Go back
Holy spirit

Holy spirit

Spirituality

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
02 Mar 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Of course you can.

Some of the crowd is sitting behind the backboard, and their angle of view is obstructed. Some of the crowd is distracted and not really paying attention.

Or perhaps the crowd are all just minds in a simulation - and there is no real dunk, but only the requisite audio and optical signals sent to the brains to simulate a dunk. There is no real stadium, but only the simulated sensations of sitting on bleachers, etc.
Ouch.

AH

Joined
26 May 08
Moves
2120
Clock
02 Mar 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I don’t understand what you mean; in what sense has it “yet to fail”?
I mean, “yet to fail” in doing what? -proving that there is a god? (it has “failed” there)

The Bible doesn’t attempt to prove the existence of God; it begins with the assumption of the same. Only in man’s more recent history did the wisps of doubt enter into the conversation. ...[text shortened]... DON’T understand about “Gods” knowledge (which must be all of it even if “he” exists)?[/b]
Huh?[/b]
….The Bible hasn’t failed in the sense that despite some people’s intense desire to expose its supposed failure on the grounds of reliability, said desires have gone unsatisfied.
..…


I am strangely unaware of this particular “intense desire” you speak of -I don’t think I have never seen it.
-and “failure on the grounds of reliability” of what?
-I am not sure exactly what you are referring to here;

People often question the literal interpretations of the Bible and correctly point out that those literal interpretations can often be scientifically proven wrong (such as the literal interpretation of the Bible of the age of the Earth etc) -is that what you are referring to here?

Other people often question the most fundamental assumptions of the Bible (such as there is a god etc) and, as you have already said, the Bible doesn’t even attempt to prove the existence of a god etc so I don’t see how these assumptions could have been shown to be “reliable“ by the Bible -is that what you are referring to here?

If neither of the above, then “failure on the grounds of reliability” of what? -I mean, exactly what ‘aspect’ of the Bible these people with this “intense desire” you speak of are trying to show is unreliable? -and why!?

….Without referring to quotes in the Bible (to avoid making a circular argument for a premise), in what way is it a “RATIONAL explanation for THINGS” that there is only one god? Which particular kind of “THINGS” are you referring to?
Life in general.
..…


that’s pretty vague.

j

Joined
02 Aug 06
Moves
12622
Clock
03 Mar 09
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….The Bible hasn’t failed in the sense that despite some people’s intense desire to expose its supposed failure on the grounds of reliability, said desires have gone unsatisfied.
..…


I am strangely unaware of this particular “intense desire” you speak of -I don’t think I have never seen it.
-and “failure on the grounds of reliability” o ...[text shortened]... lar kind of “THINGS” are you referring to?
Life in general.
..…[/b]

that’s pretty vague.[/b]
================================
People often question the literal interpretations of the Bible and correctly point out that those literal interpretations can often be scientifically proven wrong (such as the literal interpretation of the Bible of the age of the Earth etc) -is that what you are referring to here?
====================================


It is not quite that simple in this case. First we have to ask if the biblical interpretation is a good one? Does the Bible give the age of the earth?

Maybe the scientific objection is opposed to an inferior interpretation of the Bible which is not good. Just because Usher centries ago supposedly calculated that age of the earth from Genesis and put that forth as a literal interpretation doesn't mean that it is the most valid.

How many wise men came to visit the baby Jesus? A lot of people would say "Well THREE of course."

Is this a good literal interpretation of the Bible? Not really. What was WRITTEN was that plural wise men came. That could be two or more. Right?

It does say that plural wise men brought THREE gifts. Could two wise men bring three gifts? Yes. Could 20 wise men bring three gifts? Yes also.

So is the interpretation that three wise men came to visit the baby Jesus the best interpretation of Bible in that passage? I think there is a better interpretation. That is some unkown number of wise men came bearing three gifts.

It is similar with the AGE of the earth. I don't think it can be calculated by anything in the Bible.

Is the interpretation of the Bible the best one. That is all I am saying that some of us also consider.

twhitehead

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
Clock
03 Mar 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by jaywill
Is the interpretation of the Bible the best one. That is all I am saying that some of us also consider.
My concern is that the interpretation of the Bible is almost always readjusted to suit the known facts that the interpreter wishes it to fit and the theology etc he is pushing. The problem with this form of interpretation is that it is subject to extreme change and really has very little to do with the content of the original document.
It is a fact that the Bible contains errors that nearly any reasonable person would admit are errors, but then many theists are far from reasonable when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

Another interesting factor is that some people claim that God assists with the interpretation.

vistesd

Hmmm . . .

Joined
19 Jan 04
Moves
22131
Clock
03 Mar 09
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have explained several times why I do not see why.
Hi Conrau,

Assuming that free will entails the ability to choose, and act on that choice, then it’s a logical contradiction:

(1) God infallibly knows that I will choose X.

(2) Nevertheless, I choose ~X


There are no conditions under which I am “free” to choose ~X without violating the infallibility condition in (1).

It is not a matter of knowledge constituting determining agency; it is just that, despite the illusion that might come from whatever my internal deliberations may be, I am logically foreclosed from choosing anything but X as long as God’s knowing is infallible. It not about denying “free will”; it is about making a dual claim that renders any notion of effective “free will” meaningless.

Again, it’s not about determination; it’s about making logically nonsensical claims. It could be set up as a contradiction of modus ponens (I just cut it short), i.e. “If p, then q; p; therefore ~q!?”.

R
Standard memberRemoved

Joined
15 Sep 04
Moves
7051
Clock
03 Mar 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi Conrau,

Assuming that free will entails the ability to choose, and act on that choice, then it’s a logical contradiction:

(1) God infallibly knows that I will choose X.

(2) Nevertheless, I choose ~X


There are no conditions under which I am “free” to choose ~X without violating the infallibility condition in (1).

It is not a mat ...[text shortened]... adiction of modus ponens (I just cut it short), i.e. “If p, then q; p; therefore ~q!?”.
I do not see how God's knowledge creates this logical contradiction. Essentially, you posit 1: I will choose X; 2. I will choose ~X. The basic contradiction is not made by God's knowledge. It exists in the formulation of the problem. If we first posit that I will choose X, whether God knows that or not, we cannot contemplate the possibility of choosing ~X.

twhitehead

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
Clock
03 Mar 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not see how God's knowledge creates this logical contradiction. Essentially, you posit 1: I will choose X; 2. I will choose ~X. The basic contradiction is not made by God's knowledge. It exists in the formulation of the problem. If we first posit that I will choose X, whether God knows that or not, we cannot contemplate the possibility of choosing ~X.
I think it comes down to whether or not we can consider the future to be fixed or whether there are in fact multiple futures and the exact future we will find our selves in is yet to be determined. Gods foreknowledge tells us that there is only one future and it is fixed.

vistesd

Hmmm . . .

Joined
19 Jan 04
Moves
22131
Clock
03 Mar 09
3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not see how God's knowledge creates this logical contradiction. Essentially, you posit 1: I will choose X; 2. I will choose ~X. The basic contradiction is not made by God's knowledge. It exists in the formulation of the problem. If we first posit that I will choose X, whether God knows that or not, we cannot contemplate the possibility of choosing ~X.
It exists in the formulation of the problem.

Exactly. That’s why it’s a logical contradiction.

If we first posit that I will choose X, whether God knows that or not, we cannot contemplate the possibility of choosing ~X.

Actually it doesn’t matter. If your first posit (premise) is—

(1) I will choose X.

—then you have logically foreclosed the possibility that I might choose ~X by your premise, or else there will again be a logical contradiction (regardless of what God knows or does not know).

To say--

(1) I will choose X; therefore

(2) God infallibly knows that I will choose X.

--is a redundant statement. It says absolutely nothing other than to make the claim of God's infallible knowledge. As a redundancy, it is not logically contradictory, but it says nothing at all about whether or not God's infallible knowledge is logically compatible with my ability to freely choose.

The following is a valid deductive inference:


(1) God infallibly knows that I will choose X; therefore

(2) I will choose X.


Or, in longer form:


(1) If God infallibly knows that I will choose X,

(2) Then I will choose X;

(3) God infallibly knows that I will choose X [premise (1)];

(4) Therefore, I will choose X.


Again, none of this has anything to do with knowledge as a determining agency. It is simply logically contradictory to say that God infallibly knows what I will choose, and at the same time to say that I am (freely) able to choose something else. It doesn’t depend upon circumstances; it doesn’t depend upon my deliberations, or how I go about that; it does not depend upon cause and effect—it is strictly analytical, strictly a matter of valid or invalid deductive logic.

The following is also a valid deductive inference:


(1) If horses can fly, then

(2) Gertrude is the king of England.


(3) Horses can fly [premise (1)];

(4) Therefore, Gertrude is the king of England.



If one concludes in (4) that “Therefore Gertrude is not the king of England”, then there is a contradiction and it is not a valid logical inference.

I used this silly example just to stress that logical validity (non-contradictoriness) has nothing to do with such real-world things as “determining agency”.

AH

Joined
26 May 08
Moves
2120
Clock
03 Mar 09
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
People often question the literal interpretations of the Bible and correctly point out that those literal interpretations can often be scientifically proven wrong (such as the literal interpretation of the Bible of the age of the Earth etc) -is that what you are referring to here?
============================== rpretation of the Bible the best one. That is all I am saying that some of us also consider.
….It is similar with the AGE of the earth. I don't think it can be calculated by anything in the Bible.
..…[/b]

The problem I see here is that many Christians seem to think the Bible CAN give the age of the Earth etc and so would disagree with you here.

vistesd

Hmmm . . .

Joined
19 Jan 04
Moves
22131
Clock
04 Mar 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think it comes down to whether or not we can consider the future to be fixed or whether there are in fact multiple futures and the exact future we will find our selves in is yet to be determined. Gods foreknowledge tells us that there is only one future and it is fixed.
Ah, I missed this when I posted. I might say that, if there are multiple futures, then, in any future for which God has infallible knowledge of outcomes, those outcomes must come to pass—or else God’s knowledge was not infallible.

When one throws in the phrase “free will”, I suspect that the issue becomes confused because “deliberated” outcomes are treated as less a foregone conclusion than “non-deliberated” outcomes. If God know infallibly that a certain tree will fall in a certain forest, does anyone question the “freedom” of the outcome?

twhitehead

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
Clock
04 Mar 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by vistesd
When one throws in the phrase “free will”, I suspect that the issue becomes confused because “deliberated” outcomes are treated as less a foregone conclusion than “non-deliberated” outcomes. If God know infallibly that a certain tree will fall in a certain forest, does anyone question the “freedom” of the outcome?
I would. For me it is a question of how the universe works. Are events in the universe entirely deterministic (and thus result in only one possible future for a given starting condition) or are there random or external inputs that affect the universe.
The other, much harder to tackle issue, is whether or not we can consider the future to exist (or the past for that matter).

I think we all struggle with the question of what it really means to say I might do X or I might do ~X tomorrow. Clearly you will only do X or ~X so what does it mean to say that the option of ~(whatever you do) is still available?

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
04 Mar 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
….The Bible hasn’t failed in the sense that despite some people’s intense desire to expose its supposed failure on the grounds of reliability, said desires have gone unsatisfied.
..…


I am strangely unaware of this particular “intense desire” you speak of -I don’t think I have never seen it.
-and “failure on the grounds of reliability” of w ...[text shortened]... lar kind of “THINGS” are you referring to?
Life in general.
..…[/b]

that’s pretty vague.[/b]
I am strangely unaware of this particular “intense desire” you speak of -I don’t think I have never seen it.
That's the funny thing about desire: it can't really be seen, per se, and yet it is often times blatantly obvious. At other times, it can remain more subtle. Whether overt or latent, while desire isn't a tangible substance, it is what drives people's action.

Speaking of people's action, Voltaire comes to mind. Consider his actions and you will be introduced to one such person with an intense desire to see the Bible removed from the face of the globe. Then, you will be strangely aware of one of many people who have undertaken this dubious agenda.

-and “failure on the grounds of reliability” of what?
Reliability of its message; that it can be a trusted source of knowledge about the things of which it speaks.

People often question the literal interpretations of the Bible and correctly point out that those literal interpretations can often be scientifically proven wrong (such as the literal interpretation of the Bible of the age of the Earth etc) -is that what you are referring to here?
No.

As jaywill pointed out, the Bible does not have any comment about the age of the earth in relation to the present time.

that’s pretty vague.
So is this conversation.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
04 Mar 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi Conrau,

Assuming that free will entails the ability to choose, and act on that choice, then it’s a logical contradiction:

(1) God infallibly knows that I will choose X.

(2) Nevertheless, I choose ~X


There are no conditions under which I am “free” to choose ~X without violating the infallibility condition in (1).

It is not a mat ...[text shortened]... adiction of modus ponens (I just cut it short), i.e. “If p, then q; p; therefore ~q!?”.
There exists no logical contradiction between knowledge and action, as they are neither from the same group or in opposition.

Your formula does not depend upon (1) in any meaningful way to conclude that contradiction occurs. If it did, then anyone's] knowledge of past action would have the same affect... which it doesn't.

Action already commited would have the same impact on (2) as (1), thus rendering past action determined and therefore, not free. We know this is not the case.

That God knows the future as clearly as the past does not have any impact on the freedom of our actions. Understanding (or, better: a closer approximation to understanding) the nature of God's complete and total knowledge may have an impact on our future actions, but it remains our free will to make such determinations on our own.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
04 Mar 09
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by vistesd
It exists in the formulation of the problem.

Exactly. That’s why it’s a logical contradiction.

If we first posit that I will choose X, whether God knows that or not, we cannot contemplate the possibility of choosing ~X.

Actually it doesn’t matter. If your first posit (premise) is—

(1) I will choose X.

—then you have log (non-contradictoriness) has nothing to do with such real-world things as “determining agency”.[/b]
Your second example using Gertrude and flying horses shows the shortcoming in the claim for contradiction in the first formula.

The Gertrude premise is a conditional, relying on the actuality of the existence of flying horses in order for Gertrude to ascend to the throne. There exists no relation between the two, of course. Just because flying horses exist, why would this lead to Gertrude (of all people) donning the crown?

But prior to that tangle, is the issue of flying horses... and, more specifically, the actuality of their existence being the contingency of Gertrude's new-found kingdom.

My action is not contingent upon God's infallible knowledge about the future. God's knowledge of the future is completely independent of anyone's action or inaction. It just is.

j

Joined
02 Aug 06
Moves
12622
Clock
04 Mar 09
3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
….It is similar with the AGE of the earth. I don't think it can be calculated by anything in the Bible.
..…


The problem I see here is that many Christians seem to think the Bible CAN give the age of the Earth etc and so would disagree with you here.[/b]
========================================
The problem I see here is that many Christians seem to think the Bible CAN give the age of the Earth etc and so would disagree with you here.
===========================================


That is true.

You gain an interest in the Bible. You realize that various opinions are given on various subjects. You study and decide which sounds the more reasonable. You adopt that as your personal view and love other people who see things differently.

My reasons for believing that the age of the universe in the Bible older than what YEC propose are primarily theological.

A catastrophic past from which this present world took shape, by God's gracious activity, seems to be the better interpretation.

Sometime between the beginning of the universe and the seven days of Genesis chapter 1, there is a unspecified interval of time. Other matters related elsewhere in the Bible shed some light on that interval of time.

I don't know how long ago "the beginning" was in Genesis 1:1.

Intervals and gaps of chronological time are employed elsewhere in Scripture. God's accounting of time is not always like our accounting of time.

He accounts time according to His priorities and His purpose. If He chooses to leave something OUT (or to give only scant details) of His accounting of history He has a good reason for doing so.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.