will admit the same form of proposition, and if we subsitute k for P and the proposition 'this meta-method is valid' for Q, we get a meta-method that says of itslef that it is not valid (also the negation of this). Call this a Type 1 method.
A Type 2 method is one which would not allow this contradiction. Type 2 methods are isomorphic to 'reason' up to selection of axioms. This means that while two different Type 2 methods may give different answers to the same proposition, this can only be because they chose different propositions to begin with.
All type 1 methods are not necessarily isomorphic up to choice of axioms (NOT axioms of choice 😛 -- nothing to do with that).
Thus a Type 2 method may affirm its own validity without simultaneously negating it.
I think that Faith is a Type 1 method, although I don't understand it well. It cannot affirm its own validity without negating it as well.
Please excuse the suckiness of this post. Just a bunch of random ideas while I work on other things. notice that from the point of view of the faithful, it does no damage. At best, it strengthens the reasoner's smug belief in his own system.
People of faith call that preaching to the choir. Yeah, I guess bbarr pretty much summed it up before I even posted it.
I'm sorely tempted to break my policy of debating religion in the public forums 🙂
But I will stand fast!
In the mean-time, just out of curiosity, why "Jezus" instead of the conventional "Jesus?" Just curious . . . I'm not out to start a holy war over how His name is spelled 🙂
While a real reply would be appreciated, a wise-guy answer would be even better!
Originally posted by mmanuelMary was a virgin when she had jesus so how is he the father. Its God
Yes Jesus Christ did exist, but he was not the son of God. He was the son of a lowly carpenter, and was somewhat of a showman. Most will disagree but how can you be the son of someone who does not exist.
I'll put my 2 cents in here 🙂 I believe a man named Jesus probably existed and through events in his life people, including him, thought him a divine being. I believe that Jesus lived in a time when people did not understand the laws of nature like we do today and man had evolved enough (NOT that I believe specifically in evolution) to start wondering who we are and where we came from and why we are here. I think all religions evolved from those 2 main points: 1) Man needed a way to understand what was not understandable to them at the time i.e. fire, earthquakes... and 2) Man needed an explanation of why we are here. So when "The walls came tumbling down" at Jericho, to man it was divine intervention from something above us because they did not understand that Jericho lies on a major fault line. I do believe that the bible is at least partly historically correct as there is evidence to this day of events and places, but I believe that the things happening that counted toward divine intervention, miracles, etc can be explained through the laws of nature and the need to have something to believe in.
I don't think religion is a bad thing even though I do not believe in God, because the love of God and the belief of love from God is very comforting. Ever notice how people draw themselves deeper into religion when tragedy strikes? It comforts people and helps them through things that they may not be able to handle otherwise. The need to believe that we are here for a reason is essential for most people because life is hell and if there is nothing to look forward to, no reason to go through what we do, what's the point? I myself, not being a believer am still struggling to come to terms with the fact that when I die, it's done, that's it, kaput.
Oh, and I also believe that drugs may have had a factor in religion, not necisarily (sp) by choice or whatever. Maybe Muhammed had a batch of mushrooms the day he had his revelations? I'm not knocking religion mind you, I'm just saying that there are a lot of explanations in my book.
I think this was a bit more than 2 cents worth...😀
Originally posted by huntingbear
I'm sorely tempted to break my policy of debating religion in the public forums 🙂
But I will stand fast!
In the mean-time, just out of curiosity, why "Jezus" instead of the conventional "Jesus?" Just curious . . . I'm not out to start a holy war over how His name is spelled 🙂
While a real reply would be appreciated, a wise-guy answer would be even better!
Huntingbear,
I spelled the name Jezus the way it is in the name of this thread because that's the way it is spelled in Dutch .... little mistakie.
You can look upon this as a natural development of the Pigeon English if you like ..... 😕
Originally posted by bbarr
That's simple, Mark. You have faith when confronted with what your reason recognizes as countervailing evidence to your religious assertions. Someone says "God loves us like a father loves his children", I point out the child in the hospital with inoperable throat cancer. Someone recognizes that, indeed, that seems like evidence against the claim that Go ...[text shortened]... is a resistance to the demands of rationality. In short, it is the pinnacle of irrationality.
Indeed this is very simple. It is a bit too simple, bbarr.
BBarr, what do you do when you are confronted with something that you cannot understand, something you cannot comprehend with the use of your logic or your way of reasoning ?
.
Originally posted by Jay PeateaIt is true.JESUS lives everywhere.Why not India?
I read a book once called "Jesus lived in india" which claimed that after the crucifiction he lived in india. Very interesting here is a link to a review of the book.
www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm
😀
There is no place where JESUS dose not live
Lyn.
Originally posted by Jay Peatea
How can you be so sure ?
What is the meaning of the book. Does the content change Christs teachings ? In what way ? The writer claims that Christ died in Cashmir. Well that's what Mr. Kersten says ... and the tricks with names are not very convincing to me .... In that way you can "prove" that Mr. Bush once was a tree. I mean in a previous life .....