15 Jul 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerOriginally posted by dj2becker
Is that so? Wow.
How is my faith different from yours?
[b]yes, i realize that this is what you are programmed to believe without evidence
I am afaid we have evidence. (Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.)
but have you ever actually asked yourself if it makes any sense?
I understand that it will not make much sense if a person is blinded by sin.
assuming god's existence, have you ever asked yourself if god even deserves your praise and worship?
Go figure. Once you have received such a great gift of salvation it comes automatically.
is god justified in sentencing someone to eternal torture? if so, please explain why.
Sure. Anyone who refuses to receive such a great gift of salvation sure deserves it. Remember God is a God of mercy and love. Now is the time of salvation. If you refuse to accept it now the time will run out. God is also a Holy God. He cannot stand sin. That is why we shall be judged and punnished for sin, if we refuse to turn away from it. But ultimately its still up to the individual.
what would eternal life with god entail anyway?
Something more spectacular than the human mind can ever imagine. If you want just a glimpse you can read the book of Revelation, I would also recommend that you read 'Visions of Heaven and Hell', written by John Bunyan.
have you ever thought that maybe possibly man's belief in god stems from his own self interest and the need to entertain egoism with hope of eternal reward? that eternal reward business sure does make the medicine go down more easily.
Mans belief in God stems from Revelation. God promises in His word that he that seeks Him with all his heart shall find Him. If you don't wan't to believe in God in the first place you won't find Him. You won't find Him for the same reason that a criminal doesn't run into a policeman.[/b]
If you cannot understand what you have posted, I don't believe I'll be capable of explaining it to you.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by bbarrI guess you they are not strictly called empiricists then.
Wow, what a crazy view. That certainly isn't what most epistemologists who categorize themselves as empiricists believe.
I just checked my understanding against a dictionary and got this:
em·pir·i·cism
noun
1. philosophy philosophical belief regarding sense-derived knowledge: the philosophical belief that all knowledge is derived from the experience of the senses
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
I think it's a fairly standard definition - nothing crazy about it. Did I misspell something? It's been known to happen.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloman's intellect cannot process the supernatural.
[b]But I believe a supernatural being is only knowable if the supernatural being makes itself known.
man's intellect cannot process the supernatural. therefore, if something is made 'known' to you, then that something consists of the natural, not the supernatural. thus, any coherent revelation from a supernatural being comes packaged to you in ...[text shortened]... e about the natural world through special supernatural goggles isn't going to work either. [/b]
The intellect processes thoughts and emotions. Some of the content of thoughts are knowledge. Example: Christ's died to redeem sinners to his father is a supernatural thought. This is a supernatural (spiritual) truth. There is nothing inherently ineffable about supernatural propositions that make them unknowable or unexpressible. All the basic propositions from the Bible are simple thoughts that we share with God when we understand and believe them. So I have to reject your first premise that "man's intellect cannot process the supernatural" as simply false.
thus, any coherent revelation from a supernatural being comes packaged to you in wholly natural form.
I'm not sure what you mean by this one. When I use the term natural, I generally mean empirical - observation, using physical senses - things we physically experience. But knowledge is not physical, so you can not touch or feel a proposition. You can formulate propositions regarding your observations - but the thoughts themselves are intellectual. So are the spiritual (supernatural) proportions of the Bible.
I'd like to also note that when the Bible uses the term spiritual - you can usually read it as intellectual. The Bible does not use the term Spirit or spiritual to describe something mystical and ineffable - but rather they are intelligible and effable ideas (usually related to God or the gospel).
if all you have to go on is the natural, then how are you justified in asserting that it comes from a supernatural being?
It would be easier if I knew more clearly what you mean by natural and supernatural. And secondly - what are the natural forms and how do we come to know them. Your definition of supernatural seems to entail things beyond intellect - but that is not the how the Bible views it, quite the contrary.
this is one reason why i sincerely hope your world view is wrong. if god is omniscient; and if revelation from god is necessary for being saved; and if such revelation is nothing more than a gift handed out at god's sole discretion; then it follows that god knows in advance the fate of each person, and that each person who suffers everlasting torment in hell does so by god's will alone.
Yes God knows all things - and he has preordained all things that happen. So no person comes to him or turns away from him in violation of God's will. God has preordained who will be saved and who will be damned.
thus your god is callous and not all that likeable.
There are things that I don't like about God. There are things that I find upsetting and disturbing - some things that even scare me. But this is not a popularity contest - and no where does the Bible say that God's purpose is to make me happy. As a matter of fact - if I were to make up a God - he would be more appealing and entertaining. But the Bible gives a God that we are to fear as well as love. He is not Mr Rodgers, or Barney. God is not our buddy.
I don't really understand hell. God is an eternal being. And clearly God created time or there would be no "in the beginning." God existed before time. This means eternity can not be measured by time - there are no time units to eternity. And eternity can not mean infinite time - time has a beginning and ending, but eternity does not. So if hell is eternal punishment - it does not mean the same things as being torture for a long long time. As far as I can tell, we will not experience time as we know it in eternity - in heaven or in hell. This is something I struggle with and maybe I am rationalizing in order to make the idea of hell seem more palatable. Hells going to be a terrible place and that's really all we can say.
doesn't this cause some inconsistencies within your world view, given that your world view also holds that god is love and that god values life and that god loves each and every one of us?
It would be a contradiction if that were my view. But I have never said that God loves each and everyone of us. He commands us to love each other and love him. No matter how it makes us feel, there is no reason to assume he is under any obligation to love us.
Although I don't like the idea that God has ordained some to go to hell, it is an inescapable logical conclusion. Many Christians reject this idea - and insist that God loves each and every one of us. So my belief is offensive even to other Christians. But it is the most intellectually honest one I can take - and I would not deny it.
And yet despite these things that I find unpleasant - that God is not all warm and fuzzy - that he can be angry and harsh - it is almost a technicality practically speaking. It does not change in any way the basics that all Christians agree with - that is that God has given us two basic commands: 1) to worship him with all our being, 2) to love each other. On a day-to-day basis, we are command to care for each other, even our enemies. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves (meaning we are not to neglect them and see that they are not wanting, and we are to share the gospel).
Also, although my beliefs includes a rejection of free will - I believe God uses "ordinary means" to obtain his will. In other words, although it is God alone who saves, God still uses our actions and efforts to spread the knowledge of the gospel. And God tells us that we can only see evidence of our salvation (that we really believe the gospel and are saved) by our fruits (good works). So practicilly speaking - I still need to live a life that is pleasing to God - not because it will save me, but because God commands it.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by ColettiIf the mind is a blank slate at birth, then how does the imput of the senses get organized into concepts? At a minimum, there must be a cognitive architecture sufficient for concept formation based on imput to the sensorium, and that entails that the mind is not a blank slate.
I guess you they are not strictly called empiricists then.
I just checked my understanding against a dictionary and got this:[quote]em·pir·i·cism
noun
1. philosophy philosophical belief regarding sense-derived knowledge: the philosophical belief that all knowledge is derived from the experience of the senses
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2 ...[text shortened]... rd definition - nothing crazy about it. Did I misspell something? It's been known to happen.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by bbarrbut Saint Locke said the mind is a blank slate, or tabula rasa; are you suggesting he was wrong, Most Holy?
If the mind is a blank slate at birth, then how does the imput of the senses get organized into concepts? At a minimum, there must be a cognitive architecture sufficient for concept formation based on imput to the sensorium, and that entails that the mind is not a blank slate.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrLocke said a lot of things that were wrong, but I doubt he thought that concepts could be formed purely on the basis of sensory imput. Sensory imput occurs to minds that have a cognitive architecture, and this architecture will determine the manner in which concepts are formed, and hence the manner in which we come to form representations of the world (and, hence, beliefs about the world that can be true or false).
but Saint Locke said the mind is a blank slate, or tabula rasa; are you suggesting he was wrong, Most Holy?
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by bbarrWas Locke a Social Constructivist?
Locke said a lot of things that were wrong, but I doubt he thought that concepts could be formed purely on the basis of sensory imput. Sensory imput occurs to minds that have a cognitive architecture, and this architecture will determine the manner in which concepts are formed, and hence the manner in which we come to form representations of the world (and, hence, beliefs about the world that can be true or false).
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrI'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this term. Locke was a Social Contract theorist about many of our rights, but he thought that certain fundamental rights were granted to us by God. He was a representational realist about perception. He could be called a constructivist about the secondary qualities of matter (e.g., color, sound, heat, etc., as experienced by humans).
Was Locke a Social Constructivist?
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by bbarrPerhaps this term that is ubiquitous in sociology and certain fields of the humanities has not worked its way into philosophy. One of the key foundational texts of social constructivism is Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, Tjhe Social Construction of Reality, which was published in paperback about 1964 or 1965, although I see that Barnes and Noble is selling an edition with a 1972 copyright: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=rs2ca1gBcH&isbn=0385058985&itm=1
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this term. Locke was a Social Contract theorist about many of our rights, but he thought that certain fundamental rights were granted to us by God. He was a representational realist about perception. He could be called a constructivist about the secondary qualities of matter (e.g., color, sound, heat, etc., as experienced by humans).
Berger's The Sacred Canopy examines the rise of theism from the perspective of their theory.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrThanks for the reference, I'll have a look.
Perhaps this term that is ubiquitous in sociology and certain fields of the humanities has not worked its way into philosophy. One of the key foundational texts of social constructivism is Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, Tjhe Social Construction of Reality, which was published in paperback about 1964 or 1965, although I see that Barnes and Noble is ...[text shortened]... er's The Sacred Canopy examines the rise of theism from the perspective of their theory.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI am afaid we have evidence. (Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.)
yes, i realize that this is what you are programmed to believe without evidence
I am afaid we have evidence. (Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.)
but have you ever actually asked yourself if it makes any sense?
I understand that it will not make much sense if a person is blinde ...[text shortened]... . You won't find Him for the same reason that a criminal doesn't run into a policeman.
[/b]
by evidence i am referring to some logical and coherent argument which demonstrates that it is likely that god exists or at least that you are rationally justified in your theistic beliefs. if all you have to go on for evidence is words in a book, then you have not provided sufficient evidence and, as such, your belief in god is arbitrary. if you would like to present an argument designed to demonstrate the existence of god, i am not only willing but eager to hear one. what is your first premise?
I am afaid we have evidence
with evidence as feeble as that, i would be afraid too.
Once you have received such a great gift of salvation it comes automatically
presumably, if salvation is a 'gift', then i should certainly be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks' without the risk of being tossed in the fires of hell. so what about it? if i tell god to take his gift and shove it, is there any possible chance for me to avoid eternal torture? the concept of 'gift' you are employing here is warped.
Sure. Anyone who refuses to receive such a great gift of salvation sure deserves (eternal torture).
you are really good at stating this without any supporting evidence. please provide an argument which demonstrates that one can be deserving of eternal torture. what is your first premise?
(Eternal life with god is) Something more spectacular than the human mind can ever imagine
again, you are really good at making unsupported claims. i suppose it is too much to ask you to provide your support for this claim. remember: simply quoting the bible is going to get you nowhere. you must be able to support your premises. if you cannot, then you need to acquaint yourself with the idea that your beliefs are unfounded and arbitrary.
how can you prove to me that your belief in an eternal afterlife that is 'more spectacular than you can imagine' is anything more than just a man-made fabrication to appease the ego?
If you don't wan't to believe in God in the first place you won't find Him
the god that you believe in may simply be nothing more than a figment of your (or probably someone else's) fertile imagination. go ahead and present your evidence for god's existence and demonstrate that it is sufficiently likely that god exists. it won't mean that we have found him necessarily, but at least then we'll know we are justified in looking for him.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloDamn fine post.
[b]I am afaid we have evidence. (Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.)
by evidence i am referring to some logical and coherent argument which demonstrates that it is likely that god exists or at least that you are rationally justified in your theistic beliefs. if all you have to go on for ev ...[text shortened]... ve found him necessarily, but at least then we'll know we are justified in looking for him.
[/b]
16 Jul 05
3 edits
Coletti: Because the axiom of the Bible as the true revelation of God to man leads to a worldview that is comprehensive and non-contradictory - explaining all things I observe regarding the nature of man, about knowledge, and my relationship to God - and as far as I can tell, no other worldview can say the same. (I took this quote from the “If Jesus came back…” thread, because it is concise and, I think, encapsulates the points you made in your response to my question.)
With reference to a system that is a) supernaturally theistic, and b) based axiomatically on some source of divine revelation (e.g., your “presuppositionalist”articulation of the Christian Worldview (CWV)), the following related thoughts:
1. A false premise—in this case the presuppositional axiom of Biblical revelation, if that turned out to be false—can lead to false conclusions within an otherwise non-contradictory propositional system, e.g. a valid inference. (I know I’m repeating the obvious here.)
2. The system must not lead to any demonstrably unreasonable or false conclusions; if it does, it needs either revision or rejection. The key word here is “demonstrably;” we see this in various “science versus revelation” debates, when the participants cannot agree on what constitutes sufficient demonstrable evidence—whether that evidence is radio-carbon testing on the one hand, or prophecy on the other, for example. (see 4 below.)
More broadly, just because a system explains everything doesn’t mean much unless it explains it well. Adopting a “one size fits all” worldview may not be better than selecting from alternative worldviews, each of which explains some things better, even if the result is a patchwork quilt that has some holes in it.
3. Theology and soteriology are concerns that generally originate within such a system—they are imposed, in a sense, by the axiomatic base— so that it’s ability to explain the nature of theos and salvation carry little weight vis-à-vis an alternative system, simply because the alternative does not address those concerns. One may, however, for some other reason, decide that those are concerns, and thus seek out a system that addresses them, and reject out of hand those that do not.
On the other hand, those for whom theology and soteriology are not concerns—or those who cannot accept an axiom of revelational authority—cannot be expected to embrace such a system.
4. Any test for the unreasonableness or veracity/falsity of the system must come from outside the system itself; otherwise internal consistency is all it’s got (yes, that’s necessary, but not sufficient). That is not say that the system may not have any functional value, say in helping you make the daily decisions about how to live your life—but then the nature of those decisions becomes a kind of functional test (e.g., a 12-Step system, with the belief “in a Power greater than ourselves,” sustaining an alcoholic in a life of sobriety).
With those thoughts in mind, and if you’re willing to take your presuppositionalism “straight” (avoiding at least “low-level” circularity), there’s not much more I can say. It’s not my system.
EDIT: I think I should at least get an "extra-credit" point here for my willingness to type out "presuppositional" that many times! 😉
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by vistesdI gave you a rec.....then I re-read it and realized I had read presuppositionalist as presuppositorialist ,,,,then I came to the realizition that the rec was truely well deserved.
Coletti: [b]Because the axiom of the Bible as the true revelation of God to man leads to a worldview that is comprehensive and non-contradictory - explaining all things I observe regarding the nature of man, about knowledge, and my relationship to God - and as far as I can tell, no other worldview can say the same. (I took this quote from the “If Jesus ...[text shortened]... tra-credit" point here for my willingness to type out "presuppositional" that many times! 😉[/b]